Letters to the Editor
-
My umpteenth letter to Dianne
Senator Feinstein,
The New York Times is reporting that the FISA bills are up today. That doesn't give anybody much time to consider what you people who represent us are doing before you do it.
They are reporting that the Senate is considering giving the Administration retroactive immunity for the telecoms. They report that both the Senate and the House are giving the NSA basket warrants for blanket wiretaps. They are reporting that there is a "Save the Majority" mentality and the Democrats are afraid of being "Soft on Terrorism".
You ought to be more worried that, in light of this Administration's actions, you are being "Soft on Treason". And "Soft on Civil Rights". And providing a "Soft Shredding of the Constitution".
Because there will be a comeuppance for those who are breaking the law down there in Washington, even if you fearful representatives refuse to impeach or try anybody, refuse to investigate, refuse to take a stand. We citizens will demand the accountability of our government officials that you fearful representatives are too scared to demand. We the People will demand our country back. And on that day, you will stand with the criminals if you don't stand with We the People now.
Your Constituent,
-
Target? Both ends of communication are target!
Glenn said: "Even the original FISA law never required warrants in order to eavesdrop on (a) foreign-to-foreign calls or (b) calls involving a U.S. citizen where the target was a non-citizen outside the U.S. (who just happened to call into the U.S.)."
(My Bold)
I have serious questions regarding the legitimacy of the bolded statement above in a couple of areas:
1. The foremost reason is the fact that trying to "limit" the usage of the word "target" to only one end of the eavesdropped communication, is ludicrous on the face of it. Both ends of an eavesdropped communication are targets!
The entire purpose of the eavesdropping is, for example, to find out who Osama Bin Laden is contacting in the US and what the communication between the 2 is about.
To say that "only" one end of that communication is of interest or "the target" is absurd. The government has an extreme interest in both parties to the communication. They are both targets!
2. Lastly, it is my understanding that any eavesdropping of any U.S. Citizen here in the US, by definition in FISA, requires a warrant. How did you find otherwise?
-
Oh great...
My stalker is back. Tossing strawman arguments in fine authoritarian fashion.
-
Be-bop-o
If I were Barney I would bite them all hard where it hurts most. Good warning, though. Maybe if I wore a dental dam?
-
The republicans should be quaking in their boots
If I were a republican/big business/big money/wall street-type functionary, I'd be quaking in my boots over the proposed adoption of these new FISA rules. Don't these folks realize that, by the very nature of humans, when the leadership in the White House changes hands and the Congress becomes more overwhelmingly democratic, these surveilance powers will be used by the Justice Department to enforce already-existing laws (which have been ignored since the Reagan administration) against them, their extensively-interlocking, monopolized international business and banking dealings and the behind-the-scenes manipulation of the international media? There will be terror, indeed, as their formerly-secret machinations are revealed, but it won't have much to do with Al Qaida.
-
NotOrbitBoy
The Bush administration is aggressively using surveillance of foreign telephone calls. Most of the salonistas assume evil intent. I suspect that the surveillance is a valuable tool to prevent terrorism. I acknowledge that I cannot prove this.
So I try to take the opposite view, and I asked for someone to provide an opposing explanation. To explain what is motivating the Bush administration.
Excuse my cynicism for finding it difficult to believe that you have trouble imagining nefarious motives for a government to want to spy on its own citizens with impunity.
Would the answer "because they desire power" be unsatisfactory along those lines? If not, I would ask you to demonstrate where the Bush Administration has shown self-restraint in Executive branch authority, or has willingly ceded powers to other branches, or has voluntarily shared vital information with them.
It certainly hasn't been their habit, which has been quite the reverse: one of extreme secrecy on all fronts, denial of routine congressional oversight as practiced by previous congresses and a constant strive to increase their authority through legal and extra-legal grounds.
As to what exactly one would do with spying power: is it so incredulous that they might spy on democrats or other opponents of theirs? After all, that's what Nixon was doing in the Watergate Hotel. Spying on Democrats. It's not hard to draw a straight line from Nixon to Bush.
-
orbitboy2
Oh and if you continue to call us "salonistas" non-ironically, I will not respond to your future missives.
This isn't rush limbaugh's show. Show some basic civility if you want serious responses.
-
Your post count is way down, Glenn
Stick with Jewbashing, you'll have 4x the pull through.
-
I've been saying for months
That calling Congress is a negative activism tactic, I wrangled a little with Christy Harden Smith over it and I told Darci Wheeler the same thing two days ago. It burns our people out in futility, it's humiliating and embarrassing.
Please excuse me, we only had one primary challenge of import last cycle, Lieberman. Feinstein skated again, along with all the other enablers. I know these are good signs that Glenn gives as examples, but we need 50 primary challenges urgently right now, not in some mystical date in the future.
I don't help at Open Left 'cause I'm always acutely embarrassed as a Democrat just to show up and look at all the horribly long lists. For the love of holy Mary & baby Jesus, has there been something in the water or something that got so many Democrats so disastrously fucked up?
A desperate struggle among our own as we are over-run. I'm just tired, all right? Primary challenges, onward! One day, my friends, we will run against Republicans again!
-
Mad Dogs
I have serious questions regarding the legitimacy of the bolded statement above in a couple of areas:
1. The foremost reason is the fact that trying to "limit" the usage of the word "target" to only one end of the eavesdropped communication, is ludicrous on the face of it. Both ends of an eavesdropped communication are targets!
No. The term "target" is a term of art in law enforcement with clear meaning. The "target" is the person whose phone line is ALWAYS monitored. ALL of their calls are surveilled.
The person whom they call (or who calls them) is NOT a "target." NOT all of their calls are monitored. The ony time they are eavesdropped on is when they speak with a target.
To say that "only" one end of that communication is of interest or "the target" is absurd. The government has an extreme interest in both parties to the communication. They are both targets!
This is just not how it works and is not what "target" means.
Lastly, it is my understanding that any eavesdropping of any U.S. Citizen here in the US, by definition in FISA, requires a warrant. How did you find otherwise?
This is also false. Under the 1977 FISA, it has always been the case that no warrant is required to eavesdrop on a foreign target outside of the U.S., even where that foreign target calls into the U.S. and speaks with a U.S. citizen.
Under the original FISA, warrants are required only when the target is a "U.S. person" (a U.S. citizen or someone in the U.S. legally).