You know, I might agree that your response to credentialism was warranted if bernbart were claiming her own credentials, but she's not. She's hiding behind her husband's. Women who routinely say, My husband says ... get absolutely no respect from me, because it's clear they have no respect for themselves. bernbart is the one advancing an opinion, either she's got the creds (self-taught or otherwise earned) to back it up, or she doesn't. Plainly, she doesn't. And, when she's pressed she dodges behind hubby's pant leg. Give me a break. She waves Boalt Hall under our noses like it belongs to her. Only in the most distant of measures can she claim any affiliation with Boalt Hall; maybe, alumni gatherings where she attends as someone's spouse. I'm surprised she sucked you in with that drill. I'd expect your radar to be especially sensitive to it. When the lady uses her husband's creds to back up her own contrarian claims, IMO, she's acting fraudulently.

You do of course know that H.R. 6304 is only the House version of the of this amended FISA law. I have also read the Senates version that did pass. In order to understand it fully you must look at both House and Seanate bills.

Thanks so much. Well explicated and easy to read. Thanks.

Thanks. Good stuff.

I still have an issue with Lederman's direct, explicit quote. That language is not in HR 6304.

HR 6304 passed the Senate unchanged. Five amendments were proffered, all failed.

Bernbart:

I did not see much point in going after Telcom in civil litigation. That frankly does nothing to protect your privacy rights going forward.

US Code:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized

(a) In General.— Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

(b) Relief.— In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes—

(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Bernbart needs an intervention from self-embarrassment. Someone help.

BobbyG: You're welcome. It was a quick and dirty response, and again, I haven't read all of the new FISA amendments language. Just the portions about retroactive immunity and foreign conversation dragnets.

LOL. You are at your funniest when you talk about your wife. Having spent 40 years with one, laughing beats crying or yelling. With all the whining and lamenting and anger, it sure helps when you and others, lighten things up.

3 seconds of googling will find this -- and you don't need no steenkin' law degree:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1801.html

Laughter may be the best marriage counsler, It cerainly seems to help her but based on her past actions, my best marital aid is a bulletproof vest.

I just keep watering down her liquor and throwing out the pills. I don't dare hide her gun (25 cal. conch-handled Beretta auto>). Since she used it on her last husband, it has enormous sentimental value.

Bernbart doesn't need enemas.

Thanks, Derb, Bystander, Mona, et al... I damn near wasted several Red, White, and Blue Hawaii's reading that broad's BS. Annoyance and spillage go hand in hand, you know.

Why is it that everything, including plain English, is now subject to "bias" or worse, requires an (oooh) BOALT hubby to interpret it. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "You'd be surprised by what you learn by READING."

Thanks for reminding me, LT, to toss fifty bucks Cindy's way, I'm feeling a bit flush lately after deleting so many Obama entreaties. I'll come around, of course, but it's satisfying, and frugal, to take a break now and then.

Found the source of the quoted language below that you asked about.

Moreover, even where the information is not foreign intelligence information, the law permits "the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes."

That comes from the FISA statute itself, before amendment. I don't know if the provision was altered by today's changes, although I doubt it. The language is from the "minimization procedures" requirement of FISA, which governs how intercepted information is retained and limited from certain types of disclosure - 50 U.S.C. 1801(h)(3).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1801.html

Gotta get to bed now, cheers.

Off to bed for real now.

Thanks. Yeah, there it is, verbatim, in the old FISA law.

1801(h)(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and

[BUT]

(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Why is it that everything, including plain English, is now subject to "bias"

I noticed that beginning when as the Civil Rights laws were passed in the sixties. See, these laws could not, they just could not be a fulfillment of Constitutional imperatives which had been heretofore not possible due to prejudice. Oh no! No, they were just a case of competing "ideologies", a liberal one of which was now in the ascendance,ruining our "traditional values" and "property rights".

That left open the possibility that one day the "rights" of the oppressed white people would be restored.

Also, there was a wholesale attempt to usurp the language of disability for the purposes of blaming the victim, and making the powerful somehow victims.

Warning, this is right off my very shredded cuff. (where I usually keep a list of the Kings of Judah, which got me a Scripture Knowledge prize in school. But don't tell)