It's official, this has gone past criticism into stalking. Get a grip people, this is getting pathological.
Keep up the good work.

So I'd love to hear from someone how this is not a requirement for individual warrants for targets that MAY be in communication with a US person.

Sure:

It's not. You've read the bill completely backwards. All they have to do is say they're reasonably the two targets are not natural US persons and that they are reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

That is to say ALL the targets. Assumed intent is not sufficient. I need to see how this can't be construed in court to mean ALL the targets.

Dude, you are no lawyer, not by a long shot. You "need" to see that?

No one is going to be able to convince you, because you've already made up your mind about what the bill says.

It doesn't say what you think it does. Learn to read.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-you-need-to-not-know-about-proposed.html

No href allowed.

It's official, this has gone past criticism into stalking. Get a grip people, this is getting pathological.

Keep up the good work.

I like how shooter thinks that googling someone's official bio on the website of their current employer is an egregious violation of privacy, but is just pissing himself trying to get his neighbors wiretapped.

"to my uneducated eye"

--shooter242

One more in defense of bebop-o's posts...

Just about a moon ago, in response to another commenter unhappy with bebop-o's presence here, I typed up a bit on why we simply could not do without him. I had to do a bit of searching, but here it is:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/31/boylan/permalink/e77ba9e51087da16e63066c4eda2d7a3.html

A number of years ago, shortly after they ran a gushing cover story on Ann Coulter ("Ms. Right," Apr. 25, 2005). It was apparent to me even then that Time had utterly given up on even the appearance of reporting the news in a fair and objective voice.

You know, there are a couple of journalists who made a whole career out of naming names back in the Watergate era. It seems the GOP has learned their lesson, which ironically is echoed through all the depressed corners of our troubled nation: Don't Snitch!

I'm not sure TIME is a real "news" magazine anyway. They're like the Bud Light and Dominoes Pizza of news magazines -- made palatable by tons of fat and empty calories. I wish I subscribed to them so that I could cancel now...

It's almost as though the media thinks that their anonymous sources are under some kind of oath to tell the truth, or that they would even care about any stinkin' oath. No one could be so blind as to think that any word uttered by anyone in the administration has more than a random, 50-50 chance to be true. I'd go so far as to say that based on past experience it is much more probable that their utterance of such a statement is a reliable indication that the statement is false.

e_five

There's a really great idea here! If the media were to draw up a contract that the source needed to sign off on before publication, stating clearly that if the source had misrepresented the facts, the anonymity agreement was null and void...

It could be your standard half page legalese document to be signed in blue pen. The media uses legal documents to get rights to display people's photos and recordings.

“I would also recommend skipping ones by Shooter242, Elephantman, The Canadian, nabalzbbfr, and a few others, but for much different reasons – instead of poetry, you get neocon and/or conspiracy nutjob Kool-Aid. And not particularly intelligent formulations of it, either.”

May I nominate some of the “few others”?

Namely:

Tiberius (The decorated and relentless, yet ever unarmed, Troll Surge Warrior), Poco and the newbie, Publius Maximus (currently on TDY from Freeper, boldly recruiting Iraq war "success" cheerleaders).

There are occasional others (robcerra [WAFM]comes to mind) for whom an ad-hoc radio button would indeed be useful.

Where has Glenn described the "person" of Joe Klein?

Glenn, I applaud your campaign to bring Time to its knees on this one, and I'll help by contacting them...

but, let's not forget what Time is, and what it's always been: a mouthpiece for the elite-right. It simply took up where WR Hearst left off. Time has always been a right-wing shill. A worthless piece of shit. Anyone who gets their "news" from Time has no credibility in serious debate. The magazine is an embarrassment and has never been anything else.

Time is a terrible magazine, and always has been. Hell, the WSJ makes better toilet paper.

Glenn Greenwald and Joe Klein

I'm not disputing Mr. Greenwald's present and past criticism of Joe Klein's journalism, but I am very puzzled by what appears to be intense personal dislike of Mr. Klein (who I don't care for, either).

It might help Mr. Greenwald's ability to communicate without arousing defensiveness in Klein's friends and allies to tone down or eliminate the harsh language specific to his description of Joe Klein's person.

Just a suggestion.

-- lurkinggood

Civility

I'm just going to recycle this post.

Why We Say "Fuck" A Lot

Jane has more on the latest nonsense from the Post. The problem really is that no matter how many times we try to kill right wing horseshit (or as Media Matters delicately calls it, "conservative misinformation") it keeps coming back to haunt us. It infects the media bloodstream. We politely ask for corrections. They don't happen. We start screaming for corrections. They still don't happen. Eventually some half-assed weaselly blame-the-uncivil-critics statement is released. We scream louder. And, then, the horeshit pops up again on CNN.

As we were talking about on Air America last night, this whole situation is really reminiscent of the 2004 Adam Nagourney incident. Rough version: Nagourney wrote an article which passed on Bush administration peddled horeshit about how after the handover to the transitional government in Iraq U.S. casualties had declined. But they didn't. No matter how one squinted at the data, casualties hadn't declined. There was no way to slice it and dice it to make it so. Many angry exchanges between people and Nagourney and the useless Okrent. Many denials from them. Finally half-assed correction and an Okrent column which revealed the name and hometown of a rather "uncivil" reader because of his dastardly incivility.

Major newspaper has big megaphone. Readers generally have no megaphone. Journalists have responsibilities and these ethics I keep hearing about, including the responsibility not to be as factfree as they keep claiming blogs are. When you explain, calmly and repeatedly, that 2+2=4 and they keep denying it you get a little mad. Civil behavior isn't about restraining from using insults or obscenities, it's about behaving like a fucking decent human being.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_11_25_archive.html#187503193407696855