Letters to the Editor
-
My Response to Joe at Swampland, Part 2
Again, I'll quote Joe:
"That means, essentially, that every foreign target is subject to
review by the FISA court"
What the hell is Joe talking about? Did he even read the law?
...and again here's Joe:
"The current House legislation requires that every foreign terrorist
target be passed through the FISA court because that target may
potentially communicate with U.S. Citizens or resident aliens. It
thereby, as I reported, obliquely gives foreign terrorists the same
procedures as American citizens, if not the same rights..."
The law quite clearly says no such thing!
Where did Joe get this idea? Again, did he read the f-ing thing?
"This will be very easily twisted by Republicans..."
What a bizarre thing to say...a more accurate remark would be to say
that the law might be very easily "twisted" by an administration
interested in acting without warrants, since they can simply tell the
court ex post facto that everything was an emergency!
...unless, of course, by "twisted" he means dishonestly rephrased
into something like "...every foreign target is subject to review by
the FISA court..."
Is that the basis for Joe's seeming non-sequiteur--that
because Joe can lie about what the bill actually enacts into
law, so can Republicans?
Without even going into the merits (or lack thereof) of Joe's
"arguments" against "partisanship" or "civil liberties extremists",
he's just dead, flat wrong about what H.R.3773.EH
actually says and does.
None of this is intended as an endorsement of the bill, BTW. It's
just that we can't even have an intelligent discussion without adequate
reporting on it.
Joe: read the bill before you write about it. Please.
Posted by
stuart_zechman |
November
21, 2007 2:40 PM
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/latest_column_22.html
-
Apologies for the long post
Umm...I really should've just linked to it...
Very sorry everybody.
-
Mike Sulzer
Let me try and give you a better response since my last one severely constrained by my desire to post and bake at the same time--although I am making the same mistake again.
The important take away points from my original post (even if they weren't there originally ;) are:
- Currently FISA allows the government to compel a US citizen to consent to a search of their property or the installation of eavesdropping equipment on their property without a warrant if the government says it is in pursuit of foreign to foreign communications.
- This power, which was added in the latest revision of FISA, is not a simple change to "modernize" FISA to take into account that a significant percentage of worldwide communications now flows through US based equipment. It is a fundamental realignment of our view of the fourth amendment. One, I believe, which has been accepted as conventional wisdom without any debate.
- This power does not just apply to telcos. It also applies to individual citizens also. For example, if you use bittorrent or if you participated in an email conversation that involved two people that are not US citizens. Under current law, the government can seize those communications without your consent or a warrant.
I realize this isn't really a better response than my last one...a timer calls...
-
GG Gets Right Answer - Klein Sucks - In Spite of Flawed Analysis
Republicans have calculated -- correctly -- that Americans have greater respect for a political party that is perceived to stand steadfastly for its convictions (even when unpopular) than to be perceived as politically afraid to state what it is that it even believes.
Glenn simplistically projects that a great number of Americans have analyzed that they would prefer a republican pol that is wrong, but stands buy his convictions over a democratic pol who is correct (or in tune with the voters wishes) but is wishy-washy. I think this projects a huge analytical process on the part of the individual American voter for which there is absolutely no evidence. It also completely discounts the massive lying and character assassination that republicans, in concert with US corporate media have performed on democrats and liberals for more than a generation.
Personally I think Glenn and his good unka karl are WAY off in projecting such analytical capability to Americans, and put FAR greater stock in the American voter tendency to be persuaded by lies, innuendo, and smut… for after all, they hear such trash talk it on TV – the fountain of all truth American.
The democrat’s storyline could just as easily be portrayed as a beneficial willingness to compromise and accommodate minority positions – the VERY FOUNDATION of the American system of government. But what little storyline democrats have hardly matters because they have no megaphone to compete with the cult of republicanism bile that constantly bombards Americans. Instead we have what Glenn correctly hammers on – a beltway media establishment including the likes of Klein that constantly undermines democrats and preaches the republican storyline. Thus in spite of being consistently more in-tune with Americans on all fronts (including the military and taxes if the truth were ever told) for more than a generation, Democrats have taken a beating. Democrat’s fortunes have improved slightly in the past couple of years ONLY because they, and progressive/liberal Americans have found alternative communication media in the internet and sites such as Glenn’s in which to fight back.
-
Commentariat Guided Only By Self-Interest
have ossified and are frozen forever in that obsolete "wisdom."
Again Glenn projects that the beltway commentariat actual believe in anything other than their own self-aggrandizement and write as if they believe in something. It is decidedly not true not true that they believe in any kind of recognized American value; that they ONLY exhibit the personality defects of overwhelming greed and obsessive self-promotion – they would sell their Grand Mothers for 15 minutes of fame. The commentariat writes what the political power brokers and their corporate masters – all of which are heavily republican cultists – tell them write (and no, not as dogma, but as making sure they know what side their bread is buttered on.)
-
As long as we're looking for highlights
from the swampland thread:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/latest_column_22.html#comment-359569
I'd begin to feel sorry for the guy, except that it's clear that he can make up any old nonsense he wants, and the Time/Life management will have his back.