A Great NYT Piece on FISA Courts and the NSA

“That whole notion is missing in this process”
US News • Views: 29,237
Cameras via Shutterstock

The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau has a really good, informative piece on recent expansions of the FISA court, a serious look at the legal system originally intended to protect US citizens from terror attacks that now is creating a body of law related to intelligence gathering mostly in secret: In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of NSA.

WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say.

The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Secret courts are very real cause for concern, no matter how well or effectively the system seems to be working at the current moment, and this quote succinctly states the reason:

Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he was troubled by the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial system that is a staple of the American justice system. “That whole notion is missing in this process,” he said.

Jump to bottom

266 comments
1 Randall Gross  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:00:16pm

I agree that they’ve definitely edged over the line too far, and either congress needs to put fresh limits on this court or they need to retire the enabling legislation entirely.

2 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:04:28pm

DERP

3 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:06:36pm

re: #1 Randall Gross

They should be put on a very short leash.

4 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:10:12pm

re: #2 Vicious Babushka

corporations & churches & organizations like American Family Association pay a 10% flat tax with no deductions or tax credits, too, Bryan?
Fair is fair…

5 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:11:48pm

re: #4 Backwoods_Sleuth

corporations & churches & organizations like American Family Foundation pay a flat tax with no deductions or tax credits, too, Bryan?
Fair is fair…

No because that would be like Hitler. // But this aside from the fuck the poor mentality that VB already exposed with this, if we did Fischer’s idiotic tax scheme, we’d be in debt because of all we spend. But there’s a reason why many of our policymakers don’t take policy advice from a guy who thinks being pro LGBT rights means you’re pro Nazi.

6 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:13:16pm

It’s nice by the way to read an article on this subject that doesn’t engage in hysterics and tell you that if you don’t like Ed Snowden you’re jingoistic but then again I read my news for the news not to get drive by insulted by Glenn Greenwald.

7 Kragar  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:14:34pm

re: #2 Vicious Babushka

DERP

[Embedded content]

Bryan Fischer is a terrible, terrible person.

8 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:18:22pm

“The right to petition for the redress of grievances” is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But how can one petition for redress if one is totally unaware how and by whom one is being violated?

9 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:21:39pm

re: #5 HappyWarrior

No because that would be like Hitler. // But this aside from the fuck the poor mentality that VB already exposed with this, if we did Fischer’s idiotic tax scheme, we’d be in debt because of all we spend. But there’s a reason why many of our policymakers don’t take policy advice from a guy who thinks being pro LGBT rights means you’re pro Nazi.

true…I was just being bitchy…

10 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:23:57pm

re: #9 Backwoods_Sleuth

true…I was just being bitchy…

Heh I know. Seriously though. People like Fischer piss me off. They want to have this huge ass defense budget but yet they don’t want to pay for it. Either accept higher taxes or be willing to cut down on defense spending.

11 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:26:46pm

re: #6 HappyWarrior

Agreed - a lot of this isn’t really news, to be fair. The Times is documenting an expansion of something that was already underway, and again there’s no specific wrongdoing alleged or even hinted at. Frankly, I want the government to try to stop nuclear proliferation, and that kind of thing doesn’t upset me at all.

But understanding the issues at stake, secret courts make me uneasy even if they have the best of intentions.

12 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:26:51pm

re: #7 Kragar

Bryan Fischer is a terrible, terrible person.

I think it’s contractually mandated by the AFA.

Also, a logical necessity. Nice people don’t work for The American Society For People That Don’t Read The Bible, But Are Sure As Hell Going To Force You To Live By Their Interpretation Of It.

13 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:28:52pm

OT:

NTSB just finished a briefing at SFO. For the landing runway, the localizer (runway centerline electronics) was on, but the glide slope (vertical angle to the runway) was not. This is no big deal during a visual approach with working VASIs and PAPIs (which are sets of lights at the approach end of the runway that give you visual indications as to where you are and where you should be).

Seven seconds prior to impact with the sea wall, someone in the cockpit called for “Power up, more speed!”

The three most useless things in landing a jet is the runway you haven’t reached, and the airspeed and altitude you used to have.

Oh, and after the initial impact, which ripped the tail off, the plane did a counterclockwise 310 degree flat spin. Amazing that it didn’t disintegrate.

14 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:30:54pm

re: #13 austin_blue

You can actually see the spin happening in this video:

Youtube Video

15 abolitionist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:37:18pm

re: #14 Charles Johnson

You can actually see the spin happening in this video:

[Embedded content]

The spin does not appear to be entirely horizontal.

16 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:39:22pm

re: #14 Charles Johnson

You can actually see the spin happening in this video:

[Embedded content]

Yes. The 777 is built like a tank, which saved a shit pot of lives yesterday. The damage to the tail section of the plane was horrific. People were being slung out of the *bottom* of the aft fuselage. Can anyone even imagine what that was like? This is what caused all the “road rash” injuries that were mentioned earlier today.

There’s going to be a lot of PTSD out of this accident.

17 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:39:44pm

re: #14 Charles Johnson


wow, is that the tail section breaking off during the spin?

18 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:43:04pm

re: #17 Backwoods_Sleuth

wow, is that the tail section breaking off during the spin?

No, I think that’s a wing. The tail section basically disintegrates with the first strike. The guy shooting the video actually notices that the nose is way up right before the crash, probably a last minute panic move by the pilot trying to gain some altitude.

19 engineer cat  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:45:09pm

re: #2 Vicious Babushka

Vicious Babushka @viciousbabushka

.@BryanJFischer F**k the poor, is that what Jesus would say? Shame on u.

bryan wants jesus to stop with the feeding the poor and the commie hippie talk and get back up on the cross and keep his mouth shut

20 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:46:09pm

re: #18 Charles Johnson

No, I think that’s a wing. The tail section basically disintegrates with the first strike. The guy shooting the video actually notices that the nose is way up right before the crash, probably a last minute panic move by the pilot trying to gain some altitude.

But photos of the aftermath shows the cabin burnt out with both wings still more or less attached.

21 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:46:35pm

re: #15 abolitionist

The spin does not appear to be entirely horizontal.

They never are. Once you start moving sideways (in this case to the left) one wing (in this case the right) will produce more lift than the other wing. So you see the right wing sling up. In Souix City, when UA 232 had the same thing happen, one wing spar snapped, rolling the plane and tearing it apart. But that was a DC-10.

The Triple Natural is made of sturdier stuff.

22 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:48:27pm

re: #20 Backwoods_Sleuth

But photos of the aftermath shows the cabin burnt out with both wings still more or less attached.

Yeah - it doesn’t actually come off, the plane is pitching side to side as it spins because the wings are still generating some lift.

Must have been one hell of a ride in there.

23 engineer cat  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:51:47pm

governments have always done many things in secret in the name of diplomacy and national security, and i guess it’s a necessary evil

but it always serves as a very convenient excuse whenever a government doesn’t want to disclose domestic surveillance, or anything else they might not want the public to know about

24 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:53:07pm

re: #22 Charles Johnson

Yeah - it doesn’t actually come off, the plane is pitching side to side as it spins because the wings are still generating some lift.

Must have been one hell of a ride in there.

Something came off at about the :28 second mark. Maybe an engine from that left wing?

25 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:55:56pm

re: #24 Backwoods_Sleuth

Probably an engine. I believe they’re designed to come off like that.

26 sagehen  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:56:13pm

re: #12 The Ghost of a Flea

I think it’s contractually mandated by the AFA.

Also, a logical necessity. Nice people don’t work for The American Society For People That Don’t Read The Bible, But Are Sure As Hell Going To Force You To Live By Their Interpretation Of It.

Reading? Isn’t that some edumacatti-thing?

That’s not what the Bible is for, it’s for thumping people over the head with.

27 CMReaK  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:08:57pm

“Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he was troubled by the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial system that is a staple of the American justice system. “That whole notion is missing in this process,” he said.”

Yes, this is what troubles me too. I was wondering if it might make sense to create an office that represents the people at all FISA hearings. There does need to be a counterweight to the government’s arguments at any hearing. Otherwise it’s akin to a grand jury, and we know how easy it is to get the proverbial ham sandwich indicted. That’s because the other side isn’t allowed to present any arguments contrary to the state’s.

Furthermore, such pressure would force the agencies seeking warrants to really have to make a case for probable cause. It will make them BETTER at what they’re supposed to be doing because they’ll have to face real scrutiny. Balance is a good thing.

28 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:17:39pm

Well.

I finally watched all the rest of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and then I realized there are TWO MOAR MOVIES!

I finally got over the FAKE BEARDS & EARZ and was at the awesome GOBLIN KING CGI scene when Zedushka tromps over.

He totally did not read LOTR at the same time that I did (when we were both teenagers) because he was raised, by his father, on Wagner RDN (Ring Des Nibelungen) and the first couple of pages that he read, of LOTR, he said ECCH! That’s Wagner! even though I LOTRsplained to him “Yes there are both Rings and They’re both Round!” he said RinderScheiße!

29 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:18:29pm

Asiana 214. Target speed was 137 knots. Stick shaker at 4 seconds before impact. Call to go around was made 1.5 seconds prior to impact.

30 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:20:14pm

NTSB also said they were significantly below the 137 target. Unless there was something wrong with the ASI I’m guessing these guys won’t be flying pax again.

31 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:21:06pm

re: #29 Gus

Tower made the call or the pilot?

32 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:21:58pm

re: #31 PhillyPretzel

Tower made the call or the pilot?

Pilot

33 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:22:11pm

re: #29 Gus

Asiana 214. Target speed was 137 knots. Stick shaker at 4 seconds before impact. Call to go around was made 1.5 seconds prior to impact.

Once you get behind the power curve, you are going to land. Those big ass P&Ws need a while to spool up.

34 darthstar  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:23:17pm
35 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:23:20pm

Two pax are paralyzed.

36 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:24:23pm

Then he bothered me for 20 MOAR MINUTES OF TEH MOVIE

Z: “That’s a Nibelung!”

Me: “No, that’s Gollum!”

Z: “That’s not a Golem!” (Referring to clay Golem of 16th century Prague)

Me: “Uh, no.”

Z: “So is that Alberich?”

Me: “That’s Bilbo!”

Z: “What is that Bilbo? Is that another Nibelung?”

Me: “No that’s a Hobbit!”

Z: There’s Alberich, Mime and Hagen, which one is he?

Me: “There’s no similarity!

Z: A Niblet, then!

Me: Shut up!

37 darthstar  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:25:36pm

re: #34 darthstar

And I will say I made a mean tzatziki.

38 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:25:55pm

re: #35 Gus

Two pax are paralyzed.

Both fatalities were found on the runway. They got slung out of the bottom of the plane.

39 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:25:56pm

re: #36 Vicious Babushka

I’m thinking it’s more fun to watch the floor show at the Babushka house than the actual movie…

40 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:29:09pm

re: #38 austin_blue

Both fatalities were found on the runway. They got slung out of the bottom of the plane.

Yeah, it all looked pretty good until I saw that the rear bulkhead was broken and what looked like seats.

41 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:30:24pm

re: #39 Backwoods_Sleuth

I’m thinking it’s more fun to watch the floor show at the Babushka house than the actual movie…

Zedushka so proud of himself he never read any Tolkien books because HE LOVES WAGNER SO MUCH.

OK OK I can dig that, I love Wagner too, and I know that as a Juice UR SUPPOZED 2 H8T WAGNER but Wagner was one of the greatest composers who ever lived!

Howard Shore rocks but he ain’t Wagner.

Zedushka spent the ‘60’s and ‘70’s defending TEH WAGNER from TOLKIEN LOVERS so I can understand where he’s coming from.

42 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:31:28pm

Back on subject - regarding the article from NYT and FISA. With each passing day the press is edging closer and closer to a full-on in your face to President Obama.

I just posted using the same article and used a portion that basically calls out the Obama administration for expanding the definition of the term “national security” so that they could expand the use of domestic spying.

And it is only a matter of time until Maddow, Stewart / Colbert et al glam onto the meme that this a process based on a Neo-Con / National Security State philosophy left over from Bush. Obama’s own natural political allies are pulling thier punches and using ephemisms when describing it but are openly describing all of this as “ineffective”.

43 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:36:21pm
44 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:38:14pm

re: #43 Gus

[Embedded content]

Yup, aft floor collapse. Amazing it stayed together to the degree it did.

45 AntonSirius  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:38:40pm

re: #36 Vicious Babushka

Then he bothered me for 20 MOAR MINUTES OF TEH MOVIE

Z: “That’s a Nibelung!”

Me: “No, that’s Gollum!”

Z: “That’s not a Golem!” (Referring to clay Golem of 16th century Prague)

Me: “Uh, no.”

Z: “So is that Alberich?”

Me: “That’s Bilbo!”

Z: “What is that Bilbo? Is that another Nibelung?”

Me: “No that’s a Hobbit!”

Z: There’s Alberich, Mime and Hagen, which one is he?

Me: “There’s no similarity!

Z: A Niblet, then!

Me: Shut up!

Tell him that Tolkien and Wagner were both stealing from the same sources, not that Tolkien stole from Wagner. That should shut him up.

46 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:38:40pm

re: #43 Gus

Crikey. I bet if you looked closely, you could see wrinkles in the seat cushions.

47 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:40:02pm


At. Idle. During. Approach.

48 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:40:41pm

re: #47 Gus

[Embedded content]


At. Idle. During. Approach.

WTF.

49 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:42:13pm

re: #47 Gus


At. Idle. During. Approach.

I’m having extreme trouble reconciling this with the idea that the operators notified the tower that they were having issues prior to arrival. I may not be a pilot, but even I know that you need some power prior to landing to maintain the descent rate.

50 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:43:36pm

So…
It basically stalled.

51 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:44:26pm
52 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:44:52pm

I do not know much about aircraft but that does not sound very good. As VR stated it stalled.

53 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:45:33pm

re: #50 Varek Raith

So…
It basically stalled.

54 Dr Lizardo  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:46:07pm

re: #50 Varek Raith

So…
It basically stalled.

It explains why witnesses to the crash claim they heard the engines spooling up just before impact - the pilot must’ve realized what was happening and that he wasn’t going to make the runway.

Too little, too late, unfortunately.

55 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:46:11pm

re: #53 Gus

[Embedded content]

Good grief.
Getting harder for this to not be pilot error…

56 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:46:52pm

Get moar @NTSB

57 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:47:18pm

re: #51 Charles Johnson

Going to be a lot of ugly celebration.

58 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:47:33pm

re: #54 Dr Lizardo

It explains why witnesses to the crash claim they heard the engines spooling up just before impact - the pilot must’ve realized what was happening and that he wasn’t going to make the runway.

Too little, too late, unfortunately.

If the witnesses are correct and the engines were spooling up just before impact, it’s practically impossible for this not to be pilot error. A technical glitch would have manifested in the engines not responding.

59 Dr Lizardo  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:49:24pm

re: #58 thedopefishlives

If the witnesses are correct and the engines were spooling up just before impact, it’s practically impossible for this not to be pilot error. A technical glitch would have manifested in the engines not responding.

I’m pretty sure this accident will be chalked up to pilot error. Granted, it’s still early in the NTSB’s investigation, but what’s coming out certainly seems to point in that direction.

60 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:51:43pm

re: #58 thedopefishlives

The @NTSB feed just revealed that the throttles were pushed up “a few seconds prior to impact” and that the engines “appear to respond normally”. It’s looking ugly for my previous unfounded assertion.

61 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:53:57pm

Damn thing almost flipped over.

62 Dr Lizardo  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:54:43pm

re: #60 thedopefishlives

The @NTSB feed just revealed that the throttles were pushed up “a few seconds prior to impact” and that the engines “appear to respond normally”. It’s looking ugly for my previous unfounded assertion.

If the stick shaker started at 4 seconds prior to impact, the pilot may have throttled up, realizing he’d basically stalled short of the runway. But it was simply too late at that point.

63 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:56:00pm

re: #62 Dr Lizardo

If the stick shaker started at 4 seconds prior to impact, the pilot may have throttled up, realizing he’d basically stalled short of the runway. But it was simply too late at that point.

My thoughts exactly.

re: #61 Gus

Damn thing almost flipped over.

Given the previously quoted statement, the pitch angle was probably a little too high (as a belated attempt to correct the descent rate, in conjunction with added throttle) and the plane suffered a catastrophic tailstrike, followed by an uncontrolled landing of the rest of the body as the tail section tore away.

64 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:56:40pm

I know little about all this, but I wonder…

1) Is it possible that the instruments were telling the pilot he was going faster than he in fact was?

2) In view of that video of the plane landing, do we now have to forgive CNN for saying the plane “cartwheeled?” (After all, from some angles it might have looked as if it did.)

65 Eclectic Cyborg  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:56:49pm

Anyone ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton?

Good book about a fictional airplane accident and subsequent investigation. Gets quite technical (as a lot of Crichton material does) but if you are interested in such topics you’ll probably enjoy it.

66 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:57:30pm

re: #60 thedopefishlives

The @NTSB feed just revealed that the throttles were pushed up “a few seconds prior to impact” and that the engines “appear to respond normally”. It’s looking ugly for my previous unfounded assertion.

Wouldn’t be the first time pilots got distracted and flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground:

en.wikipedia.org

67 Eclectic Cyborg  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:58:19pm

Also random thought that’s bothered me for awhile:

Those of us who aren’t on LGF premium probably notice all the “sign the petition” banner ads that show up here.

It’s been well proven web petitions usually have limited if any effect but obviously some group or entity has to be paying for these ads. What exactly is the business model here? How are these people making money to pay for the ads from hosting petitions?

68 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:59:30pm

re: #41 Vicious Babushka

Zedushka so proud of himself he never read any Tolkien books because HE LOVES WAGNER SO MUCH.

OK OK I can dig that, I love Wagner too, and I know that as a Juice UR SUPPOZED 2 H8T WAGNER but Wagner was one of the greatest composers who ever lived!

If Wagner were alive, I’d probably be picketing his performances, but he’s DEAD. And I don’t think his odious politics (it ain’t just antisemitism) carry over into his operas. Except for his cartoonish plotting, but hey, in opera it’s the music that’s deep, not the plots.

69 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 3:59:44pm

re: #67 Eclectic Cyborg

I see them before I sign in. That is one of the reasons why I started the subscription.

70 William Barnett-Lewis  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:00:19pm

re: #65 Eclectic Cyborg

Anyone ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton?

Good book about a fictional airplane accident and subsequent investigation. Gets quite technical (as a lot of Crichton material does) but if you are interested in such topics you’ll probably enjoy it.

Go back a bit further and find a copy of Fate Is The Hunter instead. That author had flow transports for the the military and airlines. Crichton always left me wondering how much was made up out of whole cloth and which ax he was grinding.

71 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:00:47pm

re: #64 Shockingly, Pathetically Low

I know little about all this, but I wonder…

1) Is it possible that the instruments were telling the pilot he was going faster than he in fact was?

2) In view of that video of the plane landing, do we now have to forgive CNN for saying the plane “cartwheeled?” (After all, from some angles it might have looked as if it did.)

1) is quite possible. At this point, it will have to wait for the full results of the NTSB investigation to determine. I’m also unsure as to what the view out of a 777 cockpit is, if the crew could determine separately from instrumentation that they were going to crash.

2) Absolutely not. I prefer to castigate CNN over any and every incorrect statement. Mostly because they deserve it.

72 austin_blue  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:01:14pm

re: #64 Shockingly, Pathetically Low

I know little about all this, but I wonder…

1) Is it possible that the instruments were telling the pilot he was going faster than he in fact was?

*Extremely unlikely in those weather conditions. Other flight aids were available.

2) In view of that video of the plane landing, do we now have to forgive CNN for saying the plane “cartwheeled?” (After all, from some angles it might have looked as if it did.)

*No, it didn’t cartwheel. It basically performed a ground loop/yaw twirlie.

73 Eclectic Cyborg  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:02:14pm

re: #70 William Barnett-Lewis

Go back a bit further and find a copy of Fate Is The Hunter instead. That author had flow transports for the the military and airlines. Crichton always left me wondering how much was made up out of whole cloth and which ax he was grinding.

Yeah, that’s why I wasn’t overly fond of State of Fear.

74 krypto  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:03:57pm

Realistically, the US does need to spy on other countries, including to some extent even friendly nations, the government does need to have secrets, and we can’t have 29 year-old ideologically obsessed know-nothings seeking fame and ego-satisfaction by imposing their individual personal decisions to dismantle the US security system on the rest of us.

Maybe some changes can be made to overcome these latest objections, but from the article it sounds like the FISA courts are providing some considerable protection of civil rights — ordering the destruction of data when data collection goes to far, for instance. I don’t see how anyone can expect that their cases, their decisions, and their reasons for them to be published for public discussion in the NY Times, as ordinary court decisions are, or that the government can be expected to just abandon its methods of tracking down terrorist because there isn’t enough transparency to please all the legal critics and libertarians.

75 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:04:08pm

CNN just ran video of the airliner crash. It did hit hard and almost flip over as it spun. Wow even more amazing there were as few deaths as there were.

76 Dr Lizardo  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:07:07pm

re: #75 Political Atheist

CNN just ran video of the airliner crash. It did hit hard and almost flip over as it spun. Wow even more amazing there were as few deaths as there were.

It is amazing; had the plane flipped over, the death toll would likely have been upwards of 200, not two.

77 FemNaziBitch  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:07:17pm
78 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:08:15pm

re: #77 FemNaziBitch

True. But there are quite a few people who think they are.

79 FemNaziBitch  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:08:34pm

re: #73 Eclectic Cyborg

Yeah, that’s why I wasn’t overly fond of State of Fear.

I know. Some of it was enlightening. Like how much is determined by the first paragraph of research articles—and their abstracts.

Other parts seemed like campy Sci-Fi.

80 abolitionist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:10:56pm

From the linked article,
This concept is rooted partly in the “special needs” provision the court has embraced. “The basic idea is that it’s O.K. to create this huge pond of data,” a third official said, “but you have to establish a reason to stick your pole in the water and start fishing.”

Right there is a monumental mis-representation. Nearly ALL of the “fishing” for significance in the vast stores of public and/or private data is highly automated and is ongoing 24/7, year after year.

The notion that no “search” has actually been done, that no constitutionally-protected information has actually been “collected”, until some duly authorized human operator/agent makes an explicit and specific query, and actually observes the resulting output from that query —that meme is weapons-grade bullshit.

81 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:11:16pm

re: #47 Gus

He was too high and too fast and he massively overcompensated by getting to idle and full flaps. And lost track of altitude and airspeed.

82 FemNaziBitch  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:11:48pm

re: #78 PhillyPretzel

True. But there are quite a few people who think they are.

I surmised this is the political issue of the day.

If one thinks morality is the basis for making law, then one is advocating Theocracy -no?

I’m getting pretty tired of the confusing with Heaven and Earth in politics.

83 AlexRogan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:12:49pm

re: #81 Joanne

He was too high and too fast and he massively overcompensated by getting to idle and full flaps. And lost track of altitude and airspeed.

There’s gonna be a hell of a lawsuit and, if there’s any justice, potential prison time for somebody on the cockpit crew.

84 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:12:55pm

The role of the President in the legislative process is to “propose” and that of the legislature is to “dispose”.

I am sure if a Harvard trained Constitutional Lawyer should the leadership and proposed changing the Patriot Act and the FISA Court laws they would listen - especiall the 23 other Dem Senators that signed the Wyden / Udall letter.

BTW - Wyden supported an amendment in 2010 that made a very modest attempt at more transparency to the process and what came out of President Obama’s White House, “chirp, chirp … chirp” (crikets_.

And then Randall proposes that they ‘moderate’ I think was the term he used. When you use “they” you are actually using a euphemism for PRESIDENT Obama. The President is the Cheif Executive of the US Goverment. He runs the NSA, the legislation doesn’t tell him he has to spy on us it allows him to do so. He could tell Clapper to “moderate” it or even stop it tonight. He could even go so far as issuing an Executive Order to make it illegal until such time as another is issued to make it again leagal.

Of course he won’t - he has signed the law 3 times.

Since he, through his Justice Dept and the NDI, is the only entity allowed to present appeals to the FISA or the FISCR he could do so. Of course, if he had we wouldn’t know about it as both courts and thier findings are secret, due to a law he signed 3 times. But he could tell us, in a nonclassified way, that he tried.

Next the ACLU suit. Remember the DOMA hearing at SCOTUS where he was so against the law that he failed to act as the Executive in Chief and as tradition requires, defend a law of the US Govt. He didn’t send the Solicitor General nor even a brief. Do you think that he will do this when the ACLU case comes up? He could not send a Fed District Attorney General to any hearings and then do the same if it came to SCOTUS. He won’t. Because he has signed the law 3 times, already defended it multiple times in Court and even using the “Kings Cross” defense of “National Secrect” in order to derail one case.

So you can, without any consideration for your self respect, act just like the term Glenn Greenwald coined an, “Obama Worshipper” and look the other way, down play it by making the excuse “everyone does it” or “its really the Congress’ job” or using euphemisms like “they” or “misstatements” but in the end, the facts are, President Obama not only owns this as much as anyone else, he is facilitated in his use of it by right-wing influenced processes and supporters and the stick of it is going to far outlast his presidency.

85 sagehen  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:13:30pm

re: #67 Eclectic Cyborg

Also random thought that’s bothered me for awhile:

Those of us who aren’t on LGF premium probably notice all the “sign the petition” banner ads that show up here.

It’s been well proven web petitions usually have limited if any effect but obviously some group or entity has to be paying for these ads. What exactly is the business model here? How are these people making money to pay for the ads from hosting petitions?

They’re compiling mailing lists that they’ll later rent/sell to campaigns.

86 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:13:54pm

O_o

87 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:14:22pm

re: #81 Joanne

He was too high and too fast and he massively overcompensated by getting to idle and full flaps. And lost track of altitude and airspeed.

Thing is, there wasn’t any discussion in the cockpit during the approach. If he was overcompensating, you’d think someone would’ve said something like, “Speed’s a little high, drop her down.” At this point, my brain is putting even odds on an instrumentation failure and a critical brain failure.

88 bratwurst  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:16:12pm

re: #84 Heywood Jabloeme

The role of the President in the legislative process is to “propose” and that of the legislature is to “dispose”.

I am sure if a Harvard trained Constitutional Lawyer should the leadership and proposed changing the Patriot Act and the FISA Court laws they would listen - especiall the 23 other Dem Senators that signed the Wyden / Udall letter.

BTW - Wyden supported an amendment in 2010 that made a very modest attempt at more transparency to the process and what came out of President Obama’s White House, “chirp, chirp … chirp” (crikets_.

And then Randall proposes that they ‘moderate’ I think was the term he used. When you use “they” you are actually using a euphemism for PRESIDENT Obama. The President is the Cheif Executive of the US Goverment. He runs the NSA, the legislation doesn’t tell him he has to spy on us it allows him to do so. He could tell Clapper to “moderate” it or even stop it tonight. He could even go so far as issuing an Executive Order to make it illegal until such time as another is issued to make it again leagal.

Of course he won’t - he has signed the law 3 times.

Since he, through his Justice Dept and the NDI, is the only entity allowed to present appeals to the FISA or the FISCR he could do so. Of course, if he had we wouldn’t know about it as both courts and thier findings are secret, due to a law he signed 3 times. But he could tell us, in a nonclassified way, that he tried.

Next the ACLU suit. Remember the DOMA hearing at SCOTUS where he was so against the law that he failed to act as the Executive in Chief and as tradition requires, defend a law of the US Govt. He didn’t send the Solicitor General nor even a brief. Do you think that he will do this when the ACLU case comes up? He could not send a Fed District Attorney General to any hearings and then do the same if it came to SCOTUS. He won’t. Because he has signed the law 3 times, already defended it multiple times in Court and even using the “Kings Cross” defense of “National Secrect” in order to derail one case.

So you can, without any consideration for your self respect, act just like the term Glenn Greenwald coined an, “Obama Worshipper” and look the other way, down play it by making the excuse “everyone does it” or “its really the Congress’ job” or using euphemisms like “they” or “misstatements” but in the end, the facts are, President Obama not only owns this as much as anyone else, he is facilitated in his use of it by right-wing influenced processes and supporters and the stick of it is going to far outlast his presidency.

Image: didntreadlol.gif

89 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:16:37pm

re: #65 Eclectic Cyborg

Anyone ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton?

Good book about a fictional airplane accident and subsequent investigation. Gets quite technical (as a lot of Crichton material does) but if you are interested in such topics you’ll probably enjoy it.

That was my first introduction to Pitch and Yaw. Never heard of either before that.

John Nance writes superb airplane disasterish novels. He’s ABC’s aero expert.

90 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:23:13pm

re: #83 AlexRogan

There’s gonna be a hell of a lawsuit and, if there’s any justice, potential prison time for somebody on the cockpit crew.

I agree with the lawsuits. Prison time I’d struggle with unless its shown it was intentional. It was horrific to be sure. And negligent…but, why? Lack of training, etc? Unless it was intentional, I disagree.

And I’m a frequent flier (500k miles to date) and petrified almost every time I board a plane.

91 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:25:13pm

re: #87 thedopefishlives

Where did you hear the voice recording? Do you have a link?

92 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:25:26pm

totally O/T but good grief..

93 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:25:34pm

re: #91 Joanne

Where did you hear the voice recording? Do you have a link?

I did not, unfortunately. I’m just summarizing what I’ve read on CNN and on the NTSB twitter feed.

94 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:26:41pm

re: #93 thedopefishlives

I did not, unfortunately. I’m just summarizing what I’ve read on CNN and on the NTSB twitter feed.

I didn’t get that at all from what I’ve heard.

95 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:26:56pm

re: #8 Sol Berdinowitz

“The right to petition for the redress of grievances” is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But how can one petition for redress if one is totally unaware how and by whom one is being violated?

You’re misunderstanding the concept of petition for the redress of grievances. It means you have a problem and you have the right to have that adjudicated — in a federal district court.

The FISA court is not court where one initiates litigation. It’s more like a magistrate. If you have a problem with the NSA, you would go to a federal district court.

96 FemNaziBitch  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:27:03pm

re: #92 Backwoods_Sleuth

totally O/T but good grief..

[Embedded content]

grrrrr

97 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:27:23pm

re: #45 AntonSirius

Tell him that Tolkien and Wagner were both stealing from the same sources, not that Tolkien stole from Wagner. That should shut him up.

Both epics contain elements from

98 thedopefishlives  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:28:54pm

re: #94 Joanne

I didn’t get that at all from what I’ve heard.

From CNN:

According to the recorders, the flight approach appeared normal as the 777 descended, and “there is no discussion of aircraft approach” among the crew.
The target speed for the approach of Asiana Flight 214 was 137 knots, and the crew can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder acknowledging the speed, Hersman said

99 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:29:20pm

re: #84 Heywood Jabloeme

So FISA and the Patriot act is about rampant anti-American jingoism joining up forces with Chavistas, Bolivarians, China, general routine spying, NATO, Germany, Stuxnet and Israel? … as the Snowden, Greenwald, clown show has become.

100 jaunte  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:31:09pm

“…If the bill passes, only five Texas abortion clinics would remain open — those that are already equipped as ambulatory surgical centers, advocates say. But a question remains: would the 420 other ambulatory surgical centers that exist in Texas begin performing the operation? Abortion rights advocates predict that the demand for the procedure won’t disappear with passage of the law.

One company that will be faced with that decision is United Surgical Partners International, based in Addison, TX. Their vice-president of government affairs is Milla Perry Jones, Gov. Rick Perry’s sister.”

101 Interesting Times  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:32:27pm

re: #92 Backwoods_Sleuth

totally O/T but good grief..

[Embedded content]

“Great points, wrong book.”

/Muslim Brotherhood

102 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:32:30pm

re: #27 CMReaK

I was wondering if it might make sense to create an office that represents the people at all FISA hearings. There does need to be a counterweight to the government’s arguments at any hearing.

You already have that — that’s what the judge does.

The FISA court is acting like a magistrate, where only one party appears. It’s always in camera.

Unless you’re a terrorist or associate with terrorists, you’re not affected by what the FISA court does. You’re not a party to the proceedings. That’s the judge’s function — he/she’s representative of the people. He/she is the one who is the check against the prosecution if the latter’s argument is insufficient.

This is no different than a magistrate court. I think a lot of people are over-reacting without understanding what this court does — it’s not holding trials.

103 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:32:52pm

Damn, did Peter Jackson buy Google?

Volsungasaga.

104 engineer cat  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:34:33pm

re: #92 Backwoods_Sleuth

Women Should Be

this moron should lose 200 pounds for the sake of his health, learn to dress with a little dignity, and start work on getting an education

105 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:35:00pm

re: #98 thedopefishlives

From CNN:

137 was acceptable (145 ideal from what I read). They’re talking about the plane traveling at about 109 or so when the shaker supposedly kicks in. I thought they spoke of a Go Around/increase speed at just 7 seconds out. I think we need to hear the last 5 minutes in full.

106 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:35:04pm

re: #42 Heywood Jabloeme

calls out the Obama administration for expanding the definition of the term “national security” so that they could expand the use of domestic spying.

This court and procedure were in place before Obama became President. The court was established by Congress.

If you want to cast blame, cast it on the correct responsible party.

107 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:35:40pm

re: #99 Gus

So FISA and the Patriot act is about rampant anti-American jingoism joining up forces with Chavistas, Bolivarians, China, general routine spying, NATO, Germany, Stuxnet and Israel? … as the Snowden, Greenwald, clown show has become.

Do you think jingoism should drive and shape all human choices? Think carefully before you answer.

108 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:37:34pm

re: #11 Charles Johnson

Agreed - a lot of this isn’t really news, to be fair. The Times is documenting an expansion of something that was already underway, and again there’s no specific wrongdoing alleged or even hinted at. Frankly, I want the government to try to stop nuclear proliferation, and that kind of thing doesn’t upset me at all.

But understanding the issues at stake, secret courts make me uneasy even if they have the best of intentions.

Let me avoid the cliche. So-Good intentions always fail. They are inadequate to the daily pressures to perform. To “get the job done”. Our society has learned this lesson from ordinary police and the FBI.

What works is respecting the limits we have previously had, and fighting terrorism within those limits. Get a warrant. Depend on probable cause. Keep the light on the activity, the potential political abuse here is as large as any we might ordinarily contemplate.

109 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:40:20pm

re: #106 HSG

How many years does a President hold the office before he is responsible for continuing bad policy from a past President? Ever?

110 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:45:54pm

Read the article - he isn’t just “continuing” he has expanded it.

111 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:46:14pm

re: #109 Political Atheist

How many years does a President hold the office before he is responsible for continuing bad policy from a Past President? Ever?

My Rep. Degette who is very liberal voted for the Patriot Act. Not sure about the FISA amendments. I’ll repeat myself here. The Libertarian and the Green Party opponents were dead set against both. They’re also a couple of lunatics. I’m not going to change my vote for my Rep because of this issue.

112 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:48:27pm

re: #109 Political Atheist

Thing is, Obama can’t just declare FISA null and void all by himself. And the fact is that Congress keeps reauthorizing and amending the law - this has been a popular law in Congress. If big changes are needed it has to start there.

This idea that Obama can just say the Green Lantern oath and make FISA vanish isn’t realistic.

113 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:48:51pm

re: #110 Heywood Jabloeme

Read the article - he isn’t just “continuing” he has expanded it.

No, Congress has expanded it.

114 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:53:31pm

e: #42 Heywood Jabloeme

calls out the Obama administration for expanding the definition of the term “national security” so that they could expand the use of domestic spying.

This court and procedure were in place before Obama became President. The court was established by Congress.

If you want to cast blame, cast it on the correct responsible party.

HSG - Not true. There have been 2 MAJOR revisions since he has been POTUS and they both effected the FISA and the FISCR proceedures and Obama signed them both. And he voted for the laws bofore that as Senator and 1 extension as President and ignored an Amendment by Wyden to make it all more transparent.

He owns the current process.

115 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:53:41pm

If you’re talking about the expansion of the “special needs” doctrine, that was done by the FISA court, which is part of the judiciary branch and does not take orders from the President.

116 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:57:46pm

The one person who apparently does have significant oversight on the FISA court is Chief Justice John Roberts.

117 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:57:48pm

re: #115 Charles Johnson

If you’re talking about the expansion of the “special needs” doctrine, that was done by the FISA court, which is part of the judiciary branch and does not take orders from the President.

SCOTUS

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association

118 Skip Intro  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:59:46pm

re: #28 Vicious Babushka

Well.

I finally watched all the rest of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and then I realized there are TWO MOAR MOVIES!

Three more, I believe.

119 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:00:13pm

re: #112 Charles Johnson

Thing is, Obama can’t just declare FISA null and void all by himself. And the fact is that Congress keeps reauthorizing and amending the law - this has been a popular law in Congress. If big changes are needed it has to start there.

This idea that Obama can just say the Green Lantern oath and make FISA vanish isn’t realistic.

I don’t hold that illusion. What he has done is increased the oversight. Well that’s actually a wonderful thing in itself.

But it’s inadequate IMO. The proper course of action for him, or the next is to advocate for the sunsetting of the Patriot act and bringing the rest (FISA/NSA domestic) much closer to within the limits we already know work reasonably well. Congress need not be the first advocate for the sunset. They need to vote it and pressure from the white house would be a good thing. we don’t have that now at all.

120 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:00:21pm

re: #11 Charles Johnson

Agreed - a lot of this isn’t really news, to be fair. The Times is documenting an expansion of something that was already underway, and again there’s no specific wrongdoing alleged or even hinted at. Frankly, I want the government to try to stop nuclear proliferation, and that kind of thing doesn’t upset me at all.

But understanding the issues at stake, secret courts make me uneasy even if they have the best of intentions.

There is no “wrong doing here” because we are not allowed to know what is going on. The wholesale (millions upon millions of times) breaking of 4th Amendment Rights of US Citizens and it has never been allowed to be reviewed by a single Court EXCPET the FISA Court which might as well manned only by Rogers.

Granted, given the make-up of the present SCOTUS it is very likely that a review would be 5-4 but at least we would know that all our 4th Amendment rights were (not) protected by the same 5 SCOTUS judges that didn’t protect the Voting Rights of minorities.

This was the entire point of the article.

121 CMReaK  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:00:38pm

re: #102 HSG

That’s not really the role of a judge as I understand it. The adversarial system that the columnist was referring to requires that all parties’ interests be represented. The judge weighs the arguments of the various parties and makes a ruling. If the only party that gets to make an argument is the Justice dept, the NSA or some other interested government agency then you have an imbalance. No one is pushing the government to make a solid case and no one is representing the broader interests of the public.

122 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:01:15pm

By the way, I know it’s fashionable to just laugh off any suggestion that these NSA programs have actually thwarted terrorist plots, but I actually believe the head of the NSA and Obama when they say it has. I’m weird that way, I guess.

123 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:03:10pm

re: #114 Heywood Jabloeme

There have been 2 MAJOR revisions since he has been POTUS and they both effected the FISA and the FISCR proceedures and Obama signed them both. And he voted for the laws bofore that as Senator

Those revisions vastly increased the accountability of the process.

That aside, had Obama not signed the law, Congress could override his veto.

You seem to want to insist Obama has masterminded this entire process. He has nothing to do with the FISA court. It’s part of the judiciary.

And, again, you’re freaking out about something without even understanding how it works.

We’re having a thunderstorm here right now. I suppose that’s Obama’s fault, too.

124 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:06:07pm

re: #122 Charles Johnson

By the way, I know it’s fashionable to just laugh off any suggestion that these NSA programs have actually thwarted terrorist plots, but I actually believe the head of the NSA and Obama when they say it has. I’m weird that way, I guess.

Yeah. I both believe they’ve probably been really useful and that we should modify the system, make it more transparent, etc.

125 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:06:14pm

re: #121 CMReaK

adversarial system that the columnist was referring to requires that all parties’ interests be represented.

It’s acting like a magistrate. When your local prosecutor or law enforcement officer goes before a magistrate to obtain a warrant, there is no adversarial system. The target never knows about a warrant or court order until it’s served and/or when he/she is arrested or indicted.

Your local prosecutor or law enforcement officer does not notify you you’re going to be subject to a wiretap. Your attorney cannot represent you in the warrant proceedings. It’s secret. There’s no record. It’s not adversarial. You have no idea it’s going on.

The FISA court is operating just like your local magistrate.

126 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:07:00pm

re: #125 HSG

Except that the bar for warrants on the FISA court is lower. And if the circumstances of the warrant are challenged later, the defense attorney does not get to examine those circumstances.

127 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:08:25pm

re: #124 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

make it more transparent, etc.

How can you make it more transparent when an investigation is underway of a terrorist cell?

128 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:08:28pm

And if elected! I promise to repeal the Patriot Act and FISA…

…and stop funding Teh Juice and investigate 9/11!!11ty

*Typical Greenies and Libertarian candidate.

129 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:09:48pm

re: #127 HSG

How can you make it more transparent when an investigation is underway of a terrorist cell?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. I don’t want it to be more transparent at that point. If you’re asking if I want memos sent out, I don’t.

130 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:09:54pm

re: #126 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Except that the bar for warrants on the FISA court is lower.

Guess again. What’s the success/fail ratio with your local magistrate?

You’d be surprised. The success/fail ratio is very high.

131 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:10:30pm

re: #129 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I’m not sure what you’re asking. I don’t want it to be more transparent at that point. If you’re asking if I want memos sent out, I don’t.

So, after the fact? But how long after? Some of these investigations are ongoing for years.

132 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:10:39pm

re: #123 HSG

Those revisions vastly increased the accountability of the process.

That aside, had Obama not signed the law, Congress could override his veto.

You seem to want to insist Obama has masterminded this entire process. He has nothing to do with the FISA court. It’s part of the judiciary.

And, again, you’re freaking out about something without even understanding how it works.

We’re having a thunderstorm here right now. I suppose that’s Obama’s fault, too.

Ok, so you were wrong, he did 2 changes to the law the law that effected the FISA and FISCR courts. And I think that it is funny that someone who doesn’t even know the basic facts in this case, could make such a statement.

Could you also be wrong about it increasing “accoutability” as well?

It is “accoutable” to FISA and FISCR Courts who are, in effect, run by Rogers, and can’t practically be held accoutable to SOCTUS because of the way that the law is written.

You are obviously a very smart guy but I would suggest that you spend more time either learning about the facts here or watching that Thunderstorm instead of ill informed comments.

133 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:11:17pm

re: #124 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

What is the lesson from history time and again? Sooner or later the existing system gets abused. Turns political, goes too far etc etc. The wrong people get in. Something goes awry. We can accept that incident within certain limits (like warrants, PC etc.) or we can let those limits fail to stop something worse. Throw in private contractors on a lot of this super high technology and system infrastructure and the potential gets pretty hairy.

134 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:11:24pm

re: #130 HSG

Guess again. What’s the success/fail ratio with your local magistrate?

You’d be surprised. The success/fail ratio is very high.

No, I mean the actual bar is lower. I’m not guessing, it’s actually written into the FISA law. I know that the success rate for ordinary warrants is very high, too.

135 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:11:27pm

Roberts

136 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:12:36pm

re: #131 HSG

So, after the fact? But how long after? Some of these investigations are ongoing for years.

Yeah, and that’s where I think oversight is more important than utility. If you’re going to use evidence from a wiretap, then you’ve got to give the defense attorney the chance to aggressively go after the circumstances of that wiretap rather than just taking the judges’ word on it. This will involve burning some wiretaps, I completely understand that.

137 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:12:46pm

Oh cool. Another insult.

138 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:14:03pm

re: #122 Charles Johnson

By the way, I know it’s fashionable to just laugh off any suggestion that these NSA programs have actually thwarted terrorist plots, but I actually believe the head of the NSA and Obama when they say it has. I’m weird that way, I guess.

When you hear me laughing, it’s that someone would think I’d believe the sources (politicians and interested parties) without corroboration. I’m sure NSA intelligence plays a role in counter-terrorism, I’m equally sure that I don’t believe the word of what they or their spokesman say they do and how large a role it is.

139 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:14:14pm

re: #132 Heywood Jabloeme

Ok, so you were wrong, he did 2 changes to the law the law that effected the FISA and FISCR courts. And I think that it is funny that someone who doesn’t even know the basic facts in this case, could make such a statement.

Who made 2 changes to the law? You do realize the President can’t just unilaterally change laws, right?

140 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:15:25pm

re: #116 Charles Johnson

The one person who apparently does have significant oversight on the FISA court is Chief Justice John Roberts.

Gotta admit, this is where I am at my most conservative in a literal way. I expect law enforcement at every level to hew closely to the law or else. The more powerful, the more strictly. I never liked warrantless anything. Edit- It lacks that positive check and balance at least long term.Probable cause rules.

141 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:15:27pm

re: #133 Political Atheist

What is the lesson from history time and again? Sooner or later the existing system gets abused. Turns political, goes too far etc etc. The wrong people get in. Something goes awry. We can accept that incident within certain limits (like warrants, PC etc.) or we can let those limits fail to stop something worse. Throw in private contractors on a lot of this super high technology and system infrastructure and the potential gets pretty hairy.

The thing is, none of this is very significant, to me. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 4th amendment violation that is the stop-and-frisk law in NYC, for example, that affects 500,000 actual people every year, the vast majority of them black and Hispanic. The FISA court thing isn’t happening in a vacuum, it’s because of a lot of case law that’s weakened the 4th.

There are more serious and persistent violations of civil rights going on all over the place; this program is a potential problem, and it’s a natural outgrowth of our general 4th amendment stupidity. It’s not going to go away if we just pass better law on it, we need more Sotomayors on the SC.

142 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:15:44pm

re: #132 Heywood Jabloeme

It is “accoutable” to FISA and FISCR Courts who are, in effect, run by Rogers, and can’t practically be held accoutable to SOCTUS because of the way that the law is written.

Someone who calls another to task for writing “accoutablilty” should be careful when he tries to write “SCOTUS.”

143 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:16:38pm

re: #102 HSG

You already have that — that’s what the judge does.

The FISA court is acting like a magistrate, where only one party appears. It’s always in camera.

Unless you’re a terrorist or associate with terrorists, you’re not affected by what the FISA court does. You’re not a party to the proceedings. That’s the judge’s function — he/she’s representative of the people. He/she is the one who is the check against the prosecution if the latter’s argument is insufficient.

This is no different than a magistrate court. I think a lot of people are over-reacting without understanding what this court does — it’s not holding trials.

HSG - read the article. Everyone that makes a phone call in the US is effected by what the “FISA court does”. The artcle says that the NSA relies on a FISA ruling to allow it to collect Metadata. I know that you denied the fact that this gives the ACLU standing to sue but MOST experts disagree.

144 Joanne  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:18:12pm

Fuck.

145 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:19:20pm

re: #139 Charles Johnson

Who made 2 changes to the law? You do realize the President can’t just unilaterally change laws, right?

He not only signed them he does so after failing to suppport an amendment by Wyden to make this all mroe transparent.

So, if you point is that he owns at least helf this mess, sure I agree. That is the point of all my posts here.

146 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:19:46pm

re: #144 Joanne

Fuck.

[Embedded content]

Ugh.

147 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:20:29pm

re: #103 Vicious Babushka

Damn, did Peter Jackson buy Google?

Volsungasaga.

Eh? Tolkien, a notable scholar of early Germanic languages, did a version of the Saga of the Volsungs that is easily available and by all accounts (I have it in my bottomless stack-a-books, haven’t had time to do more than look through it) a good rendering — that’s why the wikipedia entry mentions it. Nothing to do with Hobbits.

148 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:20:30pm

Then look at DOMA. He didn’t support that duelly voted for and signed US law. Why? It was wrong!

149 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:20:58pm

re: #143 Heywood Jabloeme

HSG - read the article. Everyone that makes a phone call in the US is effected by what the “FISA court does”. The artcle says that the NSA relies on a FISA ruling to allow it to collect Metadata. I know that you denied the fact that this gives the ACLU standing to sue but MOST experts disagree.

That’s not what the article says at all. Quote:

In the past, that probably would have required a court warrant because the suspicious e-mail involved American communications. In this case, however, a little-noticed provision in a 2008 law, expanding the definition of “foreign intelligence” to include “weapons of mass destruction,” was used to justify access to the message.

The court’s use of that language has allowed intelligence officials to get wider access to data and communications that they believe may be linked to nuclear proliferation, the officials said. They added that other secret findings had eased access to data on espionage, cyberattacks and other possible threats connected to foreign intelligence.

“The definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ is very broad,” another former intelligence official said in an interview. “An espionage target, a nuclear proliferation target, that all falls within FISA, and the court has signed off on that.”

The FISA court has broadened the definition of foreign intelligence. They have NOT broadened it to include “everyone that makes a phone call in the US.”

150 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:23:10pm

re: #142 Shockingly, Pathetically Low

Someone who calls another to task for writing “accoutablilty” should be careful when he tries to write “SCOTUS.”

If I was calling him to task for spelling and not for what it meant then you would have a point. Why not try adding value to the discussions rather than wasting space?

I wasn’t, he did, and you don’t.

151 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:25:28pm

re: #141 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

The thing is, none of this is very significant, to me. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 4th amendment violation that is the stop-and-frisk law in NYC, for example, that affects 500,000 actual people every year, the vast majority of them black and Hispanic. The FISA court thing isn’t happening in a vacuum, it’s because of a lot of case law that’s weakened the 4th.

There are more serious and persistent violations of civil rights going on all over the place; this program is a potential problem, and it’s a natural outgrowth of our general 4th amendment stupidity. It’s not going to go away if we just pass better law on it, we need more Sotomayors on the SC.

Across that whole spectrum, your concerns and mine is this. What protects us best is adhering to our traditional protections. Strictly. If that is the Supreme Court to make that happen so be it. The argument that they have stopped attacks with this carries an unfortunate and perhaps unfair echo. We have been told the same of acts far worse like water boarding. It’s all so murky with a whole system at work. Which piece really prevailed? Whatever they tell us? /

So I accept that as consequence of adhering closely to those past civil protections makes things easier for our enemies. Long term we are far better off.

152 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:27:17pm

re: #149 Charles Johnson

That’s not what the article says at all. Quote:

The FISA court has broadened the definition of foreign intelligence. They have NOT broadened it to include “everyone that makes a phone call in the US.”

“Last month, a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, leaked a classified order from the FISA court, which authorized the collection of all phone-tracing data from Verizon business customers. But the court’s still-secret decisions go far beyond any single surveillance order, the officials said.”

Everyone that actually reads the Warrant and makes a fair judgement says that it is one in but a series of warants that has allowed the NSA to gather Metadata for all US calls.

This is not even denied by Govt Officials anymore.

153 Shockingly, Pathetically Low  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:32:15pm

re: #150 Heywood Jabloeme

If I was calling him to task for spelling and not for what it meant then you would have a point. Why not try adding value to the discussions rather than wasting space?

I wasn’t, he did, and you don’t.

If you’re calling him to task for his content, then why draw attention to his spelling? Speaking of wasting space.

154 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:32:18pm

Intelligence court rules wiretapping program legal
By Eric Lichtblau
Published: Monday, January 5, 2009

155 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:32:38pm

Same author.

156 Kragar  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:33:28pm

Tucker Carlson: ‘Cheap student loans keep people out of the labor market’

In an interview on Sunday, conservative economics professor Peter Morici explained that President Barack Obama’s health care reform law had caused a “disaster” because only 47 percent of the population was employed.

“So here’s the part I can’t get past, 47 percent of the population works full time,” Carlson said. “That means the other 53 percent is being supported by that 47 percent. That’s not a good ratio.”

“Absolutely not,” Morici replied. “Look what’s happening with young people, my students, many of them are getting into these part-time jobs, some of them not very meaningful. You know, you got a guy with a masters degree working at Starbucks so he lives with his parents.”

“What’s going to happen to these young people and all their big student loans? The answer is very bad things,” he added. “The president has been buying lower unemployment rates by essentially providing very cheap student loans and keeping people out of the labor market.”

“Exactly,” Carlson agreed. “So, cheap student loans keep people out of the labor market. This is a dangerous spiral.”

Yeah, all these slackers trying to get an education rather than working are dragging us all down.
/

WTF is wrong with these people?

157 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:33:40pm

re: #122 Charles Johnson

By the way, I know it’s fashionable to just laugh off any suggestion that these NSA programs have actually thwarted terrorist plots, but I actually believe the head of the NSA and Obama when they say it has. I’m weird that way, I guess.

Dems Senators Wyden and Udall, both members of the Senate Intell committee do not agree with the NSA or Obama.

Don’t Believe Intelligence Officials

“Senators question the effectiveness of the NSA . . claims made by officials ‘should not simply be accepted at face value.’”

Link

158 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:33:42pm

re: #152 Heywood Jabloeme

“Last month, a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, leaked a classified order from the FISA court, which authorized the collection of all phone-tracing data from Verizon business customers. But the court’s still-secret decisions go far beyond any single surveillance order, the officials said.”

Correction: it’s Verizon Business, not Verizon Wireless.

And that’s not even close to “everyone that makes a phone call in the US.”

159 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:36:00pm

re: #158 Charles Johnson

Correction: it’s Verizon Business, not Verizon Wireless.

And that’s not even close to “everyone that makes a phone call in the US.”

Read the Warrant and the reporting. No one is arguing that the NSA isn’t using these Warrants to build a Metadata base of all US calls. The US Govt doesn’t even deny it anymore.

160 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:39:59pm
161 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:43:38pm

re: #153 Shockingly, Pathetically Low

If you’re calling him to task for his content, then why draw attention to his spelling? Speaking of wasting space.

I didn’t I thought that you were accusing me of doing that. If you weren’t then I profussly appologize and admit that I do not know what you were bringing up.

The website spell check on my Chrome browser is on the fritz and I have tried and tried to fix it. The mispelled words aren’t underlined yet if I think that they are mispelled I can right click on them and get a suggestion but that sort of defeats the purpose.

I have googled the issue and tried those fixs but to know avail.

Any suggestions as to a fix would be greatly appreciated.

162 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:43:42pm

re: #21 austin_blue

They never are. Once you start moving sideways (in this case to the left) one wing (in this case the right) will produce more lift than the other wing. So you see the right wing sling up. In Sioux City, when UA 232 had the same thing happen, one wing spar snapped, rolling the plane and tearing it apart. But that was a DC-10.

The Triple Natural is made of sturdier stuff.

Boeing was able to use the lessons from previous airliner crashes to make the 777 more survivable, in similar fashion to the improvements seen in types of military vehicles after they are damaged or destroyed in combat.

163 compound_Idaho  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:43:44pm

re: #112 Charles Johnson

Thing is, Obama can’t just declare FISA null and void all by himself. And the fact is that Congress keeps reauthorizing and amending the law - this has been a popular law in Congress. If big changes are needed it has to start there.

This idea that Obama can just say the Green Lantern oath and make FISA vanish isn’t realistic.

He can instruct the justice department to stop taking cases to FISA just like he “delayed” the ACA employer mandate and immigration issues.

164 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:44:11pm

What can I say. America needs prison reform, sentencing reform, a repeal of major portions of the Substance Control Act of 1970. All of which has done more to harm American’s civil liberties since the late 60s and incarcerating millions for bullshit laws. FISA and the Patriot Act make my yawn when I think of this.

165 ProTARDISLiberal  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:44:50pm

re: #164 Gus

Thank you for summarizing my thoughts on this!

166 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:44:51pm

Controlled Substances Act

167 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:45:53pm

re: #159 Heywood Jabloeme

Read the Warrant and the reporting. No one is arguing that the NSA isn’t using these Warrants to build a Metadata base of all US calls. The US Govt doesn’t even deny it anymore.

This is now one of the bases of the filing by the ACLU and why most experts think that now, they will pass the Standing argument.

Even though, there isn’t much hope of thier winning anything on the merits.

168 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:48:05pm

re: #163 compound_Idaho

He can instruct the justice department to stop taking cases to FISA just like he “delayed” the ACA employer mandate and immigration issues.

Which would amount to fucking up intelligence gathering, for which the president, not Congress, would be blamed.

169 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:50:50pm

Ten minutes until the first episode of “Endeavour” (Morse) on our PBS. Be back after wading the blood-soaked streets of Oxford.

170 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:51:06pm

There’s also a federal death penalty law for certain drug distribution crimes. Also, these same drug laws is what’s part of the school to prison pipeline for black youths. Millions in jail over the years. Many serving life sentences for marijuana distribution. But. Metadata. We must fix that at once!

171 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:52:48pm

re: #164 Gus

What can I say. America needs prison reform, sentencing reform, a repeal of major portions of the Substance Control Act of 1970. All of which has done more to harm American’s civil liberties since the late 60s and incarcerating millions for bullshit laws. FISA and the Patriot Act make my yawn when I think of this.

That is the the opposite of the argument “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” and really shows the heart of this entire argument.

This crowd is obviously very receptive to addressing issues like the War on Drugs and the high rate of incarceration but because it is Obama as President you don’t seem to be upset about NSA spying. Other liberals are, like the 24 Dem Senators to led by Wyden and Udall and includes Warren etc.

They must be concerned as mush by these issues as by the ones you mentioned yet spend thier time opposing Obama on this one and are not distracted by other important issues.

172 abolitionist  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:54:24pm

re: #161 Heywood Jabloeme

I didn’t I thought that you were accusing me of doing that. If you weren’t then I profussly appologize and admit that I do not know what you were bringing up.

The website spell check on my Chrome browser is on the fritz and I have tried and tried to fix it. The mispelled words aren’t underlined yet if I think that they are mispelled I can right click on them and get a suggestion but that sort of defeats the purpose.

I have googled the issue and tried those fixs but to know avail.

Any suggestions as to a fix would be greatly appreciated.

Not a fix, but a possible workaround, assuming the spellcheck fn in your browser can be disabled/ignored.
tinyspell.numerit.com
This free utility provides a general spell-check fn, with some customization as to which programs (if any) its functionality should be enabled/disabled for. There are non-free versions, too.

173 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:56:17pm

re: #171 Heywood Jabloeme

That is the the opposite of the argument “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” and really shows the heart of this entire argument.

This crowd is obviously very receptive to addressing issues like the War on Drugs and the high rate of incarceration but because it is Obama as President you don’t seem to be upset about NSA spying. Other liberals are, like the 24 Dem Senators to led by Wyden and Udall and includes Warren etc.

They must be concerned as mush by these issues as by the ones you mentioned yet spend thier time opposing Obama on this one and are not distracted by other important issues.

Whatever.

174 CuriousLurker  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:59:09pm

This just blows my mind, and not in a good way: Female Inmates Sterilized in California Prisons Without Approval

175 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:02:45pm

re: #65 Eclectic Cyborg

Anyone ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton?

Good book about a fictional airplane accident and subsequent investigation. Gets quite technical (as a lot of Crichton material does) but if you are interested in such topics you’ll probably enjoy it.

Anyone ever read Crashers by Dana Haynes?

DO NOT READ on an airplane. JUST DO NOT.

176 AlexRogan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:04:37pm

re: #171 Heywood Jabloeme

That is the the opposite of the argument “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” and really shows the heart of this entire argument.

This crowd is obviously very receptive to addressing issues like the War on Drugs and the high rate of incarceration but because it is Obama as President you don’t seem to be upset about NSA spying. Other liberals are, like the 24 Dem Senators to led by Wyden and Udall and includes Warren etc.

They must be concerned as mush by these issues as by the ones you mentioned yet spend thier time opposing Obama on this one and are not distracted by other important issues.

And you, Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange have all purport to know all of the answers and to have the proper course of action in mind.

Got it…

177 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:07:58pm

re: #65 Eclectic Cyborg

Anyone ever read Airframe by Michael Crichton?

Good book about a fictional airplane accident and subsequent investigation. Gets quite technical (as a lot of Crichton material does) but if you are interested in such topics you’ll probably enjoy it.

It’s pretty good, but the the plot is just too similar to that of Disclosure for it to be considered any better than ‘good’. The stakes are higher in Airframe (In Disclosure no lives are lost or at risk, whereas in Airframe lives are risked and lost), the plot is much the same ‘lone person trying to unravel a problem that leads to a conspiracy’.

178 Stanley Sea  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:09:23pm

The debate is good people.

179 compound_Idaho  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:23:27pm

re: #168 Dark_Falcon

Which would amount to fucking up intelligence gathering, for which the president, not Congress, would be blamed.

Oh I agree. But it is his call not congress.

180 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:23:30pm

re: #176 AlexRogan

And you, Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange have all purport to know all of the answers and to have the proper course of action in mind.

Got it…

Funny how when someone wants to make a comment like yours that they invariably include people whom they know have little credibility with the crowd to which they are making the comment and not including others that would have great credibilty. Sort of like a cross of the rhetorical tactics of “poisoning the well” and “Strawman”.

You attempt to poison the well by including Snowden, Greenwald and Assange because you know that the LGF crowd doens’t think much of them. I aggree more about Assange but not totally but in the case of Snowden and Greenwald the case outside of the LGF community both have greater credibility on the subject than do President Obama, many in his adiminstration and much of the Domestic Intelligence agencies. Proof? The article to which we are commenting. This NYT article placed Snowden in a postive place and if you actually read the article very subtly yet strongly begins to excoriate the programs and the parts of the US Govt that run them to INCLUDE President Obama, the Congress that helps perpetuate this mess and the Kangaroo Court that legitimizes it.

And as far as Greewald goes, outside of LGF and a few other closed gardens of opinion, he is seen as a flawed but brillant conduit for these leaks.

Then you leave out the 24 Dem Senators plus Wyden and Udall do seem to have another course in mind. And I would suggest that anyone that took the time to actually understand the facts might have good ones to. But not doing anything because you think that there are other problems that may need to be fixed first is not what these others, who do know alot, have chosen to do.

181 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:24:48pm

Yet another insult.

182 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:24:51pm

re: #173 Gus

Whatever.

I know you are but what am I. Spending to much time watching Pee Wee Herman Gus?

183 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:25:13pm

re: #182 Heywood Jabloeme

I know you are but what am I. Spending to much time watching Pee Wee Herman Gus?

Hey! Would you blow me?

184 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:25:55pm

re: #179 compound_Idaho

Oh I agree. But it is his call not congress.

True, that is unquestioned. It’s rather like the power of Congress to defund a military campaign in progress: A clearly available power, but one unlikely to be used due to the catastrophic PR consequences.

185 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:26:19pm

re: #181 Gus

Yet another insult.

Gus - If you are refering to the post above and think that was an insult then read my last.

186 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:26:42pm

re: #180 Heywood Jabloeme

Fling an insult, get a downding.

187 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:26:55pm

re: #185 Heywood Jabloeme

Gus - If you are refering to the post above and think that was an insult then read my last.

Please proceed.

188 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:28:36pm

re: #185 Heywood Jabloeme

Youtube Video

189 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:29:14pm

re: #183 Gus

Hey! Would you blow me?

Gus, Gus, Gus. That is my Nom de Guerre so trying to use it as a come back is sort of lame. Don’t you think? You are watching Pee wee or something too much as it is obvious that you need to get out more!

190 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:30:11pm

re: #189 Heywood Jabloeme

Gus, Gus, Gus. That is my Nom de Guerre so trying to use it as a come back is sort of lame. Don’t you think? You are watching Pee wee or something too much as it is obvious that you need to get out more!

Why? That’s your name. “Hey would you blow me.” It’s based on facts that are self-evident.

191 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:31:50pm

Junior Brown - My Wife Thinks You’re Dead

Youtube Video

192 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:31:56pm

re: #188 Dark_Falcon

[Embedded content]

I am crushed. How do you think that I could get to the point of understanding the facts in this article and presenting them in a way that makes you react like this if I were wasting much time looking at posts like this?

193 [deleted]  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:33:19pm
194 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:34:11pm

re: #193 Heywood Jabloeme

If they are “self evident” then obviously only a moron would waste our time “evident-ing” them?

Go back and hide in the pages.

195 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:34:39pm

Gus - you were out of your league … . in 3rd grade … . recess.

196 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:35:20pm

re: #195 Heywood Jabloeme

GAZE

197 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:36:05pm

re: #194 Gus

Go back an hide in the pages.

You are right Gus. I am sorry. I am going to beat a hasty retreat back there so that you can be alone with others who appreciate your “Gus”-ness.

198 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:36:38pm

re: #197 Heywood Jabloeme

You are right Gus. I am sorry. I am going to beat a hasty retreat back there so that you can be alone with others who appreciate your “Gus”-ness.

That’s cool. You already sound like a stalker.

199 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:15:44pm

re: #197 Heywood Jabloeme

You are right Gus. I am sorry. I am going to beat a hasty retreat back there so that you can be alone with others who appreciate your “Gus”-ness.

Look, let me be blunt. You’ve been an asshole all night.

200 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:20:31pm

re: #195 Heywood Jabloeme

Why be dumb? There’s a perfectly good case to be made against the current state of affairs, how is it helped by going around with your dick out?

201 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:22:36pm

I lied I am back. I had to go to the bathroom and take a Gus.

And your conclusion about me being a stalker maybe right. But I would have to be a very efficient one as in the break between totally busting your balls I made another Post that will get its hits, Though I admit not many as it is more “pro-leaker” and that doesn’t catch the interests at LGF - you guys are way too much cover your ears and loudly say, “nanananana” rather than really engage in news. Not that views matter too me .

Too bad as the more liberal press is really “proscribingly” and euphemistically shitting on Obama. “I am just a messenger and servant of Allah” as Sean Connery said in the movie “The Wind and the Lion”.

I also traded emails with a few producers at MSNBC and the Comedy Chanell as a a few other news outlets ans they are interested in some of the posts as well as reactions to them here on LGF. If they use the material I hope that they give Charles and LGF credit as I really enjoy posting here and if they do so I would get a kick.

PS - Rachel Maddow has already done several episode on Obama’s Hypocracy in regards to the Patriot Act and FISA ect i.e. Using the “States Secret” argument to “trump” a case that they were loosing otherwise. I think that she and her producers are preparing at least one, if not a series, of spots examining Obama’s and his Administrations “mis-statements” regarding the NSA and Obama’s implicit hypocritical reliance upon a law constructed to prevent oversite and support from a judicial system rigged to keep from any fair review of it.

202 AlexRogan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:23:40pm

re: #180 Heywood Jabloeme

Funny how when someone wants to make a comment like yours that they invariably include people whom they know have little credibility with the crowd to which they are making the comment and not including others that would have great credibilty. Sort of like a cross of the rhetorical tactics of “poisoning the well” and “Strawman”.

Not trying to “poison the well”, just pointing out that you guys have a lot of common on these issues; you can interpret that any way you want.

You attempt to poison the well by including Snowden, Greenwald and Assange because you know that the LGF crowd doens’t think much of them. I aggree more about Assange but not totally but in the case of Snowden and Greenwald the case outside of the LGF community both have greater credibility on the subject than do President Obama, many in his adiminstration and much of the Domestic Intelligence agencies. Proof? The article to which we are commenting. This NYT article placed Snowden in a postive place and if you actually read the article very subtly yet strongly begins to excoriate the programs and the parts of the US Govt that run them to INCLUDE President Obama, the Congress that helps perpetuate this mess and the Kangaroo Court that legitimizes it.

And as far as Greewald goes, outside of LGF and a few other closed gardens of opinion, he is seen as a flawed but brillant conduit for these leaks.

Like run-on sentences much? My best attempt to parse this part of your post indicates that you are supportive of Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange in all of this, that you don’t give Charles or anyone else here hardly any credibility on the subject, and that you heart the NYT on one article about this stuff. Am I wrong?

You’re damn right that I don’t particularly care for Greenwald, Assange, or Snowden, because they went into all of this cloak-and-dagger shit with an agenda, one that doesn’t necessarily have the best interests of America, her citizens, or her allies at heart. In fact, Greenwald and Assange are egotistical bastards that would sell their mothers if there were any favorable press in it; Greenwald used Snowden much like how Assange used Bradley Manning.

Then you leave out the 24 Dem Senators plus Wyden and Udall do seem to have another course in mind. And I would suggest that anyone that took the time to actually understand the facts might have good ones to. But not doing anything because you think that there are other problems that may need to be fixed first is not what these others, who do know alot, have chosen to do.

Pray tell, what was the vote of any of the other “24 Dem Senators” you point to on that 2008 FISA restructuring that put it on steroids (I know that Wyden voted nay on it)?

203 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:23:58pm

re: #201 Heywood Jabloeme

Wow, uh, thanks.

204 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:27:35pm

re: #200 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Why be dumb? There’s a perfectly good case to be made against the current state of affairs, how is it helped by going around with your dick out?

So, I don’t know to whon you are refering to. It is the majority of those here that are arguing with their “dicks out”. I read the article Charles posted at least a dozen times and have read and created at least that many posts on this subject here in the last few weeks and every comment that I made here was FACTUAL according to this artice and those posts. I gave at least as well as a I got and I can say that most of the giving here was not based on facts - mostly opinions and feelings.

So please enlighten me on more facts.

205 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:29:55pm

re: #201 Heywood Jabloeme

I lied I am back. I had to go to the bathroom and take a Gus.

And your conclusion about me being a stalker maybe right. But I would have to be a very efficient one as in the break between totally busting your balls I made another Post that will get its hits, Though I admit not many as it is more “pro-leaker” and that doesn’t catch the interests at LGF - you guys are way too much cover your ears and loudly say, “nanananana” rather than really engage in news. Not that views matter too me .

Too bad as the more liberal press is really “proscribingly” and euphemistically shitting on Obama. “I am just a messenger and servant of Allah” as Sean Connery said in the movie “The Wind and the Lion”.

I also traded emails with a few producers at MSNBC and the Comedy Chanell as a a few other news outlets ans they are interested in some of the posts as well as reactions to them here on LGF. If they use the material I hope that they give Charles and LGF credit as I really enjoy posting here and if they do so I would get a kick.

PS - Rachel Maddow has already done several episode on Obama’s Hypocracy in regards to the Patriot Act and FISA ect i.e. Using the “States Secret” argument to “trump” a case that they were loosing otherwise. I think that she and her producers are preparing at least one, if not a series, of spots examining Obama’s and his Administrations “mis-statements” regarding the NSA and Obama’s implicit hypocritical reliance upon a law constructed to prevent oversite and support from a judicial system rigged to keep from any fair review of it.

Wow, that’s like pretty weird.

206 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:30:13pm

re: #204 Heywood Jabloeme

I’m talking about you, flinging around creepy insults in a ridiculous way, self-aggrandizing, and being petulantly defensive. It makes you look like a buffoon.

Dividing people up into ‘pro-leak’ or ‘anti-leak’ is dumb. The lawsuits that will, if anything does, curtail these abuses were filed years ago; the ACLU one is not the first. Positing it in terms of the leak is silly.

207 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:32:17pm

smh

208 AlexRogan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:32:52pm

re: #206 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I’m talking about you, flinging around creepy insults in a ridiculous way, self-aggrandizing, and being petulantly defensive. It makes you look like a buffoon.

Dividing people up into ‘pro-leak’ or ‘anti-leak’ is dumb. The lawsuits that will, if anything does, curtail these abuses were filed years ago; the ACLU one is not the first. Positing it in terms of the leak is silly.

Sounds like ‘Heywood’/WinstonDodson is using W’s “you are either with us or against us” argument.

209 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:34:41pm

re: #208 AlexRogan

Sounds like ‘Heywood’/WinstonDodson is using W’s “you are either with us or against us” argument.

It’s just really frustrating to have the leak being cast as some sort of watershed moment. It’s a media moment. It’s not very meaningful otherwise. If congress does nothing and caselaw continues the way it has been, the 4th will continue to be eroded. Maybe some changes will be made. It won’t solve the real problem, which has been going on for decades.

210 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:50:14pm

re: #202 AlexRogan

Not trying to “poison the well”, just pointing out that you guys have a lot of common on these issues; you can interpret that any way you want.

You attempt to poison the well by including Snowden, Greenwald and Assange because you know that the LGF crowd doens’t think much of them. I aggree more about Assange but not totally but in the case of Snowden and Greenwald the case outside of the LGF community both have greater credibility on the subject than do President Obama, many in his adiminstration and much of the Domestic Intelligence agencies. Proof? The article to which we are commenting. This NYT article placed Snowden in a postive place and if you actually read the article very subtly yet strongly begins to excoriate the programs and the parts of the US Govt that run them to INCLUDE President Obama, the Congress that helps perpetuate this mess and the Kangaroo Court that legitimizes it.

And as far as Greewald goes, outside of LGF and a few other closed gardens of opinion, he is seen as a flawed but brillant conduit for these leaks.

Like run-on sentences much? My best attempt to parse this part of your post indicates that you are supportive of Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange in all of this, that you don’t give Charles or anyone else here hardly any credibility on the subject, and that you heart the NYT on one article about this stuff. Am I wrong?

Then you leave out the 24 Dem Senators plus Wyden and Udall do seem to have another course in mind. And I would suggest that anyone that took the time to actually understand the facts might have good ones to. But not doing anything because you think that there are other problems that may need to be fixed first is not what these others, who do know alot, have chosen to do.

Pray tell, what was the vote of any of the other “24 Dem Senators” you point to on that 2008 FISA restructuring that put it on steroids (I know that Wyden voted nay on it)?

But your weak attempt at claiming to “not poison the well” proves that you were because once again, you fail to mention that the facts make me “feel” the same way as 26 Dem Senators and most of the credible Press on this issue. If you can read this article and not conclude that the NTY is not highly critical of Obama on this all I can say is that you are eat up with “Obama Worship”. They presented the facts but just stopped short of directly calling him a liar lacking the character and leadership to change a system that he has helped to create ands that is facilitated by a court totally rigged court system. So, if that is an example of how I have something in common with GG, Snowden, Assange and at least 26 members of the US Senate and the NYT and WaPo and etc etc then I am flattered.

In regards to who I support. I support them, because in the case of Snowden and GG they have been right on the entire time. Charles posted here tonight that he somehow still doesn’t believe that the Metadata gathering of almost all of US Phone calls has been established. Just like on Faox News and Global Climemate changes it seems that LGF readers dont agree that it has. I can’t find a single credible news source that doens’t and when I challenge Charles he just goes quiet. That is his pergotive and he can stop me from posting but the NSA collection of most all of the calls within the US is an accepted fact. I have several post where credible sources agree. Why do I say this? Because despite the bubble that seems to protect the psoters here from that fact Snowden and Greenwald have been right about every important claim regarding the leaks. The only claim remaining proven is the “direct access” to servers claim and term was actaully on one slide and only denied by execs who have to deny it - by fucking law.

211 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:53:42pm

Then regarding the 24 (I think that there were 26 if you include Wyden and Udall - So I think that I can guess where you are going here. Yes, if they or a large % of them that were in the Senate in 2008 had voted against it sure, that would make a stronger case for them. But the stark contrast between them now, natural allies to Obama, dicretely challenging him is very powerfull. And they aren’t even trying to repeal it, all they want is more transparency. If Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee says that the Domestic Spying program doesn’t work - don’t you want to see the data?

212 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:54:57pm

re: #206 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I’m talking about you, flinging around creepy insults in a ridiculous way, self-aggrandizing, and being petulantly defensive. It makes you look like a buffoon.

Dividing people up into ‘pro-leak’ or ‘anti-leak’ is dumb. The lawsuits that will, if anything does, curtail these abuses were filed years ago; the ACLU one is not the first. Positing it in terms of the leak is silly.

Read the article, the ACLU case was mentioned in it.

213 Gus  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:55:04pm

re: #211 Heywood Jabloeme

Then regarding the 24 (I think that there were 26 if you include Wyden and Udall - So I think that I can guess where you are going here. Yes, if they or a large % of them that were in the Senate in 2008 had voted against it sure, that would make a stronger case for them. But the stark contrast between them now, natural allies to Obama, dicretely challenging him is very powerfull. And they aren’t even trying to repeal it, all they want is more transparency. If Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee says that the Domestic Spying program doesn’t work - don’t you want to see the data?

Feel free to talk sir.

214 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 7:57:53pm

re: #208 AlexRogan

Sounds like ‘Heywood’/WinstonDodson is using W’s “you are either with us or against us” argument.

If you are willing to make arguments in defense of Obama without using the fact you are, by definiton, anti-leak. Obama and his Administration have made numerous “mis-statements” regarding the leaks.They are thus anti-leak.

215 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:00:44pm

re: #205 Gus

Wow, that’s like pretty weird.

So what is weird. Its the truth. You can check the site and then wait to see if she uses anything about the material and mentions it on the show. I think Charles can even check the IP Addresses accessing the site.

216 AlexRogan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:03:45pm

re: #209 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

It’s just really frustrating to have the leak being cast as some sort of watershed moment. It’s a media moment. It’s not very meaningful otherwise. If congress does nothing and caselaw continues the way it has been, the 4th will continue to be eroded. Maybe some changes will be made. It won’t solve the real problem, which has been going on for decades.

The RWNJs have been trying to push Benghazi-gate, the glibertarians are pushing FISA/NSA-gate.

Proof that the political spectrum is indeed a circle, with the RWNJs and glibertarians at the confluence.

217 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:07:01pm

re: #209 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

It’s just really frustrating to have the leak being cast as some sort of watershed moment. It’s a media moment. It’s not very meaningful otherwise. If congress does nothing and caselaw continues the way it has been, the 4th will continue to be eroded. Maybe some changes will be made. It won’t solve the real problem, which has been going on for decades.

If you don’t think that this is a watershed moment you do need to read some news other than LGF. I’ve some of it here but there is much more.

The press is preparing to Tee Off on Obama. This NYT article is on a path of ever increasing criticism of him. Somewhere along the way a reporter will ask him why did he lie or at least, resort to evasive “lawyer speak”.

When the next leaks are revealed, and Greenwald isn’t the only one saying that it will come, see Congresswoman Sanchez’s comments on CSPAN, if he is again caught in untruths, his credibilty is toast. I think that it was on Charlie Rose when he made his last statement on the subject and it was evasive.

218 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:10:00pm

re: #213 Gus

Feel free to talk sir.

If you don’t mind, I’ll let these guys talk for me via my posts here.

Wyden and Udall: Don’t Believe Intelligence Officials

“Senators question the effectiveness of the NSA . . claims made by officials ‘should not simply be accepted at face value.’”

Link

219 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:11:25pm

re: #132 Heywood Jabloeme

Ok, so you were wrong, he did 2 changes to the law the law that

I really don’t know why I waste my time even responding to you. Not only do you not understand how the law works, added to the fact you don’t understand how FISA works, you don’t even understand how the basics of our government work. As well, you have basic reading comprehension issues.

Obama did not “do two changes to the law.” The President is not part of the legislature. Congress passes the laws, and then the President either signs or vetoes. This is fourth-grade civics stuff.

You read articles, misinterpret what they say, extrapolate out of thin air and that suddenly makes you a legal expert. You don’t even understand the basics of constitutional law nor have you ever practiced law, yet you set yourself up as a legal expert and lash out at anyone who points out your numerous surreal errors. You claim “all the experts” are on your side, those experts never named, of course. You peddle nonsensical theories about how the Supreme Court will act yet don’t even understand stare decisis basics.

I’ve seen people like you in court with their pro se petitions, “lecturing” learned judges about “how the law really works.” They wouldn’t know a legal citation if it kicked them in the head, think WestLaw is a town and Lexis is a car, yet they’re somehow experts because of only reasons they seem to understand.

who doesn’t even know the basic facts in this case, could make such a statement.

Newsflash. This isn’t a case. It’s a newspaper article.

“accoutability”

accoutable

If your spellchecker doesn’t work, here’s a tip so you won’t come across like the print version of a deranged derelict shouting at parking meters: use a dictionary. It’s a book with pages. You turn pages, find the correct spelling for words, and then type that into your document.

You are obviously a very smart guy

I’m not “a guy.” I’m a woman. Ever heard of them? But thanks for recognizing that I’m “very smart,” even without a penis.

220 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:13:03pm

re: #216 AlexRogan

The RWNJs have been trying to push Benghazi-gate, the glibertarians are pushing FISA/NSA-gate.

Proof that the political spectrum is indeed a circle, with the RWNJs and glibertarians at the confluence.

This isn’t Fox News or Libertarins. Read this article - Its the freakin NYT. Read others, its the WaPo, Atlantic, ProPublica and many others.

So when have US Democratic Senators basically called Obama and his Adminstration liars regarding Benghazi?

221 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:17:57pm
Everyone that makes a phone call in the US is effected by what the “FISA court does”.

Charles addressed that whopper.

I know that you denied the fact that this gives the ACLU standing to sue but MOST experts disagree.

Add blatant misquotes and misrepresentations to your crimes.

The Supreme Court has already addressed FISA and standing in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which of course you have neither read nor understood, and the court also addressed metadata and the Fourth Amendment in Smith v. Maryland, which of course you also neither read nor understood. Both are guiding precedent, but of course you don’t fathom the importance of that.

You read one article in Politico that references unnamed “experts” (an article that also quotes named experts who had doubts about the ACLU’s chances), and suddenly “most experts” say the ACLU has standing even though the article never mentions standing nor quotes anyone about standing. I was the one who brought the standing issue to your attention in a comment.

Here’s the thing about the law, which of course you fail to grasp, as is obvious in your writings that assert how future courts will rule: there are no certainties about a ruling until it’s issued. There are no guarantees. A fantastic example of this is the Supreme Court’s ACA ruling. So many “experts” called that, and it turns out they knew jack squat.

So you’ve assured yourself, without actually reading any caselaw, without ever attending law school, that you know the ACLU will overcome standing hurdles (notwithstanding you have no actual knowledge of the standing stare decisis), and you’re basing this one what? Unnamed “experts” in an article who never even actually mention standing. Sorry “MOST” experts. Wow.

I’ve read Clapper v. Amnesty International and Smith v. Maryland and many other standing and Fourth Amendment cases. I’ve briefed more than a few appeals. Against that background, I believe the ACLU’s chances seem very slim. But that’s not a certainty. I don’t “know” that they’ll win or lose. I wouldn’t shout that from the rooftops — or as you would write, “roooftops.”

But you somehow know better, because of unnamed “experts” in an article (who don’t even mention standing) say “this gives the ACLU standing.”

Wow.

If logic fails were measured on the Richter Scale, I think that would be somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5.

222 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:18:18pm

re: #219 HSG

I really don’t know why I waste my time even responding to you. Not only do you not understand how the law works, added to the fact you don’t understand how FISA works, you don’t even understand how the basics of our government work. As well, you have basic reading comprehension issues.

Obama did not “do two changes to the law.” The President is not part of the legislature. Congress passes the laws, and then the President either signs or vetoes. This is fourth-grade civics stuff.

You read articles, misinterpret what they say, extrapolate out of thin air and that suddenly makes you a legal expert. You don’t even understand the basics of constitutional law nor have you ever practiced law, yet you set yourself up as a legal expert and lash out at anyone who points out your numerous surreal errors. You claim “all the experts” are on your side, those experts never named, of course. You peddle nonsensical theories about how the Supreme Court will act yet don’t even understand stare decisis basics.

I’ve seen people like you in court with their pro se petitions, “lecturing” learned judges about “how the law really works.” They wouldn’t know a legal citation if it kicked them in the head, think WestLaw is a town and Lexis is a car, yet they’re somehow experts because of only reasons they seem to understand.

Newsflash. This isn’t a case. It’s a newspaper article.

If your spellchecker doesn’t work, here’s a tip so you won’t come across like the print version of a deranged derelict shouting at parking meters: use a dictionary. It’s a book with pages. You turn pages, find the correct spelling for words, and then type that into your document.

I’m not “a guy.” I’m a woman. Ever heard of them? But thanks for recognizing that I’m “very smart,” even without a penis.

So I agree with you HSG - if you don’t think that signing 2 laws while ignoring amendments from Dem Senators who are now basically calling you a liar doesn’t make you just as responsible foe the law as the people who wrote it, then you shouldn’t respond to my posts. You shouldn’t read them. In fact, you should read much as most soruces now agree he is as much responsible for the laws as Congreess.

It doesn’t take knowldge of the law to know that. If he signed it and didn’t veto it he owns it as much as anyone else. Not only that, unlike DOMA he has defended it mulitple time in court.

223 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:18:38pm

re: #220 Heywood Jabloeme

BENGHAZI!!!11

224 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:21:18pm

re: #221 HSG

Charles addressed that whopper.

Add blatant misquotes and misrepresentations to your crimes.

The Supreme Court has already addressed FISA and standing in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which of course you have neither read nor understood, and the court also addressed metadata and the Fourth Amendment in Smith v. Maryland, which of course you also neither read nor understood. Both are guiding precedent, but of course you don’t fathom the importance of that.

You read one article in Politico that references unnamed “experts” (an article that also quotes named experts who had doubts about the ACLU’s chances), and suddenly “most experts” say the ACLU has standing even though the article never mentions standing nor quotes anyone about standing. I was the one who brought the standing issue to your attention in a comment.

Here’s the thing about the law, which of course you fail to grasp, as is obvious in your writings that assert how future courts will rule: there are no certainties about a ruling until it’s issued. There are no guarantees. A fantastic example of this is the Supreme Court’s ACA ruling. So many “experts” called that, and it turns out they knew jack squat.

So you’ve assured yourself, without actually reading any caselaw, without ever attending law school, that you know the ACLU will overcome standing hurdles (notwithstanding you have no actual knowledge of the standing stare decisis), and you’re basing this one what? Unnamed “experts” in an article who never even actually mention standing. Sorry “MOST” experts. Wow.

I’ve read Clapper v. Amnesty International and Smith v. Maryland and many other standing and Fourth Amendment cases. I’ve briefed more than a few appeals. Against that background, I believe the ACLU’s chances seem very slim. But that’s not a certainty. I don’t “know” that they’ll win or lose. I wouldn’t shout that from the rooftops — or as you would write, “roooftops.”

But you somehow know better, because of unnamed “experts” in an article (who don’t even mention standing) say “this gives the ACLU standing.”

Wow.

If logic fails were measured on the Richter Scale, I think that would be somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5.

Provide me one credible source, other than the might HSG that says that the Snowden leak does not now give the ACLU and VERY good chance at thier lawsuit gaining standing.

225 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:30:00pm

re: #136 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

then you’ve got to give the defense attorney the chance to aggressively go after the circumstances of that wiretap

In a “standard” criminal case, that’s done after the arrest/indictment. It’s not during the warrant process. In pretrial, the attorney will move to suppress wiretap evidence and then make the Fourth Amendment arguments. The attorney will almost certainly not be aware of any wiretap before the fact and will not be notified, as is understandable.

In a “standard” criminal case, this process is complicated by the fact that the first wiretap will often lead to additional wiretaps on other targets, sometimes into the hundreds. This happened in the Raj Rajaratnam case — some 300 wiretaps have been publicly identified — and that process may still be ongoing, given the pending cases against SAC Capital Advisors.

That makes Fourth Amendment challenges infinitely complex in these large investigations. I have to imagine the cases moving through FISA are similar — any one target is the result of evidence reaped from earlier generations of targets. This material would be made available under seal to any defendant’s counsel, but after the fact, like a “standard” case.

226 Randall Gross  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:34:01pm

re: #107 Charles Johnson

Do you think jingoism should drive and shape all human choices? Think carefully before you answer.

[Embedded content]

I think Djangoism ought to drive all human choices.

227 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:34:08pm

re: #223 Dark_Falcon

BENGHAZI!!!11

It doesn’t seem that 2 Dem US Senators agree that this leak case is like Benghazi.

Wyden and Udall: Don’t Believe Intelligence Officials

“Senators question the effectiveness of the NSA . . claims made by officials ‘should not simply be accepted at face value.’”

Link

228 Randall Gross  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:35:22pm

Winston probably thinks the budget is the president’s fault as well.

229 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:45:00pm

re: #228 Randall Gross

Winston probably thinks the budget is the president’s fault as well.

Would be a good come back except I never claimed nor ever hinted that it was “the President’s fault”.

If you would have said, “Winston, like this lengthy and detailed article in the NYT, thinks that Obama is at least involved as Congress and the Court.” then you’d correct.

That is what the NYT times piece said or are you just creating Strawman comments to make yourself feel good?

230 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 8:51:06pm

re: #224 Heywood Jabloeme

Provide me one credible source, other than the might [sic] HSG that says that the Snowden leak does not now give the ACLU and VERY good chance at thier [sic] lawsuit gaining standing.

You’ve completely missed the point. Collecting predictions is irrelevant. That means bupkis. We’re dealing with stare decisis and caselaw. That’s all that matters. Federal court pleadings aren’t like blog comments.

But to humor you, look in your Politico article — I identified him in a previous comment. I quote from the Politico article in question: “And based strictly on existing Supreme Court case law, says George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, the group’s arguments are ‘weak.’”

Kerr is almost certainly thinking about the Clapper and Smith precedents, among others. Why do I say this? Because he mentions them in his blog.

Moving back to what matters, as I noted, the federal precedent is the only thing that matters in this case. The court will look at the 900-pound gorillas in the ACLU’s way: Clapper and Smith, among others. They won’t say, “well that’s the precedent, but we really must decide based on what Professor Schmootkiss told the Washington Post.”

Here are two extremely credible sources who say the ACLU does not have a very good chance. The first is Justice Alito, who wrote the Clapper decision, and the second is the Justice Department’s Robert Litt, who successfully captained the Clapper appeal.

supremecourt.gov

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com

231 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:00:38pm

re: #225 HSG

In a “standard” criminal case, that’s done after the arrest/indictment. It’s not during the warrant process. In pretrial, the attorney will move to suppress wiretap evidence and then make the Fourth Amendment arguments. The attorney will almost certainly not be aware of any wiretap before the fact and will not be notified, as is understandable.

In a “standard” criminal case, this process is complicated by the fact that the first wiretap will often lead to additional wiretaps on other targets, sometimes into the hundreds. This happened in the Raj Rajaratnam case — some 300 wiretaps have been publicly identified — and that process may still be ongoing, given the pending cases against SAC Capital Advisors.

That makes Fourth Amendment challenges infinitely complex in these large investigations. I have to imagine the cases moving through FISA are similar — any one target is the result of evidence reaped from earlier generations of targets. This material would be made available under seal to any defendant’s counsel, but after the fact, like a “standard” case.

The Exclusionary Rule would allow the judge to throw out any evidence gathered in violation of the accussed Constitional Rights. The article points out that the Warrants used, up to this point, to gather evidence, were produced by the FISA Court and leaked. The article points out that the FISA Courts consists of Judges hand picked by Roberts and consist of 10 Judges nominated by Republican Presidents. This, taken in the context of the total article is clearly done as to cast doubts on the FISA Court.

Then the article points out the the accused can’t question these Warrants because only the Govt can petition it. Then, the only realistic appeal is the the FISCR Court. Which the wiki article points out consists of Judges also hand picked by Roberts. Again, clearly to cast doubts of the FISCR Court.

And as HSG has so helpfully pointed out, all previous cases involving a review of the FISA Courts power to generate these Warrants have failed due to a finding of lack of standing. This, and many other sources feel that the Snowden leaks now give Standing to the ACLU and many others who were phone customers of the phone Compony explictily named in the leaked FISA docs, now them hopes of Standing. HSG differs and we are awaiting his submission of other opinions.

It is very clear from the facts presented as well as the tone of this and other NYT’s pieces that they are building the case againt not only the Patriot Act and the FISA Court but the NSA’s use of it. The continual reliance on an “argument by authority” to try and convince anyone who can read otherwise, is ridiculous.

232 krypto  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:11:22pm

re: #231 Heywood Jabloeme

But is the first and most immediate priority to be able to get a conviction, months or years later, or to know enough about the developing terrorist plan to be able to stop it?

233 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:19:08pm

re: #230 HSG

You’ve completely missed the point. Collecting predictions is irrelevant. That means bupkis. We’re dealing with stare decisis and caselaw. That’s all that matters. Federal court pleadings aren’t like blog comments.

But to humor you, look in your Politico article — I identified him in a previous comment. I quote from the Politico article in question: “And based strictly on existing Supreme Court case law, says George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, the group’s arguments are ‘weak.’”

Kerr is almost certainly thinking about the Clapper and Smith precedents, among others. Why do I say this? Because he mentions them in his blog.

Moving back to what matters, as I noted, the federal precedent is the only thing that matters in this case. The court will look at the 900-pound gorillas in the ACLU’s way: Clapper and Smith, among others. They won’t say, “well that’s the precedent, but we really must decide based on what Professor Schmootkiss told the Washington Post.”

Here are two extremely credible sources who say the ACLU does not have a very good chance. The first is Justice Alito, who wrote the Clapper decision, and the second is the Justice Department’s Robert Litt, who successfully captained the Clapper appeal.

supremecourt.gov

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com

So, there must be a mistake. HSG, you did clearly quote my request. Here it is, as you quoted it, to ensure that we are talking about the same set of facts.

Provide me one credible source, other than the might [sic] HSG that says that the Snowden leak does not now give the ACLU and VERY good chance at thier [sic] lawsuit gaining standing.

There are a few words that I’d like to call you attention to:

“Snowden”, “now”, “ACLU” and “Standing”

Question the articles that you site are all dated prior to the events that we are discussing here and so are obviously available to the experts discussing this case. So how, unless there is law and capabilities that I am unfamiliar with, can decisions made before the facts occurred be proffered in response to my query. This NYT’s article, as well as a few others, say that they facts have changed in regards to these cases and because of that, they have a very good case of crossing the Standing requirements barrier.

I mean as a valued counselor surely you wouldn’t attempt to proffer material in order to make an argument that other attorney’s would surely be familiar with and have taken itno account when they have the opnion that these leaks now give the ACLU Standing, would you?

Let me guess, you will now resort to an “argument by authority” to try and say the I don’t understand this or that about the law. Let me save you the trouble.

I challenged you to provide me with a timely, unless “now” wasn’t clear to you, regarding a set of facts that have only occured in the last week. Yet you provided me with material that could have been available to others, who have at least your level of legal expertise, but who have a different opinion than you.

Maybe they have a different legal opinion than you because they are considering up-to-date facts.

It is entertaining to watch you wiggle and squirm trying to argue against me, a non-lawyer, when you are actually arguing against other lawyers, facts and someone who know that.

234 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:32:41pm

re: #232 krypto

But is the first and most immediate priority to be able to get a conviction, months or years later, or to know enough about the developing terrorist plan to be able to stop it?

Sure but I will say and post this another time. Two Democratic Senators, members of the Senate Intelligence committee doesn’t think that this law and Domestic Spying will do any of what you want.

Wyden and Udall: Don’t Believe Intelligence Officials
“Senators question the effectiveness of the NSA . . claims made by officials ‘should not simply be accepted at face value.’”

Link

And these guys have access to the exact data to know. So, now does Obama and his administration address this claim - They claim that it works and 2 Senators who are on your side in most cases, say that it doesn’t.

I’ve never mentioned or posted this but Congressman Sensenbrenner (?) whoi authored the original Patriot Act, says that is now being misused by Obama. That is a dog bites man story. A Republican criticizing Obama? People here have mentioned Benghazi. Giving Sensenbrener’s crticism credibility after Benghazi would be rediculous.

And there are many other credeible experts that have questioned the effectiveness of this laws but none have access to the data nor the credibility of Wyden and Udall.

235 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:42:46pm

re: #233 Heywood Jabloeme

Question the articles that you site [sic] are all dated prior to the events that we

What???

I didn’t cite articles. I linked a Supreme Court decision and a successful petition for certiorari. Which, of course, you didn’t read.

It is utterly irrelevant the Clapper case was decided before the Snowden leaks. Utterly and entirely irrelevant.

Since you have no concept of jurisprudence, and your voluminous comments underscore that, trying to explain how wrong and irrelevant you are is like trying to talk sense with a begonia.

they have a very good case of crossing the Standing requirements barrier

The New York Times article never even mentions the word “standing.”

I’m done with you. You think you understand the law but you’re just utterly fucking clueless. You pull all these predictions out of your ass and think you understand up from down about jurisprudence based on misreading news articles.

Go to law school, pal. When you’re there, they’ll teach you how to read law and they’ll teach you what the NYT or Politico or Chatterbox Blog says doesn’t matter. All you read is the law, case after case, thousands upon thousands of them. The coursework includes nothing from any newspaper. Your law school exams will be filled with nothing but caselaw, not news articles. In your exam, you’d have to argue for or against standing using nothing but case citations, no newspaper articles allowed.

236 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 9:57:20pm

HSG - As I predicted. You aren’t arguing agaisnt me you are arguing agaisnt other experts with the same facts as you but reach different conclusions. Yet, keep trying to make it an argument with me.

You must be one pathetic excuse for an attorney to let yours self have yous ass so thoroughly and publically kicked by a non-lawyer and to react this way.

I just sent my self an email with a link to this post associated with a Google News search to make a page if the the ACLU case ever passes standing and makes it to court.

In the mean time, I’ll make a page to include the fact that other lawyers, much more credible than you, will probably come with opinions regarding the ACLU canse and Standing. And each time I make the page, I will link to these posts and thank you. I’m think that Tribe will be one of the first.

Just to stick it down your blubbering, shit talking, fucking throat.

PS - The ACLU Attornies who are filing, and who will claim that they have standing, are all Harvard trained litigators with numerous court victories under their belts. But “you’ll show them”. hahahahaahq

237 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:04:29pm

HSG - I just read all of your post.

Go to law school, pal. When you’re there, they’ll teach you how to read law and they’ll teach you what the NYT or Politico or Chatterbox Blog says doesn’t matter. All you read is the law, case after case, thousands upon thousands of them. The coursework includes nothing from any newspaper. Your law school exams will be filled with nothing but caselaw, not news articles. In your exam, you’d have to argue for or against standing using nothing but case citations, no newspaper articles allowed.

You must have went to a different law school than, “The ACLU Attornies who are filing, and who will claim that they have standing, are all Harvard trained litigators with numerous court victories under their belts.” I’ve got an idea. You could talk to them, convince them, you know, lawyer-to-lawyer, that they are wrong and wasting their time. Then, go to work for them and they can pay you out of all the money that you saved them!

238 HSG  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:10:53pm

Professor Orin Kerr from George Washington University Law School, one of the leading experts on the Fourth Amendment law in the digital age, has a must-read piece for constitutional wonks at The Volokh Conspiracy with his reactions to the recent New York Times article Charles references here.

He writes:

I find Lichtblau’s writing to be sufficiently vague that his distillation of the opinions leaves me with more questions than answers. In this post, I want to go through what Lichtblau says about the Fourth Amendment rulings of the FISA court and why his descriptions leave me confused.

As always, Kerr writes cleanly and clearly on his topic.

volokh.com

239 krypto  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:51:00pm

re: #234 Heywood Jabloeme

Sure but I will say and post this another time. Two Democratic Senators, members of the Senate Intelligence committee doesn’t think that this law and Domestic Spying will do any of what you want.

And these guys have access to the exact data to know. So, now does Obama and his administration address this claim - They claim that it works and 2 Senators who are on your side in most cases, say that it doesn’t.
……

And there are others who are in comparable positions who appear to be saying that it is an important tool and has played a key role in twarting several terrorist attacks at the very least.

It is always possible to cherry pick the opinions to cite and ignore the others. (“Senators who are on your side”???? — does thatmean they can’t have opinions of their own? There are also Republicans who agree with Obama on this program and those that disagree.)

I can only base my conclusions on which claims seem be plausible, which is that the program is of course only a tool among several the government has to use to stop terrorist attacks - no reasonable person expects any one method to stop every attack or to be the only thing that plays any role, but it seems very plausible that it does help disrupt attacks.

240 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 11:19:28pm

re: #238 HSG

Professor Orin Kerr from George Washington University Law School, one of the leading experts on the Fourth Amendment law in the digital age, has a must-read piece for constitutional wonks at The Volokh Conspiracy with his reactions to the recent New York Times article Charles references here.

He writes:

As always, Kerr writes cleanly and clearly on his topic.

volokh.com

I agree, he is very clear and I could find nothing addressing Standing. But, as you have pointed out, I am not a lawyer so if I missed it or it was alluded to you will have to point that out.

In the Politico article that I think that you referenced in one of these comments but that I do know that you are familiar with as you did make several comments there, it discussed the ACLU case. And in that discussion it mentioned the previous problems that the ACLU has had with Standing and felt that the Snoweden leaks will help them with that in this case. I have a accomplished a Google search and found about a dozen references to Snowden and the leaks and what they will have on the ACLU case and of those, they all mention is having a poisitve effect but of those I found only 2 that had unique (non repeated quoates from ACLU attorneys who have an obvious bias) and of those 2, non were of note i.e. Tribes. It will be interesting to see these opinions as they roll out.

Then the article that you provided as well as this Politico story have many experts weigh in on the case and how it would be decided on the merits. There is not a single expert cited in any of the articles who give hope to the ACLU is a positive outcome of thier case if it gets to the merits - not even the ACLU. I quoted that in the post. But it is noted that the ACLU’s strategy is probably to begin the crack the secret nut open with the discovery phase. As was alluded to in the article the hope is that through the facts learned in Discovery on this case they can investigate for the next case and even effect public opinion.

That seems to be the strategy of the Senate Dems who are putting presure, not to end the program quickly, but for more transparency to allow the judicial and politcal porcesses to take place. Remember, these are Dems in the Senate. It is obvious that they want to change the law and the programs but it is just as obvious that they want to give cover to Obama so that he can get involved.

How better to do so than prove that it doesn’t work.

They actually want to help Obama undo and or escape from the situation that he is currently in. Despite the obvious discomfort that many who support him have, Obama bears much of the responsibiltiy for this reality. But ending or greatly modifying the law and or programs is politically risky - if you are on the wrong side and an attack occurs, you are finished politcally. He has to be President and act as Chief executive and enforce the laws. But he also has to been seen as maintaining some moral authority and with each leak or revolation that is slipping away from him. The administration is already talking about modifying the progams. I think that as his supporter it is interesting to know the reality of it and why he is doing so.

Experts: NSA Lawsuit Could Break New Legal Ground
“The suit filed argues that the phone-tracking system detailed in The Guardian violates freedom of speech and privacy rights .”

Link

241 piratedan  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 11:20:31pm

I kind of see this tracking the same way that the ACA did. One one hand, we have a solid group of Progressives, led by Wyden and Udall, that want more oversight and more restraint over this entire process. I think most of us agree that would be a good thing if there were enough votes for it. Similar to what a bunch of folks wanted in the Health Care Reform battle with single payer. The problem, as always, is that there aren’t enough votes for that to succeed. No matter how many times we close our eyes and wish really hard for it, that Pony isn’t going to magically appear under the Christmas Tree.

So what does this President do?

He does what he has done in the past, get the best deal that he can with the legislators that he has to work with. He’s signed off on the improvements to the process of data collection in regards to the existing Patriot Act to bring more transparency to the process that was a complete FUBAR under the Bushies. When the Snowden/NSA thing breaks, he instructs that the process itself be declassified to illustrate how it works (not that it has been accurately portrayed by the folks that broke the story to begin with). Sinister duplicitous bastard that he is….

Does this mean that the discussion should end, no
Does this mean that this President is behaving badly, imho, no
He’s used the laws and authority that the office has in regards to this law and has asked Congress to review this law and determine if his office should have all of the power that the Law assigns to the office of the Presidency? They’ve consistently punted it back to the Presidency.

I still don’t fucking understand what it is about this Presidency that has inspired so much idiocy. Okay, Obama is no Bob LaFollette or Eugene Debs, but he’s no fucking Nixon or Bush either. Just a guy trying to unfuck our government one step at a time and look at who he has to deal with…. You guys keep saying that he’s not liberal enough, I keep pointing to the 55 Democratic Senators in office, take away the five most conservative fainting couch Dems and there’s your benchmark in regards to what can get out of the Senate…while you can find 25-30 fairly liberal Democratic Senators good luck recruiting from the remaining 25 any kind of liberal consensus. The House, this is the same House that voted down Gun Safety regulations that are supported by 90% of the country. There are your benchmarks, feel free to try and run the country with this kind of clown show and tell me the easy path to finding a pony under my tree, tyvm.

242 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 11:27:34pm

re: #239 krypto

And there are others who are in comparable positions who appear to be saying that it is an important tool and has played a key role in twarting several terrorist attacks at the very least.

It is always possible to cherry pick the opinions to cite and ignore the others. (“Senators who are on your side”???? — does thatmean they can’t have opinions of their own? There are also Republicans who agree with Obama on this program and those that disagree.)

I can only base my conclusions on which claims seem be plausible, which is that the program is of course only a tool among several the government has to use to stop terrorist attacks - no reasonable person expects any one method to stop every attack or to be the only thing that plays any role, but it seems very plausible that it does help disrupt attacks.

So, I don’t understand who those expert who supporting it are? Clapper - he lied, admitted and appolgized for it. And anyone who has supported it basically said, “its prevented 50 attacks over the years. Trust me I can’t tell you much as it is classified”. And they all have a bias to believe it to be true or even lie.

Wyden and Udall say, “We have seen the data and it isn’t effective. So let’s declaissified that data and you judge for your self.” A little more convicing huh?

243 Heywood Jabloeme  Sun, Jul 7, 2013 11:50:23pm

re: #241 piratedan

I kind of see this tracking the same way that the ACA did. One one hand, we have a solid group of Progressives, led by Wyden and Udall, that want more oversight and more restraint over this entire process. I think most of us agree that would be a good thing if there were enough votes for it. Similar to what a bunch of folks wanted in the Health Care Reform battle with single payer. The problem, as always, is that there aren’t enough votes for that to succeed. No matter how many times we close our eyes and wish really hard for it, that Pony isn’t going to magically appear under the Christmas Tree.

So what does this President do?

He does what he has done in the past, get the best deal that he can with the legislators that he has to work with. He’s signed off on the improvements to the process of data collection in regards to the existing Patriot Act to bring more transparency to the process that was a complete FUBAR under the Bushies. When the Snowden/NSA thing breaks, he instructs that the process itself be declassified to illustrate how it works (not that it has been accurately portrayed by the folks that broke the story to begin with). Sinister duplicitous bastard that he is….

Does this mean that the discussion should end, no
Does this mean that this President is behaving badly, imho, no
He’s used the laws and authority that the office has in regards to this law and has asked Congress to review this law and determine if his office should have all of the power that the Law assigns to the office of the Presidency? They’ve consistently punted it back to the Presidency.

I still don’t fucking understand what it is about this Presidency that has inspired so much idiocy. Okay, Obama is no Bob LaFollette or Eugene Debs, but he’s no fucking Nixon or Bush either. Just a guy trying to unfuck our government one step at a time and look at who he has to deal with…. You guys keep saying that he’s not liberal enough, I keep pointing to the 55 Democratic Senators in office, take away the five most conservative fainting couch Dems and there’s your benchmark in regards to what can get out of the Senate…while you can find 25-30 fairly liberal Democratic Senators good luck recruiting from the remaining 25 any kind of liberal consensus. The House, this is the same House that voted down Gun Safety regulations that are supported by 90% of the country. There are your benchmarks, feel free to try and run the country with this kind of clown show and tell me the easy path to finding a pony under my tree, tyvm.

Did you actually read the article. He didn’t just get a better deal he signed a deal with the devel. The NYT piece made it very clear when it decribed the joke of the way that the FISA and review courts works.

The current situation is basically the Exective branch doing anything that it can get away with in order to cover it ass, even though many claim that it doesn’t work anyway, supervised by Roberts. It is by design, not accountaqble to the regular courts. Why maybe it could pass that review. But in reality it would go the SCOTUS and the same 5 judges that failed to protect minority voters rights would give away of 4th Amendmant rights, But at least we woud know. Now FISA and it review court FISCA is a kangaroo court under Robert’s thumb.

Obama doesn’t have to be Nixon. He just has to accpet the status quo.

Read tne entire article - the current of court review process is bascially Robert’s to run.

244 piratedan  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:03:31am

re: #243 Heywood Jabloeme

Did you actually read the article. He didn’t just get a better deal he signed a deal with the devel. The NYT piece made it very clear when it decribed the joke of the way that the FISA and review courts works.

The current situation is basically the Exective branch doing anything that it can get away with in order to cover it ass, even though many claim that it doesn’t work anyway, supervised by Roberts. It is by design, not accountaqble to the regular courts. Why maybe it could pass that review. But in reality it would go the SCOTUS and the same 5 judges that failed to protect minority voters rights would give away of 4th Amendmant rights, But at least we woud know. Now FISA and it review court FISCA is a kangaroo court under Robert’s thumb.

Obama doesn’t have to be Nixon. He just has to accpet the status quo.

Read tne entire article - the current of court review process is bascially Robert’s to run.

not my take on the article at all, sounds like you’re devolving into a monster shouter. Based on how the laws are written and based on who has the authority/oversight to appoint the judges and who has the authority to amend the law, how is this on the Executive? Wyden and Udall have concerns along with the remainder of the Progressive caucus, great, draft a bill, amend the law. Get it passed, in this political environment, please proceed. You honestly think Obama would refuse to sign it? With his history on the issues that were placed upon his desk during the heydey of Nancy Smash and the halcyon days (approx 3 months) of the Dem control of the Senate with 60 votes, please remind me of all of the progressive legislation that was passed that Obama refused to sign…..

245 krypto  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:24:05am

re: #242 Heywood Jabloeme

So, I don’t understand who those expert who supporting it are? Clapper - he lied, admitted and appolgized for it.

Names that come immediately to mind are Gen. Keith Alexander, Feinstein (Select Committee on Intelligence), McCain, Kerry, …

Or are people “experts” if and only if they agree with you?

246 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:59:37am

re: #217 Heywood Jabloeme

If you don’t think that this is a watershed moment you do need to read some news other than LGF.

I do, though. This is what I’m not getting about why you post these dumb insults. I know I read more than LGF. Why would you use that?

247 dcabogado  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 7:29:28am

re: #240 Heywood Jabloeme

the ACLU’s strategy is probably to begin the crack the secret nut open with the discovery phase

The NSA would block any discovery with a Reynolds challenge. How would the ACLU avoid a nonjusticiability barrier?

248 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 8:50:11am

re: #247 dcabogado

The NSA would block any discovery with a Reynolds challenge. How would the ACLU avoid a nonjusticiability barrier?

Is that similar to the “National Secrets” challenge the DOJ used to previously shoot down a Patriots Act case?

This would be another victory for the ACLU. They want either to go to court and use discovery to get more info and argue the merits to establish precedent and change public opinion or force the Constitional Lawyer President to use Security State arguments thus continue and add to the heat from his HONEST critics on the left.

In short a Pyyric victory is the best that he can hope for.

249 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 8:50:53am

re: #246 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I do, though. This is what I’m not getting about why you post these dumb insults. I know I read more than LGF. Why would you use that?

You comment like you have access to no more.

250 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 8:54:13am

re: #245 krypto

Names that come immediately to mind are Gen. Keith Alexander, Feinstein (Select Committee on Intelligence), McCain, Kerry, …

Or are people “experts” if and only if they agree with you?

Oh you mean the mixture of Republican NeoCons who are sooo right about National Security (“Bomb, Bomb, …..Bomb, Bomb Iran) and the Keith Alexander who says “Trust me, it works” and you should read more carfefully the remarks of Kerry and Feinstein. They are in the same boat as many who have previously voted for the Patriot Act. They damn it with faint praise.

251 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 8:56:10am

re: #249 Heywood Jabloeme

You comment like you have access to no more.

How so? Instead of making assertions, try actually backing them up. What have I said that shows a lack of access to other news sources?

252 dcabogado  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 10:35:02am

re: #248 Heywood Jabloeme

want either to go to court and use discovery to get more info

You didn’t answer the question. The NSA would block any discovery with a Reynolds challenge. How would the ACLU avoid a nonjusticiability barrier?

Hint: this may be a trick question.

253 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 11:35:53am

I don’t know the intricacies nore terminolgy of the legal system but you miss the point.

Having to simply answer the charges and then filing anything is a loss for the process and a balck eye for Obama. He is already held accoutable for many on the left for using the “States Secrects” argument to stop an earlier case. This was widel covered in the press and much amplified in the more liberal press.

Here is a link to one of her episodes and last I heard she is a staunch Obama surporter.

Can you imagine what she and others will say if Obama uses another “trick” to get out of litigating this. She makes the point that Obama is using “Bush era tactics”.

It may be trick question but this is a no-win for Obama. Many more of these are coming. I just signed up to be a party to a class action case since I am a Verizon customer.

254 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 11:37:02am

Sorry here is the link.

Link

255 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:01:01pm

re: #253 Heywood Jabloeme

I just signed up to be a party to a class action case since I am a Verizon customer.

Really? Is that the class action suit filed by Larry Klayman, the far right Birther who has called for an armed revolution against President Obama?

Lovely.

policymic.com

256 dcabogado  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:11:14pm

re: #253 Heywood Jabloeme

Having to simply answer the charges

Once again, you’ve not answered the question. The NSA would block any discovery with a Reynolds challenge. How would the ACLU avoid a nonjusticiability barrier?

257 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:39:52pm

Ok, I’ll bite. noidea.

258 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:44:40pm

re: #255 Charles Johnson

Really? Is that the class action suit filed by Larry Klayman, the far right Birther who has called for an armed revolution against President Obama?

Lovely.

policymic.com

Yep. They can use pigs to find truffles.

It’s a sad world when a guy with the class, intelligence etc of Obama lets himself get into a postion to take the role of a bad guy and leave it up to creeps like Rand Paul and Klayman to be the good guys.

259 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:49:54pm

re: #258 Heywood Jabloeme

They’re not the good guys.

260 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 12:56:54pm

re: #258 Heywood Jabloeme

There’s no possible world in which Rand Paul and Larry Klayman are “the good guys,” or in which you can possibly excuse signing on to what they’re selling.

“The good guys.” SMH. Your perspective is getting very warped. You’re allowing these people to play you like a trumpet.

261 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:30:36pm

People on this site people like McCain to defend Obama in this case and they totally ignore the fact that the entire Patriot Act and the way that the NSA uses them are creations of the same NeoCons and Security State founding members that enabled Bush.

Does it bother you that Bush now gets to gloat that Obama has basically taken up his anti-terrorism policies?

So, I’ll take the Klaymans et al in the world and trade you one Roberts who runs a series of Kangaroo Courts in purportedly protecting my rigthts. He didn’t do such a good job protecting minorty’s voting rights did he? Well, I am originally from Texas and they are violating our rights now just as much as Roberts has no allowed the bigots and racists in control on Texas politics violate women and minorities there.

On this issue, Obama is a bas guy and he is in bed with many more.

262 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:34:50pm

re: #259 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

They’re not the good guys.

Many people including many who would normally be supportive of Obama agree that they are.

Rand and Klayman are on the same side of this issue as more than half of Obama once fellow Dem Senators.

And he is losing more each day.

NSA Backlash Hits Privacy Legislation
“Congress may have the [Snowden] NSA leaks to thank for tipping the scales on privacy legislation.”
And despite a push by the Obama administration, members have gone silent on a bill to expand federal wiretapping capabilities — the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

Link

263 Varek Raith  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 2:06:59pm

re: #258 Heywood Jabloeme

It’s sad that all you seem to have on your ‘side’ are the creeps.
Says something, don’t it?

264 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 2:16:25pm

re: #263 Varek Raith

It’s sad that all you seem to have on your ‘side’ are the creeps.
Says something, don’t it?

Uh, more than half of the Senate Dems, the NYT, WaPo and many others are also on my side. Isn’t it wonderful when one can live content in thier own little world of thier own creation undisturbed by reality?

265 Heywood Jabloeme  Mon, Jul 8, 2013 2:17:54pm

re: #264 Heywood Jabloeme

Uh, more than half of the Senate Dems, the NYT, WaPo and many others are also on my side. Isn’t it wonderful when one can live content in thier own little world of thier own creation undisturbed by reality?

Let me guess, you count Hannity and O’Reily, who are on yourside as “non-creeps”?

Catch a clue.

266 krypto  Tue, Jul 9, 2013 5:24:00am

re: #250 Heywood Jabloeme

Oh you mean the mixture of Republican NeoCons who are sooo right about National Security (“Bomb, Bomb, …..Bomb, Bomb Iran) and the Keith Alexander who says “Trust me, it works” and you should read more carfefully the remarks of Kerry and Feinstein. They are in the same boat as many who have previously voted for the Patriot Act. They damn it with faint praise.

So agreeing with you makes a senator or Congressman an “expert,” and disagreeing with you, no matter what their competence and experience with what they are talking about, makes them one of “creeps.” Nice.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 86 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0