Sentence in Memo Discounted FISA

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A15

What does "exclusive" mean?

The answer was at the heart of a highly sensitive memo by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2001, when Bush administration officials were keen to institute warrantless domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

A 1978 law appeared at first glance to be an impediment to using new procedures for such surveillance. It stated that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provided the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral and electronic communications may be conducted."

But the administration did not want to follow FISA, because the law requires court approval. The administration has said that law could be a cumbersome obstacle in real-time efforts to intercept intelligence.

This created a quandary that then-Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo resolved in the OLC memo. Until this week, members of the public did not know exactly what the memo said. But two Democratic senators who had read the classified version asked that a sentence in the memo be declassified, and this week they released the result:

Click sig for Full article

(Got a kick out of typing that for some reason)

After 24 hours, any post becomes an "open thread", hence, no O/T fouls.

At least, that's the premise I'll operate under until GG disabuses me of the notion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203018_2.html

or click sig for linky

Real reporting on the race topic. Don't remember where I saw it initially...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4

or click sig

"Punch line" @ the end of the report

The lobbying money, in the aggregate, is not insubstantial. However, on an individual basis, looking at what these "people" actually themselves pocket - they sell us and the entire country and the Constitution down the river for relative chump change.

There ought to be either a tag, or an "eedjit" rating system.

Anyway, the problem is, the people producing the "Drudge-ruled" crap, hold themselves out as (and are, in fact, what passes for) Serious Journalists in this country. As such, they have, or ought to have, the responsibility to provide actual reporting on the issues.

OTOH, if they're producing mass-market personality driven "entertainment", which they are, it's helpful for someone to (as GG does) call BULLSHIT!

Sorry for the belated response, only now back in.

About your comment

Yes, but what about the complicity of readers who don't demand more serious journalism from their political news sources?

I honestly thought it was snark, and that Glenn calling you to task on it was a bit misplaced. I focussed on the "complicity" aspect of it - it reminded me of something Joe Klein might say - "well it's the consumers fault they don't demand better." To me, that's laughable on it's face. Much of the discussion in here is centered around media shortcomings, coupled with absolute tone-deafness to any criticism whatsoever, let alone criticism from "readers". In answer to questions I've directed at them, I've had Richard Wolfe tell me what a great job the media is doing, and David Gregory tell me the only reason I knew about issue [x] is because of Mainstream Media.

To the extent that my utter inability to believe anyone was seriously espousing the position I thought you'd articulated came across as contempt, I apologize. Mea culpa

Check out his response to me on the Diane Rehm show.

[My rather inarticulate comments were with respect to the then current NIE reassessment, Admin. war-mongering, and Corp. media enabling - I'll blame my verbal fumbling on the fact that my I was about to die of apoplexy] My mic was off after my comment, so I couldn't rebut the f*cking assh*le. Here's the link:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/12/07.php#18236

My comments start @ ~ 38:15 in.

or click sig

rupert_c - good one.

If you keep them in business they will sell you more wars.

Would it be a mischaracterization of your position to state it thusly?

A "free press" = the right of whomever uses the airwaves to say whatever they want to, truth be damned.

I don't want to get into a debate about public vs. private bandwidth, the "public good", journalism and the role of a free PRESS as distinct from the right to free speech, and etc.

Suffice it to say, we'll have to agree to disagree that a wholly libertarian/free market approach to those issues is the optimal solution.

Folks, cestmoi has explicitly stated his position - truth be damned.

What more do you need to know?

It seems a significant percentage of you Salonistas have NOT read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas!?

WTF, people!?

or Half-Price Books.

Lent my copies to friends. They never come back.

You posed a question to me (in response to a snarky comment from me) back a thread or two ago. I did respond, but it was much later on... (I'm generally not actually "here" for extended periods)

Jeff Cohen

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/30/tom-brokaw-refuses-to-admit-the-blundering-press-coverage-of-the-iraq-war-all-wars-are-based-on-propaganda/

or click sig

He may not have "won", but he went down swingin'.

R.I.P., Bucky.

You routinely put up superior, must read links.

Have you read Dreher's(latest?) piece for the Dallas Morning News (I believe that's his "regular" gig) this Sunday morning?

I find no value in any of his leavings.

Yeah, that's the one. For me, Dreher tries to wrap some half-baked "idea' (in quotes, because I don't think they're ever original to him) in pseudo-intellectual claptrap in order to argue - I'm never sure exactly what, when he's done. Simply cannot disguise the fact that he's clinging oh so desperately to what remains of his "conservatism". Can't stand the little puke. Reminds me of Doughy Pantload.

I long for the opportunity to, one day, be within earshot.

Obama has "effectively clinched" the nomination - and HRC is refusing to concede or suspend her campaign.