Some Actual, You Know, FACTS About the NSA Intercepts: Hysteria Free

Mr. Robbins seems to have missed the point. The President is not claiming use under FISA. The administration would utilize the FISA courts in the cases Mr. Robbins cites. Mr. Bush and his Attorney General, Mr. Gonzolez proffered an explanation based upon "war powers" granted after Sept. 11th.

My question concerning this episode: Why not utilize FISA under all circumstances? It allows for the "ticking clock" senario mentioned by the administration. You can begin tapping transmissions 72 hours before even applying for a warrant under the statute. Why take out the (minimal) check that is the FISA courts in these cases?

 

FISA requests under W were approved 99.9% of the time; indeed, from 1979 to 2002, over 15,000 FISA requests were filed, and not a single one was rejected.. The only plausible explanation for going around FISA would be that Bush and company were tapping the lines for purposes other than those allowed under FISA.

Also, the explanation trotted out by Rice and Gonzalez that the Congressionally-authorized use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq somehow granted a power to the Executive branch which does not exist is simply a bald-faced lie.

 

Mr. Archer, my theory?

If it was, I have no great love of the FBI or CIA of past. I am equally upset over the use of these tools by former Presidents (i.e. Kennedy or Nixon) or others in government. I can understand directing these efforts in protection of the United States such as in the case of Presidents Clinton and Bush. What I don't understand is not utilizing the FISA methodolgy. Yes, members of congress have been briefed (not sure entirely who, no one has said exactly), but why skip the courts when they are fully capable of providing what the President and his team need need.

Note: On the use of obtaining a wiretap autorization: The Law states that you can begin the tap at any point in the case of emergency and place the application for FISA warrant upto 72 hours after the tap has been placed. The writers of the law forsaw episodes of great urgency and planned for it.

Citation: U.S. Code: Title 50 > Chapter 36 > Subchapter 36 > Section 1805 (f)

 

If speed is the sole considertion, FISA still provides up to 72 hours of surveillance without a warrant, so what's the problem?

 

Count me as another person who considers the wire taps of MLK to have been utterly disgraceful and an enormous stain on the Kennedy legacy. I don't know anything about the Clinton case, but I'll read your links when I have more time.

As far as misuse, well, this bit about the FBI's use of its counter-terrorism unit to investigate PETA and Greenpeace is cause for concern, no matter which side of the fence you call home. From the link:

So perhaps you've been right all along: maybe I am actually a terrorist.

 

Neither I nor the article said word one about wiretaps because the essential point is that Bush assured us that non-court-approved wiretaps were a necessary investigative tool and that we should trust him and the FBI on this. Then we learn that the FBI is investigating PETA and Greenpeace. His case for the necessity of these wiretaps is undermined by the ridiculousness of what the FBI apparently considers terrorism.

(a) They're using "confidential informants" (i.e., moles). That's more than surveillance; that's spying.

(b) You're making the same mistake that the FBI is making: you're conflating PETA and Greenpeace with Animal Liberation Front and Earth First!, respectively. Not the same.

Watch your back, Archer. I'm a terrorist now!

 

Some Greenpeace shennanigans:

I'll look for the link later, but there's some evidence of ALF and ELF having at least some dealings (financial and otherwise) with GP and PETA respectively. ALF and ELF are domestic terror organizations causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage every year. Something that the FBI definately needs to investigate. GP and PETA forgot the old adage: Sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

 

I do wish that PETA were stronger in their condemnation of ALF, but I've never heard of any financial dealings. (I'll read your link when you find it, though.) ALF is not really an organization; it's simply a label that certain extremists use. I don't understand how they could have any financial dealings, although they've perhaps endorsed some activities done in the name of ALF. PETA is a good organization, but they're obviously not perfect.

As far as the acts you note, I see plenty of examples of tresspassing and vandalism, all of which are illegal and all of which fall considerably short of what anyone would consider terrorism. (For the record, I think it's silly when the left labels Operation Rescue a terrorist organization.)

EF does appear to have crossed that line, however, as did Eric Rudolph.

 

PETA ELF and ALF:

Sleep with dogs...

 

When I see that photo, I think, what in the world is that guy doing? It's apparently linked with some kind of protest or deeper message, but the message is totally incoherent. Furthermore, he's an ugly, ugly bastard. He needs to get the hell off of that stage.



























And the "soy bomb" guy is weird, too.

 

Interesting read. I'm going to have to look into some of this.

Newkirk, I've always known, is insane. The New Yorker's profile of her was not terribly flattering. I hadn't realized that she has said and done some of these things.

 

I'm looking over some of the accusations noted in that piece. Those involving ALF are quite disturbing, but in some cases, that web site does not present the entire story.

For example, the information about Neal Barnard is grossly unfair, even if his organization is linked with PETA. I plugged his name into the Medline database (I have access via work), and he's got a long history of publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals. The study of type II diabetes that involved only 7 subjects was likely only a preliminary study. I glanced at some related articles by Barnard, and the study samples in some of these studies ranged from 650 subjects to a long-term study of Seventh Day Adventists that included data on 25,000 subjects. Barnard is legitimate.

Before I made the decision to go vegan, I did a lot of research on the health consequences/benefits, and I relied exclusively on information from peer-reviewed medical journals (i.e., nothing from PETA). The studies all came to the same conclusions: it's an extremely healthy way of life, so long as the vegan has a good source of B12 and one or two other nutrients.

The accusation that PETA kills animals is likewise grossly misleading. My wife and I volunteer at a local animal shelter. It is not a no-kill shelter. However, that does not mean that the shelter simply euthanizes dogs that cannot be adopted. The animals subject to euthanasia are either sick with a serious or terminal illness (as is often the case with strays) or are unadoptable because of serious behavioral problems (e.g., dogs rescued from dog-fighting rings). All others are treated, tested, and put up for adoption. If the dog is not adopted after a long while, it is moved to another shelter. Dogs are never euthanized because they haven't found an owner yet. Hard cases often undergo obedience training, to make them more adoptable. The numbers are misleading, because the sad fact is that most animals that are given to shelters are in serious trouble. The euthanasia is humane.

Thus, I'm a little leery of your source, but I admit that some awful actions have been done in the name of animal welfare.

Newkirk is still nuts. I don't like some of the rhetoric that comes from PETA (material involving the holocaust and slavery is rare, but it does appear from time to time, and it sickens me every time). But PETA is bigger than Newkirk, and their official stance on protest is that they oppose harm done to any animal, including humans.

Finally, they have a dazzling ability to get noticed.

In case you're interested, our donations to PETA aren't much more than the yearly fee and one or two donations for specific projects. We've also written letters to organizations and persons that PETA has singled out, including J Crew. Those campaigns were successful--much more successful than anything ALF has done. We give far more money to Farm Sanctuary and to the Humane Society of the United States.

And, as I've said before, the most eloquent advocate of animal welfare that I've ever read is Matthew Scully, who is not only a Republican, but was a speechwriter for George W. Bush.

 

And the current law, that the Administration skirted, already allows for this. Just go to a secret court and get the act rubber-stamped. If it's clearly justified, there is no problem, and the court will retroactively approve it.

Well, that's kind of the point - the executive branch is trying to bypass the oversight the courts provide.

This is serious Bill. This is the Executive trying to neuter various checks-and-balances in the Constitution. Raising a stink is most certainly NOT "political posturing".

 

A blast from the past.

 

Contending, and actually doing, are two different things. That said, I'm not comfortable with warrentless searches of any kind.

As for what an incredibly pathological liar this President is...

 

We've discussed this point before - if there is an election to be had for a politician, then *everything* they do has an eye towards an upcoming election. But you didn't say "Congressional Democrats", you continue to say "the left". I think that includes me, and I don't give a rat's ass about the letter next to my reps name - I care that my rep cares about the same things I do.

Boxer is screeching about it because her constituants are screeching about it.

You are listening to a conversation involving someone inside the US, possibly a citizen. If it's such a slam-dunk justification, just go get the goddamn warrant.

If they've got a court order, I've got no beef.

I'm not the least bit worried about being blown up at the mall. The likelyhood of that happening is so small that I'm far more worried about the constant erosion of the rights of citizens and growing power of the government.

No, it's not. I strongly reject the claim that there can even be a "War on Terrorism". A war against Al-Quada, sure.

Besides, I'm not going to be bullied into surrendering civil liberties by the government because they claim it's in my best interest. Screw that.

Again, it's awfully hard to point out abuses when the gov't works so hard to hide everything they do. Hell, the Administration is even hiding their actions from a federal court!

Give it time - sooner or later stuff will leak. This was the same question posed to those who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act, and in time a huge laundry list of abuses came to light.

The original story, BTW, pointed out that the NSA began monitoring people who were, at best, tangentially related to the actual targets. Did somebody you talk to one your cell at some point talk to a person under surveillance? Then you might also be under surveillance. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

What can I say? I don't trust gov't actions that are cloaked in secrecy.

 

*Poof*

There goes the Echelon talking point:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/