Redstate

They've rejected 6 requests out of 5,645?  Holy cow, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations that's more than 0.1% of the requests.  Those hidebound dinosaurs!  You're right, in approving 99.9% of the requests, they really aren't rubberstamping them.

Also, can you please clarify this, because either I'm really dumb (a possibility) or you're fudging the numbers:

"    But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requestsfor court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.

That's right. Since we've been at war this court has modified 179 of the 181 requests for warrants presented to it."

"Since we've been at war this court has modified 179 of the 181 requests for warrants presented to it."

I didn't see any reference in the article to 179 of 181 -- I say the same bit you quoted, which says 179 of 5,645.  That means that just over 3% of the requests are modified -- and of course, "modified" has a very wide range of meanings.  And 6 rejections?  Given the piles that were accepted, it seems reasonable to think that maybe (just maybe) those were actually unreasonable requests.  But that's not why I really wanted to post this --

All of this said, it should be clear that there are two competing hypotheses for why there should be alterations and rejections now:  1) As you say, the "FISA courts have chosen a time of war to flex their muscle."  2) The recent requests have been dicier than they were in the past.  (1) requires that FISA courts be not only obstructionist, but obstructionist for no reason whatsoever (it's not like they have political points to earn).  (2), however, seems to be reasonable, especially given the "we're at war" mentality, when you should expect the feds to be monitoring things much more closely.

An application of Occam's Razor then should be enough to assuage paranoia about FISA courts gone wild.

that 179 of the 181 mods the court has offered in its history have been since 2001.

When viewed against its track record it gives the impression of a distinct hostility towards intelligence activities. It certainly gives the lie to the idea that going to FISA was a rubber stamp.

You think the fact that a minimal number of warrants were rejected is an indication of the court's failure?

I don't see how you can frame the court's extremely discrete exercise of its review authority as some sort of failure.

Wars are not waged by warrants, writs, and depositions. They are waged by hard men, kicking down doors in the night. Wars are not waged by arrests and indictments. They are waged by whisking suspected enemy combatants and sympathizers off the street and spiriting them away to parts unknown. Wars are not waged by wiretaps justified by probable cause. They are waged by intelligence operations directed against anyone in communications with our enemies, and these operations may include intercepting their communications, and rifling their papers and possessions, before kicking down their door and whisking them away to some Third World hellhole.

Sorry, but this does not fly under the Constitution. Believe it or not, the executive branch does not have unchecked power. When it comes to wiretapping that require warrants, the FISA court is one such check. Discomfort with the way in which this check is manifested is not grounds to pretend that it does not exist.

Also, your notion of how "wars" are waged does not comport with the Geneva Convention, among other things.

By this post, you seem perilously close to saying that any action the Administration would like to take is justified because we are at war.  That seems like a pretty extreme case to make, and I don't think one necessarily needs to be a liberal to disagree with it.

Oh!  I see what you meant now.  If you're point is that 179 of the 181 mods have happened since 2001, that's an interesting point.  But still, like I've said, there is more than one explanation for why that should be.

That said, it might be helpful to edit that post, because the sentence in question ("That's right. Since we've been at war this court has modified 179 of the 181 requests for warrants presented to it") really does sound like you mean that the court has seen 181 requests since 2001 and modified all but 2 of them, which would be much more distressing.

you're -> your.  I'm a terrible human being.

We, on the right, have repeatedly stated we are at war.

I don't feel that the president has ever clearly stated our objectives in the War on Terror. How we will know when it's over?

I would be more comfortable with the notion of giving up some civil liberties during wartime if I had some assurance that the war will end at some point.

If Leon is correct, There have been 5,645 requests.

Of those 173(3.065%) were modified

6(0.106%) were rejected.

It's small potatoes, but 179 number came from adding the modified and rejected.  Since it goes on to mention the 6 rejected, one would thing that those would not be included in the amount modifed.

Accurately we would say this:

179 of 5645 (3.17%) were not accepted exactly as worded

5466 of 5645 (96.83%) were accepted exactly as worded

Just in the interest of presenting the numbers accurately.  I'm thinking 179 out of 181 was some sort of typo?

Given that over 95% of them were awarded without a problem, I would think it is reasonable to assume that 3% actually did have a problem.

179 out of the 181 rejected have been since 2001. 2 rejected in the 22 years before. Inartfully worded, but clear with "reading."

Read below.

I see what he meant, it's just stated in a very misleading way.

You mean "modified", not "rejected", I believe.

Activities is well known and the subject of Congressional testimony by Senior FBI Managers.

During 2001 not a SINGLE Al Qaeda warrant was presented to the court because it threw a temper tantrum in late 2000 over the issue and let the FBI know that no warrants would be approved.

9/11 happened in part because FISA would not approve warrants for Al Qaeda monitoring.

Moreover, rejecting 181 warrants is serious at a time of increased Al Qaeda plots to kill Americans. The balance in a rational court would go to saving lives.

The Court and Dems have made it clear: civil liberties of terrorists plotting to kill Americans are more important that American lives.

It's not like he was hiding his data source, and streiff is smart enough not to lie while putting the correction in the same paragraph.

the blockquote uses the figure of 5,645 since 2001

where does 181 come from?

Soon, soon.

mean to imply that it was intentional.  Just easily misunderstood.

Losing my right to call my Al Qaida buddies up on their cellies to chat about the Jihad without having them be the subject of warrantless monitoring. I'm giving up a lot, I know, but I think it's worth it.

There is no part of the constitution that requires the judiciary to be a part to the exercise of Article II powers: waging war.

My idea of how to wage war is firmly grounded in the Geneva Conventions which prevents none of the activities I've cited. In fact, in the current circumstances the Geneva Conventions prevents nothing as it only covers conflicts between contracting parties.

what am I missing here?

And there's a pretty straightforward explanation for why the court suddenly started denying applications -- because Bush wanted to spy on people he had no business spying on.  Like vegans, Catholics, and animal rights activists protesting llama fur.  

This doesn't suggest that FISA impedes fighting terrorism.  It suggests that FISA impedes spying on non-terrorists.  

I don't see how you can frame the court's extremely discrete exercise of its review authority as some sort of failure.

To be accurate, streiff and others have pointed to other reasons for the FISA court's "failure".  Most notably, the idea that each and every intercept needs a warrant (which a court might speedily grant, or it might not) is archaic when compared against the speed and agility of today's communications technology.  Demanding a warrant for every intercept is a guarantee that our law enforcement agencies will forever be one step behind the terrorists.

Believe it or not, the executive branch does not have unchecked power.

Strawman cleanup, aisle 3.

When it comes to wiretapping that require warrants, the FISA court is one such check. Discomfort with the way in which this check is manifested is not grounds to pretend that it does not exist.

And discomfort with the way the Bush administration has prosecuted the War on Terror is not grounds to pretend that FISA is a larger check on the President's Article II authority than it really is, OR to fantasize that the weight of the prevailing settled case opinion on wiretaps without warrants does not favor the President (it does--see OpinionJournal last week for more details).

Also, your notion of how "wars" are waged does not comport with the Geneva Convention, among other things.

It does comport with how wars are really fought.  By looking at war realistically, instead as if living in a fantasy, we stand a greater chance of actually winning it!

fieldgoal, I hope you're a DNC talking head, or talking points writer.  We will pound opinions such as yours into the ground.

Sorry, but this does not fly under the Constitution.

And you are...a Supreme Court Justice? Actually, the SCOTUS and many others have held that FISA is not meant to override a President's authority to fight our nation's enemies.  That authority comes from--hey, whaddya know!... The Constitution, Article II! And then, there is that SCOTUS Justice who said that the Constitution was never meant to be interpreted as a suicide pact.  But hey--what did he know, anyway?

I don't really mean to split hairs here, but :

Even if you're right about everything else, it's important to note that 6 warrants were rejected, account for roughtly .1% of warrants requested over the last few years.  Several more were modified, but that can mean a wide range of things, no?  With numbers like that, we're pretty much in rubber-stamp land.  

what I say is the this particular court may have lost sight of the fact that we are at war. And what I say is that the Administration had good reason for cutting them out of the loop where it was able. And what I say is that if we are at war, and I believe we are, then the judiciary has no authority to limit the activies of the executive or legislative in waging that war.

unless you think the president could unilaterally raise armies and taxes in the course of 'waging war'?

that aside, without the Geneva Conventions in front of me, I'm sure they do not allow the transport of POWs to other nations for the purpose of torture, considering under the Convention even photographs for publicity purposes are considered degrading and are forbidden.

your blockquote talks about 'war' generically, so the Geneva Conventions are implicated.

Every President has the authority (and all civilized nations do) to suppress banditry and piracy without use of the Geneva Convention. By their very nature terrorists reject the protections and conventions of the Geneva Convention and the US has NEVER recognized terrorists as legal, lawful combatants.

Liberals and lunatic leftists want to encourage more terrorist attacks in the hope that they will defeat the US (when in fact they will just lead to awful mob actions and "Muslim-free" America). Regardless the law and contract is quite clear:

LAWFUL combatants wear insignia and uniforms, don't pretend to be civilians, carry arms openly, have a central command, don't intentionally target civilians, and follow the "rules" of warfare. In exchange for this contractural behavior they have the right to Geneva Convention treatment, not to be interrogated, etc. They can be shot on sight during combat, but if they surrender must be held as POWs.

Pirates and terrorists do not meet this distinction and basically anything the State wishes can be done to them. Usually that meant immediate execution. Jefforson, Madison, and yes Teddy Roosevelt all summarily hanged North African pirates. "Shores of Tripoli" ring a bell?

The President IS constrained by in say, using foreign intelligence and covert action against domestic criminals. He is NOT constrained against foreign agents including US citizens planning terrorist attacks and acting abroad. The President need no warrant to send men to kidnap say the terrorist who murdered Robert Stethem and finds comfort in Lebanon or Syria. Clinton needed none to kidnap the killers of CIA agents in the parking lot outside Langley (kidnapped out of Pakistan). None was needed for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 9/11 Architect kidnapped out of Pakistan.

INSIDE the US the Constitution applies, but the President like it or not enjoys plenary powers to protect public safety such as using intelligence derived information to summarily arrest Jose Padilla nee "Abu Jihad" who planned to blow up Apartments in Chicago and set off a dirty bomb.

It is debatable if the President can hold a US citizen inside the US who is an agent of Al Qaeda as a combatant or criminal defendant, but please argue that the President has no power to combat Al Qaeda inside the US if they are using US citizens.

Please tell the American People that if Al Qaeda sends US citizens we just have to submit to being blown up; the President can do nothing. I'm sure you'll find widespread support.

But I'm not convinced that communications with known terrorists is all that's being monitored.  There seems to be alot of doging and smokescreens when the scope of the taps is dicussed.

By this post, you seem perilously close to saying that any action the Administration would like to take is justified because we are at war.  

YOU are.  Or, you're trying to put words in his mouth.  May I remind you that streiff is from the Infantry?

Is this really the primary reaction you had to his post?

it was sloppily worded. I've since edited, or what we infantryman do that we call editing.

were rejected in 22 years, the fact that 6 were rejected while we are fighting a war with people who are really trying to kill us seems excessive. Zero sounds like a real good number.

your parade of nonsequitors aside, are you asserting that performing wiretaps without warrants that legally require warrants is legal?

and when you raise up the hoary adage that the constitution is not a suicide pact, are you implicitly conceding that such wiretaps were not legal?

as for my so-called strawman, i think an unchecked executive in wartime is a fair reading of streiff's post

lastly, the united states is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. regardless if you agree or disagree with the Geneva Convention, it is the law of the land.

Who is arguing about raising armies or raising taxes? No one as far as I see.

Gee, you really ought to get them in front of you before you say things that embarass you. The GC are only effective between parties who have signed the GC. Unless you want to show me where al-Qaeda signed the GC, drop it.

before calling me a 'loon,' you would notice that i blockquoted a secion of streiff's post where he referred to what must occur in "war" in general, not in this particular war.

thanks.

I'm sick of people acting as though the NSA is running around listening to some random person talking to their grandmother. They're listening to TERRORISTS. It's not that difficult a concept. If you're not talking to Al Queda members on the phone then the NSA is not listening to you.

Well, I'm not sure if you're arguing the the FISA courts approve every warrant application or every reasonable warrant application.  If the former, then there is literally no use for them -- if you're going to fault them for any refusal, then why bother having them at all?  If the latter, then how do you know that the number of unreasonable warrant requests has gone up?  Like I've said, you might expect more unreasonable requests given a mentality of "we'd better cast a wide net in trying to stop these guys."

When I see information that was obtained in a warrantless search of a non-terrorist used against him in some way. For now I can just wear my tinfoil hat which does a pretty good job of blocking out the signals from the NSA mind reading satellites.

pre 2001, the court modified 2 out of 13K requests

post 2001, the court modified 179 out of 5k requests

the number 181 is not apropos here

But I'm not convinced that communications with known terrorists is all that's being monitored.

So?  The primary check/balance on the NSA in this matter is the Congressional Intelligence Committees.  BOTH of whom acknowledge they were briefed on the program.  I'm sorry, but the Constitution doesn't give you the right to insist on a report from the NSA, so that you can feel better.

There seems to be alot of doging and smokescreens when the scope of the taps is dicussed.

Maybe because... it's a CLASSIFIED PROGRAM?  One which uses the most sensitive of collection methods, and which could be blasted into uselessness if details about it are revealed.

Don't tell me this most basic fact escaped you.  If it did, you might consider changing your screenname to "carelessreasoning".

Yes, that's blunt talk.  But critical times call for direct talk, and frank expression.  American citizens owe it to our government and its leaders to look at GWOT-related matters carefully, thoroughly and honestly.  Opinions and position based on a flip, casual review of the matter is, IMO, a shirking of one's responsibilities as an American citizen in time of war.

You, as do all Americans, have a right to say what you think.  But, especially in a democracy, where citizens choose the rulers, we must expect the citizens to reason and consider carefully before they render opinions.  IMO, you haven't done so here.

2 (pre 2001) + 179 (post 2001) does not equal 181? Do tell.

you talked about war in general--i blockquoted it

thus, the GC is in effect

thus, your statement about war in general does not comport with the GC

moreover, your post reads as a call for the executive's ability to wage war unchecked. i am merely pointing out this power can overrun into other powers that are indeed checked. one such area is the wiretapping at issue.

I can't help but feel that you're arguing in circles, though. The administration is only compelled to go to a court because that's the law passed by Congress.  By "cutting [the judiciary] out of the loop," it's also ignoring the role of Congress.

That sounds like unfettered authority to me.

Bravo!  Excellent post. And, I had no problem understanding the content.

To All:  Having read this string - at least to this point - and chewing through the toiling interpretive machinations of such a simple presentation - no WONDER the administration considers it nearly impossible (and probably lethal) to explain intelligence operational necessity to obtuse bench-sitters already disinclined to walk-the-walk.

The real wonder is that we have so far managed to avoid another 9/11!

journalists / media ??

i finally see what you intend

179 of the 181 requests to ever be modified have occured post 2001

this is very different from what you present in your comment

When they stop trying to kill us

The GC doesn't apply in all cases. The GC doesn't prevent wiretaps. The GC doesn't prevent renditions. The GC doesn't prevent direct action.

I don't know what a "checked" power to wage war would look like, though reading what you guys propose leads me to believe that bowing towards Mecca five times a day and having our women in abayas would be key elements.

purposeful miscontruction of my comment?

the issues are separate

It seems that streiff has already generously taken the time to respond to my comment.

Thanks anyway.

I'll bet you'll be laughed off the stage.  Unless you're preaching to a MoveOn.org crowd.

I also decline to get into a back-and-forth with you.  I doubt I'll convince you, I know you won't convince me, and I've no interest in convincing you.

But you, on the other hand, are more than welcome to make the case that President Bush exceeded his authority, and acted wantonly and with malice, in authorizing this NSA surveillance.

Matter of fact, I encourage you to do so.  Because, after you're done with your speech, we can point to you and say "Is this the kind of thinking, the kind of reasoning you want to see in the people who are directly charged with keeping YOU safe from terrorists?"

I'll concede that three or four out of 10 will agree with you.  But I contend that five or six out of 10 will agree, either wholly or in part, with me.

And that kind of ratio is what lasting legislative majorities are built upon.

So, kick away, field goal!

here's your sign.

When looking at FISA reports from 01 through 04, I can only find 4 rejected in 2003, one of which, it did approve later that day with modifications.  In every other annual report, it says that all requests were granted.

Looking at the reports, those are the only four requests ever to be denied.  It does appear they were asked to revise a couple that they later decided to withdraw instead, those might be what they consider denials.

I'm sure the NYT thinks classified secrets are just a dodge and a smokescreen as well.

lastly, the united states is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. regardless if you agree or disagree with the Geneva Convention, it is the law of the land.

And the Geneva Convention applies solely to uniformed combatants. Please describe the uniform of al-Qaeda's combat forces.

this argument is made in public, on the opinion pages all over the country

i'm sure most people would be offended by the idea of comporting with the law in performing wiretaps, terribly offended

and you will learn

...is thousands of dead Americans, yeah, they'll be offended.

You mean that the NSA is listening to the conversations of suspected terrorists. What makes someone a suspected terrorist? If there's no requirement for probable cause, then we are all suspected terrorists, and we are all fair game.

change it

but ignoring it is not an option

They can listen into my calls. They will be quite bored though, but might have a laugh at the pet names my wife and I have for each other.

They are not ignoring the law. They don't have to change a law that already allows them to do exactly what they are doing. The wiretaps were not illegal.

of my position.

As I've stated a half dozen times, minimum, my position is that a statute passed by congress cannot trump a Constitutional power. When Congress declared war on al-Qaeda:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

FISA ceased to have any meaning in the context of any of the categories of persons/organizations in the resolution. Against the ChiComs, Russians, etc. sure, but if your phone number was found on a satphone captured in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Phillipines, etc from an al Qaeda fighter your communications are fair game.

In that context, I think the Administration is right in ignoring the FISA court.

You raised the Geneva Convention issue.

Unlike you, I have actually had formal training from Uncle Sam about who is and is not covered by the Geneva Convention.

So, please give us a description of the uniform worn by the combatant forces of al-Qaeda.

BTW...

There's exactly ONE motive that makes sense for the hysterical liberal opposition to intercepting al-Qaeda's communications.

And that's if the person screaming about it has reason to be afraid that they're going to get caught talking to al-Qaeda.

to wrap your .. . ... 5jaoon 77^^5coudsf   ..  ...  wireless router *76Yt&YGiJ Juu77^6a f ..  ...  in tin foil ..  .... %949aafdoho*88  ... . . too.

Let me just be clear here:  Are you accusing FG of being an Al Qaeda operative?

Let me just be clear here:  Are you accusing FG of being an Al Qaeda operative?

Not at all. I said that was the only motive that made any sense. I didn't say FG made any sense, did I?

the Geneva Conventions is not "the law of the land."

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So it is only the law of the land to the extent that it doesn't conflict with the Constitution... like in waging war.

If there's no requirement for probable cause, then we are all suspected terrorists, and we are all fair game.

I would be willing to bet the NSA wouldn't agree that we are all suspected terrorists.

Very interesting diary ...

What makes someone a suspected terrorist?

Well, if you're in the habit of making phone calls to or receiving phone calls from known al-Qaeda operatives overseas, I think most sane people would conclude that's probable cause.

The problem is, of course, that the liberals are no longer sane.

Wait, let me try this again, I think half of my reply to you missed the point.  You're okay with FISA being ignored, and I kinda missed that becacuse I was wrapped up in the dialectic.  So let me start over a bit:

Your argument is presented toward people who think that FISA is effective, and wish that we'd use that instead of the NSA wireteaps.  Those people would probably be happy to hear that .1% of all applications since 2001 have been rejected.  They'd be happy to hear that maybe 3% have been modified, whatever that means.

So, the point is: why is zero a good number, if the people you're trying to argue against think that it's a good idea for courts to monitor warrant requests?

A satphone is captured in Afghanistan. It has a one of more phone numbers located in the US. Do you think we should monitor those calls? I do. Do you think you could establish probable cause to monitor them? I'd doubt it.

They couldn't get probable cause to search Moussaoui's computer, there is no way having your phone number on a captured satphone is going to meet the standard.

OK, accusing your opponents of being illogical is a time-honored tradition.  Accusing them of being Al Qaeda is a bit over the top :)

To be fair though, there are two readings of this:

"There's exactly ONE motive that makes sense for the hysterical liberal opposition"

One one reading, there's only one logical motive they can have for opposition.  On another reading, it would only make sense for us to ascribe one motive to them....

when would the GC be in effect if not during war?

are you now saying the GC conflicts with the constitution?

I don't believe FISA applies here. That's pretty simple. So you don't ignore what doesn't apply. As I glide down US 340 towards my fortified compound at the foot of South Mountain I see signs all along the road that say "No Parking." As I have no intention of parking I continue on my way at 80mph knowing I've neither violated the law against parking on the side of the road nor ignored that law because that law didn't apply.

streiff made a generic claim for what, in his opinion, has to happen during war.

not this war, but "war" in general.

for your ease of reading, i even blockquoted that claim.

thus, in the context of "war", the GC is indeed in effect.

but, if it pleases you, continue to miscontrue the clear thrust of my comment.

I would to know the details on these ? I cant imagine 11 members of the court not wanting to protect us from terrorists? Scary thought.

You would be too, if you were familiar with the GC.

I'm saying 1) the GC only applies to conflict between the contracting parties, it does not apply to conflicts between one contracting party and one who does not, and 2) I'm saying that the GC does not take precedence over any legal action taken by the president or the Congress.

Those facts are in both the GC and the Constitution. Look them up.

In that context, I think the Administration is right in ignoring the FISA court.

But that's not the context found in this post.  If FISA is irrelevant, then its effectiveness (or lack thereof) is neither here nor there. Frankly, I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

I don't think there are different kinds of war. It's pretty much a binary situation in my view. So in that regard you are right.

In regards to the GC, you are simply wrong.

If I could be assured that searches were limited to these cases, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But by taking the need for a warrant out of the loop, we have no assurance that the searches are only being done on bad guys. We just have to trust the president, I guess.

It isn't the job of judges to protect us from terrorists.

Judges are preoccupied with protecting the rights of those accused with crimes. That is great if we are talking about domestic crime. It is also why I, for one, don't want that duty to rest in the hands of judges.

I thought the subject of all the discussion was the fact that the NSA was intercepting the communications of persons with al-Qaeda links. I guess you must be talking about some other program not involving al Qaeda.

He is serious and stop calling him Shirley.

If the process was abused to somehow punish his political enemies it would be all over the NYT in about 5 nanoseconds. Then you could be outraged.

an 11-judge panel to make that decision because the NSA/DNI/CIA have the unlimited resources to monitor your granny planning the family reunion and must be restrained.

the president does not have the power to unilaterally disavow the GC, no more than he does to unilaterally disavow a law passed by congress.

the power to wage war does not give the power to perform actions that would otherwise be illegal, aka, act in contravention of executed laws and treaties.  

note, in order to avoid the GC here, the president said it was not implicated in the current conflict. he explicitly avoided acting in contravention of the GC.

and I'm aware of the who the GC applies to, thanks. as I have stated above, I nowhere claim that the GC applies to AQ.

the GC has no effect on the president, at all.

Fair enough, but like I've said, you're arguing against people who would like to see FICA be used instead of the NSA taps: it seems like your argument should be on the legality of FICA, not its effectiveness (though, granted, there are posts about that from a little while ago if I recall correctly).

Getting back to your example: if I were to criticize you about ignoring the no parking signs on your way home, it seems like you shouldn't say, "Well, geez, those parking spaces were too narrow to fit my car in, and it might have gotten hit by other people going down the road at 80."  Rather, your response should be, "Well, I didn't ignore them!  I just didn't have any intension of parking."  Err, maybe the analogy is getting strained, but I hope you see my point

So, if probable cause is too high a barrier, what criteria would you suggest instead?

no oversight at all

to put it charitably.

Unless the "Geneva Conventions Army" comes after him he does.

I think you need to take a survey course in American history to find out what war allows American presidents to do in the way of ignoring laws and treaties.

And if you knew the GC didn't apply to al Qaeda, then you've pretty much discredited yourself as a serious participant here as they are clearly the party at which the 2001 Joint Resolution is directed and they are the party that is the target of the surveillance. Personally, I've seen no evidence that would lead me to believe that you did know it.

Umm, better make that: If I critized you about ignoring the signs, you shouldn't say, "Well, those signs shouldn't be there anyway; there's plenty of room to park!!"

That'd be the better analogy.

Gotta read these better before I post!!

the WH

there was no FISA. The republic didn't fall. We'll survive if FISA is ignored.

Worthwhile? That burden is always in effect. The NSA doesn't have limitless resources to waste listening to someone talking to their granny. Unless they are somehow involved with Al Qaida, of course.

Nixon was waire tapping peace activists and civil right , environmentalists and so on.

the answer is in there in black and white.

To the extent that Clinton was the president and we were at war, yes. Had he done it, and had he taken custody of bin Laden from the Sudan in 1998 and booted him out of a C-130 from 35,000 feet somewhere over the Indian Ocean 9-11 would never have happened.

Nixon was waire tapping peace activists and civil right , environmentalists and so on.

If you're not saying that the Geneva Conventions apply to Al Queda, then how is the President disavowing them? What law is he disavowing? I haven't seen any proof that the President has done anything illegal...which makes sense because he didn't do anything illegal.

If Clinton were actually more interested in fighting Islamofascism than scoring with the interns. That seems rather unlikely, though.

and the Weather Underground, and the SDS, and Puerto Rican separatists.

I doubt there were enough environmentalists to wiretap pre-1974 but that has my vote.

This is known in the trade as "reconnaisance by fire."

179 of 181 modified requests since 2001.  Problem I had is that there were two different numbers for requests: 5000+ and 181 (the "since 2001" you added in your comment would have been better served had it been placed in strife's original post).

Ah well, the math doesn't matter too much.  Had they rejected all 181 requests, instead of just modifying them, that would have been fine by me.  Approving 97% of the requests, unmodified, doesn't really sound like a whole lot of difficulty for anyone getting a warrant for a reasonable search.

I think you underestimate the capabilities of the NSA. Google can search billions of web pages in a millisecond. You don't think the NSA can mine all of the world's email for keywords?

the GC commentary is separate from the wiretapping business. I see above you seem to think it is clear cut that no laws were broken, fair enough. I, and the majority of the legal world, disagree.

arguing against and I refuse to accept their premise that FISA is either applicable here or that it is applicable at all given the use of military force resolution.

If you read the post, you'll see my sole point here is to dispell from the public consciousness the idea that a FISA warrant was a done deal and that somehow the administation could have had one for the asking.

That simply was not how the court operated 2001-2004.

That's what I thought the discussion was about, too.  Which is why I don't understand why it matters how hard it is to get a warrant from the FISA court, as FISA does not apply to communications involving al-Qeada.  If it did apply, it wouldn't matter one way or the other how hard it was to get a warrant, the administration would still have to do it.

of the post.

It will clear all of that up.

The majority of the country seems to disagree with you. I would assume that includes the "legal world" as well.

you're a funny, funny guy

most of this comment is strangely unrelated to anything I have said.

this, in particular, is rich:

And if you knew the GC didn't apply to al Qaeda, then you've pretty much discredited yourself as a serious participant here as they are clearly the party at which the 2001 Joint Resolution is directed and they are the party that is the target of the surveillance. Personally, I've seen no evidence that would lead me to believe that you did know it.

how many times did I state why I brought up the GC? that it was separate from the wiretapping issue? that it was directed at your generic declaration of what occurs during wartime?

and don't provide the polls stating that americans support domestic wiretapping, that was never in question.

it is warrantless wiretapping, where warrants are required, that is at issue

And it should not be used as such.

you brought it up, you looked like a moron. Moreso if now you're saying you brought it up even knowing it doesn't apply, no?

In real life, turning down 3% of warrant applications is a bit on the high side, in my limited experience.

It's also kinda suggestive that the modification rate jumped so quickly and starkly, from 2 in the course of 22 years to 179 in the course of 4. Given that there was a Cold War during the first half of the former, you're going to have to pardon me if I find this suspicious.

i directed it at your blanket statement.

it applies to your blanket statement.

ergo, i'm not the moron here.

According to the 2004 report, 54% the modifications were from that year alone.

This suggests to me, not a problem with the FISA Court, but a problem with the warrant requests.

Thanks for the chuckle.

that there was no oversight. Congress authorized Bush to use all necessary force to defeat A.Q. The inference there that is clear to me and many other posters here is that this includes among other things freely monitoring A.Q. communications, including those that occur with individuals in the US.

I like this arrangement, compared to the alternative, which I could ask you "so would you rather" another Zach Moussoui situation where probable cause warrant issues hamstring us from finding an obvious clue that could have tipped us to the 9-11 plot. Can't have it both ways.