I'm with Frank Rich. There's another chapter here. Bush is leaving himself with only 2 options, an insanity plea or the continued Libby/Rove "I don't remember" incompetence plea. NYT piece this morning points toward sheer volume NSA was gathering and passing to FBI. And what has the FBI done with all the "useless" tap info? Probably sold it to mass marketers.
Posted by mainsailset at January 17, 2006 08:44 AMGreat post. By the way is warrantless a specific legal term? I am not a lawyer so I don't know. I've heard people using it and wonder why people don't use "unwarranted search" instead. I think an unwarranted search is a stronger term because it implies that it is without justification and puts the burden of justification on the Administration. Further if they attack you, you can say "if you don't have enough for a warrant it is unwarranted". In contrast, warrantless search make it sound like there is a legal catagory of warantless searches making it seem OK.
Posted by beal at January 17, 2006 08:48 AM"Warrantless" is legally descritpive, as in "without the required judicially approved search warrant."
It doesn't mean "unwarranted" in the general sense like "unfounded."
FISA requires a judicially approved warrant.
This is so typical of BushCo. it makes me laugh when I see it. Time and time again, they break they law or just outright screw something up and then claim it was because they were stopping some evil terrorist. The frightened masses continue to fall for their game.
The reality is that BushCo. could have gotten the same results by following the law. Same thing with the attempt to get a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer - they couldn't make the case to FISA to get a warrant but even the FBI agent involved admitted that they could have gotten a warrant through local law enforcement. But all we hear about this is that we need to let them circumvent FISA to save us from the evil terrorists.
Posted by ann at January 17, 2006 09:34 AMHaven't had an color code terrorist alerts since, well, let me see, was it the last election? It must be because of all that warrantless spying.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 09:52 AMHaven't had an color code terrorist alerts since, well, let me see, was it the last election? It must be because of all that warrantless spying.
They still show this on the ticker on Fox. LOL. And recently I saw it on CNN. But you're right, it hasn't changed from yellow since the last election. I thought it was because Tom Ridge was gone.
Posted by ann at January 17, 2006 09:54 AM"They still show this on the ticker on Fox."
Ann, interesting you mentioned Fox. The other day while at a GOP friend's house, Fox News had a red banner across the lower part of the screen that read "Iran's Nuclear Threat" or some such nonsense. It stayed visable for the entire program. I mentioned to my Sister that I wondered how many watchers of Fox were having that message embedded in their pea brains.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 10:53 AMOkay, even if we were to accept at minimum part of the story I will mention below, I still see some potential problems with this case???
We learn the gov't was already legally spying on Faris through FISA and sounds as if info about him may actually have been obtained through legal measures they were using...(just saying this for the sake of argument here, even though you show that wasn't even the case). Yet for some reason Bushco is out there touting the illegal spying measures as the reason he was nabbed. Now to me, and I am not a lawyer, the WH claim might actually hurt/taint the gov't prosecutor's case..no?...Because they used illegal measures to gather information and how will they prove that the information was gathered through the legal process versus the illegal process?
Posted by emal at January 17, 2006 04:48 PMeRiposte, you seem to place a lot of value on the geographical location and legal status of these so-called "United States persons" when you make your case. But I suspect my own notions of sacred soil are different from yours. I think, for you, any person who is on American soil is inherently protected by our laws ---even when he is an agent of our enemies.
In this new war, the anti-war Left wish to manage our intelligence operations as though we were facing only criminals instead of belligerents. That is a political mistake that will keep on punishing you people until you relent. No fooling: the Democratic Party will never regain the Congress or the Presidency until they acknowledge that we are in a clash of civilizations.
And, frankly, it pisses me off that you people can't get your story straight or make your moral judgements stick. You make one-party rule too easy. Get back on the right side of this War against Islamofascism and you'll be back in power; keep on playing these games and the American People will keep on brushing you back.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 17, 2006 06:59 PMToby,
Why don't you take some time to make yourself knowledgeable about the meaning of the term "U.S. persons" (citizens and permanent residents) before you spout nonsense?
Have you even read the FISA statute?
Let me help you:
FISA, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36- FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE, SUBCHAPTER I, Section 1801:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
"(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section."
Posted by eriposte at January 17, 2006 07:25 PMEmal,
>> Now to me, and I am not a lawyer, the WH claim might actually hurt/taint the gov't prosecutor's case..no?...Because they used illegal measures to gather information and how will they prove that the information was gathered through the legal process versus the illegal process?
You are absolutely right and this is one of the things I also highlighted in my earlier post. What they are doing is using a desperate lie to try and salvage Bush's criminality - in the process jeopardizing the cases they may have against numerous terrorism suspects using legal means of evidence collection. These people simply do not care about fighting terrorism in any serious way.
Posted by eriposte at January 17, 2006 07:28 PMtp, you really are off your game tonight. Is that really you...well the racist part is a dead give away but the argument part is so lame... even for you.
Try reading the whole post first. Then maybe you would have read this part about how Faris was " a Columbus, Ohio, truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen". Wow, last I checked Columbus Ohio soil is located here in the US, and he is a US citizen to boot. But hey even if that won't suit you because he was a one of non-white US citizens type folk you despise.... well there's lots more that should please you if you had only read the post.
You see if you actual read everything here you would have also learned that FISA had already approved spying on him (Faris) and he was being spied on legally! And, get this even better (FISA wasn't even needed) because "the U.S. Government had a foreign source (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) allegedly linking Faris to Al Qaeda. That source - being entirely foreign - was not subject to the FISA prohibition against warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons.
You need to spend less time over at Freerepublic and LGF, Malkin and Powerliars these days...it's ruining your schtick...you're definitely off you game (well except for the racist part).
eriposte, why isn't Faris eligible for revocation of his citizenship on the grounds of treason? He was a foreign-born affiliate of al-Qaeda and plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge on their orders, so why shouldn't he be stripped of his citizenship?
What is it that you get out of defending this sort of person, anyway?
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 17, 2006 08:07 PMthe Democratic Party will never regain the Congress or the Presidency until they acknowledge that we are in a clash of civilizations.
And thank God we are bringing them some democracy. Beats the hell out the textbooks we sent their religous schools in the 70's telling them they need to make Jihad against foreigners (Russians). Yep, A real culture clash on that one.
emal, it sounds to me like Faris isn't the best possible person for your side to champion. If his al-Qaedist links were established independently of any domestic intelligence-gathering, doesn't that make your legal case as superfluous as the unwarranted searches were? It would certainly appear that way to the American People if the anti-war Left were honest in describing it correctly. But they aren't, so everybody goes around believing that Chimpy McHitlerburton is spying on us for our political beliefs and, possibly, our queso recipes.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 17, 2006 08:19 PMOnce again you are all pretty much full of shit. You are equating the wart on terror as a legal matter and not one of national survial. This is a war pure and simple and the Constitution charges the President of the United States as Commander in Chief to command the armed forces of the US. Woud you deny a battlefeild commander any chance to develope intelligence to execute his mission. I guess what my Drill Sargent told long ago that there are two types of soldiers applies equally to politicians its really quite simple and that is that there are ass kickers and ass lickers and seems democrats like the taste of shit.
Posted by Avenger D-22 at January 17, 2006 08:22 PMYou are equating the wart on terror as a legal matter and not one of national survial
Revenger,
This isn't a matter of national survival. The war on terra is no WWII and Bush is no FDR, not even close. During the cold war the Soviets had the ability to deliver nuclear destruction at will. We managed to survive this real threat without resorting to unconstitutional measures. Al Qaeda cannot compete with the old USSR as a threat, yet FISA allows for wiretaps with approval granted days later if needed.
Posted by rlp at January 17, 2006 08:45 PMToby,
>> eriposte, why isn't Faris eligible for revocation of his citizenship on the grounds of treason? He was a foreign-born affiliate of al-Qaeda and plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge on their orders, so why shouldn't he be stripped of his citizenship?
You should ask Dear Leader this question. After all he's your King, not I. Did Dear Leader strip him of citizenship yet?
>> What is it that you get out of defending this sort of person, anyway?
I can understand why you would ask this question since you don't actually read my posts. Even to the most obvious nutcase a read of my post will make it clear that it is not a "defense" of Faris but a debunking of the claim that a warrantless wiretap was required to catch Faris. My response to emal above must have made it even clearer to anyone but the nuttiest joker that I was actually arguing that Bush is jeopardizing his case against Faris by claiming the case was based on illegal spying, rather than solidifying the case against Faris by emphasizing that the conviction was based on legally obtained evidence.
Posted by eriposte at January 17, 2006 09:17 PMemal, it sounds to me like Faris isn't the best possible person for your side to champion.
As eriposte said above, No one is "championing" Faris here. Just saying that the gov't already had/possessed all the legal means/tools at their disposal necessary to nab the guy, which they used...good for US... It proved that the system was already successfully working even without the illegal spying added into it.
Avenger and your post is relevant because.... ? Name calling is a really good argument.
Posted by emal at January 18, 2006 04:39 AMYou quoted John with "many prominent people are likely - and accidentally." But what if it's not accidental?
Nixon had an enemies list. Anti-war protesters were on it because their protests supposedly demoralized the troops. The DNC was also on it because Nixon's opponents might get elected to Congress and stop some of his naughtier activities. Anyone who opposes the President is, after all, hurting the war effort and thereby endangering nation (so the theory goes).
Bush is cast in the same mould as Nixon (and Oliver Cromwell). He is the Lord Protector and opposing him damages national security. His enemies list is even greater than Nixon's, since anyone who is not for him is against him.
So who are Bush's biggest enemies? How about the Democrats who keep voting against his bills (I say Bush's bills because the administration tells Congressional Republicans what bills they want these days). And the centrist Republicans who cannot stomach some of his bills. And those Republicans who see Bush's popularity plummeting and think voting for his bills may cost them an election.
What if Bush were to wiretap Congress critters? There are always some with marital infidelities and sexual foibles. And a lot who skirt a little (or a lot, in some cases) too far over the line when it comes to doing favours for gifts. Plenty of blackmail material. With luck, Bush could swing a few votes in his direction. That could make a big difference these days now that his bills pass by very narrow margins and some fail to pass. That would make him look like less of a lame duck. And if some people refuse to be blackmailed, their secrets can be outed at the next election and maybe the voters will turn against them.
What if there were a lot of blackmailable Congress Critters on both sides? Then Bush could get pretty much any legislation he wanted. No more having to give John Yoo an overdose of LSD so he'll come up with one of his bizarre, alternate-reality legal constructs. Instead of Bush having to resort to dodgy legal tricks that even the MSM are catching on to, he can instead say "Congress passed this legislation, I'm just doing their bidding exactly as written." At this stage of a descent into dictatorship, Bush needs the semblance of legitimacy to his actions.
Even worse is if Bush can get one-third of the Senate (or half of the House) under his thumb. At that point he becomes unimpeachable. Literally. Half the House is needed to agree to articles of impeachment. One-third of the Senate can cause impeachment proceedings to fail.
Worst case is if Bush can get enough of Congress and of various state legislatures to permit him to amend the constitution at will. Then it's goodbye XXIInd Amendment, hello President-for-life Dubya the first.
The good news is that Republicans seem to be more prone to marital infidelity, more prone to sexual foibles (that their core voters take more seriously than Democratic voters) and far more prone to corruption. Yes, it really is good news. Because it means that if you point out what Bush could do if he starts wiretapping Congress Critters, they'll realize they're at risk. Only a handful of them go along with Bush's extreme positions, the rest just hang onto his coattails because they want to stay in power. None of them are going to want to become Bush finger-puppets unable to vote against his imperious commands.
You doubt me? Just point out to the Republicans that Bush and Cheney are such corrupt bastards that if they find evidence of Delay-like dealings they're going to want a big cut of the action on top of total obedience.
So bring this matter to the attention of the Republicans in Congress. Point out that if they don't impeach Bush soon, enough of them may come under his thumb that impeachment will then be impossible.
Posted by Brian de Ford at January 18, 2006 02:31 PMThis case is one of many "terrorist" prosecutions where trial was avoided because the defendant was put in an untenable position: cop a plea, no matter how factitious, or it's off to Guantanamo, or Bagram, or Diego Garcia, or...who knows where. What the man was charged with is so risible on its face that a proper jury trial would have collapsed the government's case; but, of course, there was no trial, as plea-bargaining prevented disclosure of the means of determining Faris' culpability. And this pattern will continue to repeat itself, as torture yields more "linked to al-Qaeda" so-called "suspects", pleas are negotiated, and yet another "success in the war on terror" will be trumpeted by Bush. Truly pathetic excuse for "the legal process".
Posted by barrisj at January 18, 2006 07:34 PM