The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I read something that in a recent year there were around 1500 requests for a warrent, and no denials. Thus, at least as to when the admin seeks the warrent, it seems safe to say they do not over reach (or the Judicial review is a sham).

The court is 8 District judges selected by the Chief Justice- thus they probably are pretty law and order types. Given the 1500-0 I sort of doubt the reason to not seek a warrent has to do with lack of grounds.

This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient. If the chances of being rejected are vanishingly small because you've never lost, you tell me why they couldn't be bothered with it.

It may well be stuff that is so sensitive it isn't worth risking the identity- and not to sound like Penske, but theAmerican people had a vote on who they wanted making this type decision.

Oddly enough, the WH chose to rely on an unreasonably broad reading of the authorization for military action in Iraq to justify their actions here. With all their chutzpah, even THEY were too embarrassed to argue that the American people voted in 2004 to permit a President to ignore laws on the books and to continue secretly spying on American citizens.

[Replaced_Texan]

Pete from A Perfectly Cormulent Blog cracks me up.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oddly enough, the WH chose to rely on an unreasonably broad reading of the authorization for military action in Iraq to justify their actions here. With all their chutzpah, even THEY were too embarrassed to argue that the American people voted in 2004 to permit a President to ignore laws on the books and to continue secretly spying on American citizens.

You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."

It's the Jessup argument. "You're goddamned right I did" is cleansing for the soul, perhaps, but sadly for the Colnel, it mightn't play out too well legally speaking.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You'd think with a year's notice on the story, they'd have a better response than "fuck ya'll."

Is it "fuck y'all" or "fuck all y'all"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is it "fuck y'all" or "fuck all y'all"?

depends, Panhandle, the plains or Ark-la-Tex?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Pete from A Perfectly Cormulent Blog cracks me up.

That was pretty funny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought you and I had a truce on calling each other racist?

I had to ask, because surely that's not what you were saying.

I assume if there was reason to suspect an individual, NSA could have gotten a tap- (if not then I have zero problem with what they did- if we have so hamstrung our ability to fight that we can't even tap when there is cause, then law need to be broken).

Then why didn't they get a warrant?

What gets me is that very similar activities occured to break the Mafia.

I'm pretty sure they bothered to get warrants for those. This whole deal where the President gets to ignore statutes and the Constitution is new.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It also has the word "unreasonable". TSA conducts searches all the time. But they're considered reasonable.

Not saying these are reasonable searches, but the argument could be made.

If the President OK's it, it is reasonable! Res ipsa loquitur.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I read something that in a recent year there were around 1500 requests for a warrent, and no denials. Thus, at least as to when the admin seeks the warrent, it seems safe to say they do not over reach (or the Judicial review is a sham).

I think I've read that the court will sometimes basically tell them that they need to come back with something more, and so you get the application deferred and then ultimately accepted, instead of rejected outright.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient.

Maybe they decided to cast such a wide net that they knew it would never been constitutional.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This, together with (my understanding) that FISA permits retroactive hearings, actually argues that the Administration decided to bypass FISA simply because it was administratively inconvenient. If the chances of being rejected are vanishingly small because you've never lost, you tell me why they couldn't be bothered with it.

I believe "retroactive" means within 24 hours. There are 8 judges spread across the country. On average they'll each see hundreds of requests- anyone ever work in Crim law enough to know how quickly you can get standard warrents- I've seen TV where the cops go wake the Judge up.

Anyways, if you accept that the Admin only does it if there is a clear tie to AQ (and I know none of you guys accept much about the admin), and there are some 1500 per year that go through the normal path, isn't it possible that the ones where they don't follow are just too sensitive to risk the chance of the Judge leaking it? I mean, I not Spanky anti-press, or even expect the press to keep stuff quiet, but there seems to be a lot of leaks of things that probably shouldn't have leaked. If they have a possible tap on some line where an AQ guy has been communicating to the US, and they know its live, I don't know that I want that risked (regardless of how many vowels are in his last name Ty).

I know you guys are better lawyers than the way you analyze stuff here. If the admin is actually getting 1500 warrents a year, it's not like they need to go looking for more. Why potentially or arguably cross a line, unless there is a really good reason to, and the only really good reason I can imagine is the info CAN'T get out, under any circumstance.

Sorry Wonk, I just don't see a dept getting 1500 warrents wanting more, and chasing some where they lack a good reason. If there is no good reason, why risk this controversy? The standards are not that high if they're 1500-0.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe they decided to cast such a wide net that they knew it would never been constitutional.

Say if you fish in shark infested water- you cast your net and get thousands of fish- are you going out into the water after a few more fish? Not unless they're really fucking big, right?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say if you fish in shark infested water- you cast your net and get thousands of fish- are you going out into the water after a few more fish? Not unless they're really fucking big, right?

and

isn't it possible that the ones where they don't follow are just too sensitive to risk the chance of the Judge leaking it?

Shark infested? I had no idea that the country had that big a problem of Al Queda infiltrating the judicial branch. We really are screwed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Shark infested? I had no idea that the country had that big a problem of Al Queda infiltrating the judicial branch. We really are screwed.

The Judges would be the net maker, I think.

And the Judges are picked by the Chief Justice so I'm not too concerned about Al Queda infiltration. Remember the Supreme Court is simply a tool of the far right branch of the Republican party.