Letters to the Editor
-
Refrain from misleading on the other side
This most recent post could be interpreted to suggest that the FISA law does not require a court order for wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US. The law, however, DOES require an order before wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US IF that non-US target who is not in the US is communicating with a person who is in the US. It does not help in the debate to be less than clear about what the bill does and does not do. In short, the bill makes clear that the government can wiretap, intercept, or do whatever else it wants to do with foreign to foreign communications without a court order. If, however, the foreign person is communicating with a person in the US, a court order is required. In short, if a terrorist is communicating with a US person in the US, the terrorist does by necessity enjoy the same rights with respect TO THAT COMMUNICATION that the US person in the US has. No way exists to protect the US person's rights without also protecting (to some extent) the foreign person when the foreign person is talking with a US person in the US -- the entire communication is either protected or its not. This is where the media fails -- Time, Klein and others completely fail to point out that it is not possible to protect the rights of us here in the US, but not protect (to some extent) the foreign people with whom we communicate.
-
Refrain from misleading on the other side
This most recent post could be interpreted to suggest that the FISA law does not require a court order for wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US. The law, however, DOES require an order before wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US IF that non-US target who is not in the US is communicating with a person who is in the US. It does not help in the debate to be less than clear about what the bill does and does not do. In short, the bill makes clear that the government can wiretap, intercept, or do whatever else it wants to do with foreign to foreign communications without a court order. If, however, the foreign person is communicating with a person in the US, a court order is required. In short, if a terrorist is communicating with a US person in the US, the terrorist does by necessity enjoy the same rights with respect TO THAT COMMUNICATION that the US person in the US has. No way exists to protect the US person's rights without also protecting (to some extent) the foreign person when the foreign person is talking with a US person in the US -- the entire communication is either protected or its not. This is where the media fails -- Time, Klein and others completely fail to point out that it is not possible to protect the rights of us here in the US, but not protect (to some extent) the foreign people with whom we communicate.
-
Oath
The following is the oath sworn upon enlistment in US military:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The President, being Commander-in-Chief of the US military. thus implicitly swears this oath as well and Klein is arguably correct in his statement.
-
@nabalzbbfr re: Oath
Note that the oath is to protect the Constitution. Glenn's point was that Klein said the oath is "to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic."
It's to protect the Constitution, not to protect the nation.
-
Correction to Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory
"In the text of his November 28 Unclaimed Territory posting, Glenn Greenwald published the word UPDATDE.
Some feel that this is a misspelling. Others do not."
-
@nabalzbbfr
The President, being Commander-in-Chief of the US military. thus implicitly swears this oath as well.
That's the stupidest thing I've read in months. Nobody "implicitly" swears an oath. He would be swearing to obey himself, you nitwit. You make shooter242 look like a rhetorical genius by comparison.
-
No one should be surprised
This is really Stengel after all.
Click here for old "time's" sake
Stengelgate
-
Update
Glenn,
Two comments on Klein's "FISA section under dispute" entry.
First, he mentions an unnamed "senior legal source in the intelligence community who deals with the FISA court regularly." I can think of no valid reason for this person not to be identified. In fact, the only reason I can think of that this person may not want to be identified is that this person is spouting garbage and doesn't want his or her legal reputation ruined by being associated with it.
Second, the post really only validates the complaint about his original article. This post essentially argues that both sides mean for the law to allow warrantless wiretapping of terrorists, but Republicans think Democrats used sloppy language that allows for alternate interpretations. His original post said nothing of the sort. He clearly meant that Democrats wanted to require warrants in order to wiretap foreign terrorists. Yet still, he does not admit that his original main point was simply wrong.
-
luckycat
This most recent post could be interpreted to suggest that the FISA law does not require a court order for wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US. The law, however, DOES require an order before wire tapping a non-US person who is not in the US IF that non-US target who is not in the US is communicating with a person who is in the US.
That's absurd. Under the bill, conversations involving U.S. citizens require warrants; conversations that don't involve U.S. citizens don't require warrants. I haven't obscured that point. I've made it over and over. It's what demonstrates why the Time article is false.
In short, if a terrorist is communicating with a US person in the US, the terrorist does by necessity enjoy the same rights with respect TO THAT COMMUNICATION that the US person in the US has.
Saying they have the same rights "with respect to that communcation" is meaningless semantics. Warrants are required where U.S. citizens are involved, and not required where they aren't. To say that foreign terrorists have the same rights as U.S. citizens is false.