Can the government pull out the communications it wants, or does it have to have access to the entire flow?

I think the government needs to have at least access to the flow; even if it was going to enforce a warrant, it has to [have] access to the flow. … There's not like a single wire you could get a warrant for and tap. In order to get Internet messages, you have to be able to dip into the flow of communications, because Internet communications are broken up. …

You're aware there's a case out here in San Francisco where people are saying AT&T violated the law by giving the National Security Agency access to phone and Internet traffic. As a lawyer, in your opinion, that actually would violate the law.

No, I don't think so, if it was part of the president's commander-in-chief power to gather information on the signals intelligence of the enemy.

It could be done without a warrant?

I think so. It depends on why the government wants the information, but I don't think it's inherently always wrong for communications providers to give the government access to the networks. …

My question wasn't actually whether it was wrong. My question was, is it a violation of the law?

No. I don't [think] it's a violation of the law if by the law you mean the Constitution. The Constitution includes the president's commander-in-chief authority. No, I don't think it's a violation of that law. ...

Could you do that kind of blanket eavesdropping, listening to those calls, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]?

No. This is a good example of where existing laws were not up to the job, because under existing laws like FISA, you have to have the name of somebody, have to already suspect that someone's a terrorist before you can get a warrant. You have to have a name to put in the warrant to tap their phone calls, and so it doesn't allow you as a government to use judgment based on probability to say: "Well, 1 percent probability of the calls from or maybe 50 percent of the calls are coming out of this one city in Afghanistan, and there's a high probability that some of those calls are terrorist communications. But we don't know the names of the people making those calls." You want to get at those phone calls, those e-mails, but under FISA you can't do that.

Yoo gets into aspects of data-mining, FISA "inadequacies, etc. I'm sure you'd find interesting.

Having gone back and forth in my own mind, it boils down to this (for me). Absolutely necessary: a relentless focus on unearthing and exposing the pervasive criminality of the regime. Doing so w/ impeachment as a desireable endpoint, not so much.

Exposure would, perhaps, slow the headlong rush into authoritarian crony-capitalistic hegemony to the extent that the Nation can outlast the Current Squatter. Then they can be jailed for War Crimes, etc.

You can enail it to your Congresscritter, y'know. Or DIGG it...

N/T

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070520/28justice_2.htm

[His] actions have made Comey something of a bete noire in the Bush administration-even though Comey believes that Bush respected him and wanted him to do the right thing. Indeed, now some Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, say they will even back Comey for attorney general if Gonzales resigns. "The only thing worse than being vilified by the left," says Comey with a laugh, "is being idolized by the left."

Apropos of Glenn's prior post.

I highly recommend this article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/

Like polls that show roughly equivalent %'s dissatisfied w/ both Congress & the Current Occupant. But the fact of the matter is, many of those irritated w/ Congress are dissatisfied that Congress is not being strong enough in their opposition to the regime...

Makes me wonder. Bush is at roughly 27% approval nowadays. What % of that 73% is dissatisfied because BUSH IS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH? A scary %, I'll wager.

I'm finally getting around to reading Conason's "It Can Happen Here". I got it from Salon, when I paid my GG dues. It CAN happen here.

How's THIS for over the top? You, Joan, and everybody else who isn't screaming bloody murder at the Democrats to DEFUND the Iraq horror, are nothing more than Bush enablers with blood on your hands. Take your oh so smug "a little over the top" and shove it.

Did you just waste "Shooting an Elephant" on the likes of Sharter?

I'll forgive you, due to your post right out of the box this morning. Over 50% of suicide bombers are secular? Who'd a thunk it?

to Fineman & Matthews, yet?

Make sure you include your own inane commentary in the packet of info for your psychiatrist "friend".

"The more a candidate called defended torture and lawless detentions, the louder the cheers were." Needs fixin'.

Ben Nelson needs a Primary opponent.

... the self-styled Emperor will be removed permanently from this neighborhood. The torture fantasies are a bit much, one might hope, even for somebody as tolerant as GG.

Reminded me of this -

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

Glenn, I sent you an email w/ an attachment (.pdf) Heads up, in case it gets filtered out... Two weeks in a row for you in "The Week".