Mark-

Why is Bush so afraid of judicial review of the program?

Why is Bush so afraid of judicial review of the program?

Afraid? How about against? Why? Because its a dumb idea. Having worked the area of secret documents, the less people who see them, the less chance they get into the public (or worse - the enemy's purview). We already have an incredibly horrific problem with leakers. President Bush does not need nor want to add more prying eyes.

And also, he sees no reason, given his reading (and the advice of his legal staff) to give up what he views - with good reason - as executive power. Afraid? I think not. Opposed? Certainly.

Well, Rev. the cat is out of the bad and the fecal matter has hit the fan.

If the program is legal, then there should be no problem with submitting the program to the FISA court or another secret court.

I see this as a checks and balances issue. One branch should be able to verify the legality of the actions of another.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, there is an exception to my rule: treason.

Let me get this straight, Mark.

You would allow a multiple serial killer like Robert Charles Browne (he has admitted killing at least 48)
live the rest of his life in prison.

But you want people put to death for exposing a spying program on American citizens(that really is illegal itself)?

Hmmm. Hmmmm. You silly Chrisitan-O-Fascists. I favor the Code of Hamurabi: your paranoid gland to be cut out!

Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq

If any federal program is illegal, then leaking it's existence is your patriotic duty. Have we determined, yet, that the NSA spying program was legal? Peace

As former NSA officer Russell Tice said about his subpoena in the investigation:

"This is the king saying, 'How dare anyone challenge my authority and say that I'm a crook or a criminal?'

Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq

Frawg Fawg,

It's amazing how liberals put all of their trust and faith in judges... as long as they can appoint the judges!

We do not need judges, lawyers, and the "legal" system involved in everything we do... just because liberals believe judges are their savors and salvation! The American "legal system" is one of America's major problems -- and it needs to be fixed. It is a burden to the nation, a threat to our Constitution and our democracy, and those frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous judgments are causing American businesses, jobs, revenue, and taxes to be moved overseas to other nations!

Ash,

Day 1,229 since Iraqis began their march toward a free and democratic nation and the end of Saddam Hussein's reign of torture!

AAR

AAR-

So checks and balances should be abandoned because you are paranoid of the judicial system? The separation of powers is one of cornerstones of our democracy. The actions of a unitary executive are far more a threat to our democracy then our judicial system.

Frivolous lawsuits moving jobs over seas? Hardly... I think that the fact that people in China will work for 25 cents an hour has something to do with it.

I hope they find and convict these offenders. Also, if they are Federal workers, strip them of their pensions/retirement benefits.

Georgia,

You seem to want checks and balances to keep the Executive Branch on a tight leash, but where are the checks and balances on an out-of-control judiciary?

Courts can issue clearly un-Constitutional rulings (KELO V. NEW LONDON), find "rights" were non existed (ROE V WADE), order the establishment of laws (Gay Marriage in MA), and it takes years, or even decades, to undo what a handful of un-elected, un-accountable judges/justices can do with the stroke of a pen.

When our judicial system relies on foreign law to make decisions, when it grants Constitutional or Geneva Convention rights to terrorists, and when it acts clearly in a political manner, our democracy is threatened.

Our Constitution gives each branch certain responsibilities. The Executive Branch is empowered to protect the citizenry from internal and external attacks. Nowhere does it say that the Executive Branch has to go to the Judicial Branch to get approval for national security programs. They must get a warrant when conducting criminal investigations, not for the gathering of foreign intelligence.

One major thing the left is forgetting, either by design or by ignorance: FISA and several federal court rulings authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign communications, including ones where one end of the conversation is in the US. The left also ignores that the initial intercept is frequently because of information gathered from terrorists and there is no way to get a warrant to intercept communications when one end has yet to be identified. Once they have been identified, the Bush Administration gets a FISA warrant, as they have thousands of times.

Ash,

"But you want people put to death for exposing a spying program on American citizens(that really is illegal itself)?"

Are you a member of the judiciary? Have you ruled that the NSA intercept program is illegal? Cause unless you have, its not illegal, as several federal courts have ruled that the President is within his Constitutional authority to intercept communications to gather foreign intelligence without a warrant. So unless you have the authority to rule on the legality of the program, your claim that the illegality of the program is as worth as much as used toilet paper.

The program has existed for decades without much fuss and ado. But when President Bush uses it to detect, deter, and prevent terrorist attacks against you and me, it is suddenly illegal? Sorry, your BDS is showing.

Frawg Fawg,

Unfortunately you liberals are blind to the facts and incapable of understanding reality.

The American legal system is badly broken. Activist liberal judges are making laws -- contrary to our Constitution. Fanatical liberal special interest groups use the courts to stall, block, and to make laws -- contrary to the process established by our Constitution! Liberals "judge shop" until they find a court or judge sympathetic to their "cause". Hopefully, with more Appellate and Supreme Court judges who understand history and our Constitution, that little liberal game can be stopped -- permanently. We must replace more judges, but we are working on it!!! I'm sure you will support our selections and their judgments!

Yes... many of those jobs are going overseas because of the American legal system. Why should a company remain in America and be sued for any and everything a liberal activist can dream up. Don't like the law, sue the company into bankruptcy and force those who offend the "liberal" agenda out of business! Why should companies remain here and wait for some court to award a nutty liberal group or group of lawyers a multi-billion dollar settlement as a way of enforcing their will on companies contrary to the law. Why should they remain here and be forced to pay ever increasing and ridiculous health care for their employees that have been run up by those frivolous, and insane lawsuit.

Oh yes, Frawg ... the American legal system and those ridiculous court awards are driving companies overseas and doing great harm to America. And with those jobs goes your tax revenue. It worsens our balance of payments. It weakens our dollar. It increases the price of oil and gasoline. It builds their economies. It builds their military. It is bad for America!

And who blocks all efforts to change that system... why, none other than the liberal [progressive] DimOcRats! Just as with all of America's problems -- liberals and liberalism are the root and source of the evil!

Day 1,229 since liberals began their anti-American, pro-terrorist campaign that has caused the death of American soldiers and Iraqi families!

AAR

Ash,

One more thing. Many of those detected by use of the foreign communications intercepts (not domestic spying, as you would claim), are not Anerican citizens. They are foreigners here to aid and abet terrorism. Those Americans who have been detected aiding and abetting terrorists are traitors.

Those Americans who have been detected by the program and are innocent of conversing with terrorists, have nothing to worry about. Their conversations are deleted. Its only the ones who are conversing with known terrorists and planning terrorist attacks that have to worry.

For you on the left to continue to harp about the program's lagality, why don't you do some research on how the program works (thanks to the release of classified documents by the NYT)? You would find out that only communications that originate or are directed to a telephone or email account that has been indentified as being a terrorist are targeted. They are not randomly listening in on the billions of phone calls being made each day (that is something Clinton was doing).

This is how it works: Intelligence operatives kill or capture a terrorist. They search for contacts in computers, little black books, cell phones, etc. They find a phone number or email address. They notify the NSA that a terrorist has been contacting someone at the phone number or email account. The NSA intercepts communications to and from the phone number or email account that is linked to the captured or dead terrorist. They try to identify the person the terrorist was communicating with and gather information about terrorist plans. Once they have identified the individual and confirm that he/she is conversing with terrorists, they contact the FBI or US Attorney who applies for a FISA warrant. In the past two years, over 3,500 FISA warrants have been granted. That's almost five a day, seven days a week.

Now if the person the terrorist is talking to is an American, yes, an American has had their communications with a terrorist intercepted. That is a good thing. We are preventing another terrorist attack. That is not domestic spying, it is gathering foreign intelligence. Domestic spying is where both callers are in the US (with the NSA intercepts, at least one end of the conversation is always overseas).

Get it now? It is not "domestic spying". It is not illegal. You can sleep soundly tonight knowing that the Bush Administration is not intercepting your petty phone calls, unless of course, you are calling one of the phone numbers associated with a terrorist. In which case, stay where you are. The FBI will be there shortly to take you into custody.

A10-

Once they have been identified, the Bush Administration gets a FISA warrant, as they have thousands of times.

Actually the Bush administration doesn't even get retroactive warrants... that's the problem...

Remember...liberals claim these leaks are ok, because they were exposing something dark and sinister.

I love liberals...why a confused bunch.

Personally I hope Tice goes to prison for a very very very long time... He is neither judge nor jury when determining what is or isn't legal. Within every government agency there are avenues to express concerns such as he had..

Having said that... I'd love to see this go to the USSC for a final decision..

There is, based upon case precidence, reason to believe FISA courts could be deemed unconstitutional because they infringe upon the President Constitutional authority.

This as decided in 4th Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong: "First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy," they said. "A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations..."

and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown: "[B]ecause of the president's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm... that the president may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence,"

Even a FISA court judge stated in sworn testimony when asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the President's authority to do warrantless intercepts is derived from Artcile II of the Constitution........ and the President would be foolish to allow that right to be hindered....

TICE to prison......

TICE to prison......

Can he take a couple of these nutty libs with him? You know, to keep him company and tell him how he's a martyr and stuff.

Now to add an even more logical approach...

Today and for decades gone past and without warrrants...every letter, package, person, luggage, box, plane, train, automobile etc etc... that has either an international origin or destination... can be intercepted and it's contents inspected...even your computer's contents are subject to inspection without warrants (recent 9th ciruit 3-0 ruling)when they are taken out of the country or upon a return...

And ALL of those require a physical act of inspection so to believe it illegal to snatch an email or phone call with a similar international origins or destinations..defies logic...

Frawgie.....I keep asking, and never get an answer----what KIND of "judicial review"? Do you mean additional judicial review, in addition to the judicial review already in place? A new and different judicial review to replace the one we have now?

Who oversees whom? Who selects the overseers? Do the overseers need oversight? Judicial review for the reviewers?

What, exactly, is YOUR "judicial review" supposed to accomplish?

As the supposed need for more oversight and more review is created, in the fever swamp minds of the BDS group, what happens when and if the reviewers agree with what they are reviewing? Do they then need to be overseen by some other group? How many layers do you have to have? Do you keep adding layers till you make sure you have a totally impermeable and inoperable bureaucracy? Maybe some committees to review the reviews of the reviewers would help. Of course, those committees should report to Congressional committees. Not exactly "...utmost stealth, speed and secrecy..." but if national security is not the real goal, who cares?

And will your judicial review panel be able to overturn prior judicial rulings? After all, as international intercepts have been declared legal in so many courts over so many years, you seem to be demanding a judicial review which will contradict those which have already taken place.

Another question you all prefer to ignore is that one about how to handle disposable phones. Now, I am not a highly trained terrorist. Some of you don't think I am very smart. But even I know enough to be able to go buy a handful of Track Fones and find a way to get the numbers to a comrade in another country. So if I receive one call on one phone which has never been used before, and then toss it knowing that the next call be on one of the other phones, just how would YOU, Mr. Smarty Frawg, get a warrant to listen in on any of those numbers?

To read your posts, if a call was placed in Tehran and the interceptor heard the caller say "Go to Georgia and wipe out the Frawg and all his little tadpoles" and then realized the receiving phone happened to be located within the United States, the call would have to be dropped---don't bother to find out how, when, or where the frogicide would take place---and no report could or should be made. Because that would be wrong. What you COULD do would be to ask for a warrant for the number that was called, and then HOPE that another call would be placed to that number, after the warrant came through, and hopefully the caller would be considerate enough to repeat what he already said, so the little Frawgies could be saved. If not, tough luck....

The black sheep is right----I demand judicial review and an oversight committee the next time I go through Customs. Who are they to go through my suitcases and ask me a bunch of personal questions?

No one had a warrant to examine my shoes after I told them I had been on a ranch in South America.

Oh, but that was in '97. If it happened under the Clinton administration it was OK.

A-10,

"but where are the checks and balances on an out-of-control judiciary?"

--It's simple, the executive, in conjunction with the congress can appoint as many judges as they see fit to make a proper decision, the problem is getting your critters to agree that what the court needs is more judges or that stacking the court would show a more benevolent side of Bush and his cronies, instead of looking more and more like the final days of Nixon.

I see this as a checks and balances issue. One branch should be able to verify the legality of the actions of another.

I see this as an excellent use of old talking points...

When someone or entity disputes the legality of an action, that action is reviewed by an impartial adjudicator. That is how our legal system works.

I am not saying that the program is or isn't legal; what I am saying is that since issues do exist with the constitutionality of said program, the president should submit the program, in its entirety, to a court to verify its constitutionality.

If the program is, in fact, legal, then you should have nothing to lose from a court review. Your dogmatic resistance to any judicial action in regards to this program shows that you might be worried that you won't like the ruling...

Georgia,

Except that there have been five separate federal court rulings over the years that have ruled that the President (not this President, but previous Presidents) has the Constitutional authority to order foreign (that having one end of the connection in a foreign country, as is being done) communications intercepts.

There is no need for a court review as every time the foreign intelligence intercepts have come up in a courtroom, the federal judges have ruled that the intercepts are legal and authorized under the Constitution. What more review and oversight do you need? Keep reviewing the program until you get a liberal judge rule that they are un-Constitutional? Selected members of Congress were briefed on the program. At least 12 times in the past four years. How much oversight is needed? Public debate on the House and Senate floors?

As mentioned previously, with each level of review and oversight, you increase the likelihood that details will be leaked. We are talking about our national security here. There have been too many leaks already, from the CIA, from Congress,...

The only reason issues exist is that there is a Republican President named George W. Bush in the White House. There were no issues when President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush 41, or President Clinton ordered the same intercepts to obtain foreign intelligence.

the president should submit the program, in its entirety, to a court to verify its constitutionality.

Frawg, Almiranta's excellent analysis just went in one ear and out the other, didn't it? Is there anything between your ears besides dead air space? I'm beginning to wonder.

A-10,

Noone is arguing that the Executive shouldn't be trying to track terrorism suspects, the rub is that Bush's administrations feels as though they don't have to get FISA warrants to do these things.

What is so hard for you guys to understand about this issue? The president has every opportunity in the world to get what/who he wants, even without warrants issued immediately, they give him 72 hours to find the evidence he needs to continue to intelligence gathering, what mnore does he need?

What he wants is a blank check to tap anyone he wants, stay on the line for indefinate periods, without any evidence, until something incriminating is said...that is a complete anathema to the idea behind the constitution, and makes the idea of getting warrants moot for as long as this, or subsequent administrations feel it is necessary to do so...which in conservative-speech, means FOREVER [or until we kill every Muslim, whichever comes first].

The legal basis handed down to previous Executives was always bound by the ability of FISA courts to see, behind closed doors, what is being sought, and for what purposes, bush doesn't seem to think they need to know that, so he is side-stepping the issue by just not asking for warrants anymore for many of these probes.

TEO,

Then how do you explain the following:

2,072 - The number of FISA warrants requested in 2005 (a number greater than all law enforcement wiretap warrant requests)

1758 - The number of FISA warrants requested in 2004 (a number greater than all law enforcement wiretap warrant requests)

1724 - The number of FISA warrants requested in 2003 (a number greater than all law enforcement wiretap warrant requests)

1228 - The number of FISA warrants requested in 2002

In the last four years, the Bush Administration had gotten 6782 FISA warrants. How in the world can you claim that "Bush's administrations feels as though they don't have to get FISA warrants to do these things." They have gotten 6782 of them. Oh, I forgot. Just as 500 Chemical munitions don't constitute possession of WMD, 6782 FISA warrants over four years don't constitute getting FISA warrants.

You are also conveniently leaving out the fact that the only communications that are being targeted are those where one end of the conversation is a known or suspected terrorist. You make it sould like the NSA is listening into to all conversations waiting for someone to say something incriminating. Thats not happening (although it did with the Clinton Administration).

One final comment. Read this slowly so it can sink in. In the United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review, argued on September 9, 2002, and decided no November 18, 2002, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 , the FISA Court of Review said: "Even
without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance...". Did you get that? The FISA Court of Review has stated that the President has the Constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. Now if you don't want the President to gather foreign intelligence in order to protect us from further attack, just say so. I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Iran.

Is there anything between your ears besides dead air space? I'm beginning to wonder.

Go easy on Frawg, Spook--he's probably amassing huge student loan debt while pursuing higher education at the prestigious University of Jawja...

What is so hard for you guys to understand about this issue? The president has every opportunity in the world to get what/who he wants, even without warrants issued immediately, they give him 72 hours to find the evidence he needs to continue to intelligence gathering, what more does he need?

Indeed, who could ask for more?

What's the matter, TEO, did you accidently pull out a set of Donk talking points from January? LOL.

Then how do you explain the following:

It is unwise to commune with trolls. They will dumb you down.

What's the matter, (expletive deleted), did you accidently pull out a set of Donk talking points from January? LOL.

RS,

Why do you waste your valuable time and energy on a lowly troll? They are best left talking to themselves and other trolls who are just as mad as they.

A-10,

he requested 2000 warrants, but there were 4-5000 estimated people under surveillance, he doesn't even have a 50% warrant rate; I don't think there is any police station in the US who would boast about getting less than half the warrants needed for the number of wiretapping instances they have.

I'll speak slowly, so YOU understand me:

The FISA court NOTED the existence of the theory of this being held under the auspices of the constitution, but didn't rule on it. Do you understand that the idea of inherant powers which would make FISA unconstitutional, were not addressed? infact they concluded that FISA is infact VERY legal.

By the way, since when do you guys on the right accept the folks in black robes "intepretations" of the constitution? Only when it bolsters your worldview...musta found one of them penumbras, huh?

Georgia... my whole point is...courts have already reviewed this..been there done that.. even FISA judges stated as such..

I don't have a problem with the USSC reviewing this..because I'm 100% sure given the case precidence. The legal standing of long established right to search and seizure of anything dealing with security and international travel, shipping etc..

and TEO...FISA judges ruling themselves legal? you must be kidding if your standing on that...

he requested 2000 warrants

A-10:

Best to stay away from trolls. They're such filthy things and all they do is whine and beg.

Blind Eye,

Two quick comments.

1. "but there were 4-5000 estimated people under surveillance". Cite please. Pulling a number out of your "Third Eye" does not constitute fact.

2. So "there were 4-5000 estimated people under surveillance', and there have been 6782 warrants issued in the past four years (not counting this year's warrants, which probably run around 2,000). By my math, there have been more warrants issued than the "estimated" people under surveillance.

"The FISA court NOTED the existence of the theory of this being held under the auspices of the constitution".

Theory my @ss. There have been five other federal court rulings establishing the Constitutional authority for the President to authorize warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. About the only ones who haven't ruled on the President's Constitutional Authority is the Supreme Court.

I too believe that FISA is legal. I have no problem with getting FISA warrants for wiretaps. The Bush Administration is doint this. What I object to is irrational liberals equating foreign intelligence gathering with domestic spying. I object to loony leftists claiming that the Bush Administration is going around the FISA courts when there were 6782 warrants issued between 2002 and 2005. I object to thick-headed Democracts complaining about a program that is effective in detecting terrorists, the same program that was perfectly okay under Democrat Administrations, and is now "illegal" when a Republican is in the White House.

Ash,
Day 1,229 since Iraqis began their march toward a free and democratic nation and the end of Saddam Hussein's reign of torture!
AAR

Bwhahahahahahahahaha.

What a rationalized truckload of tripe, AAR.

Day 1,229 since liberals began their anti-American, pro-terrorist campaign that has caused the death of American soldiers and Iraqi families!

AAR, again, cons control the executive and legislative branch of our government. The Democrats have been hopelessley disorganized and liberals aren't being listened to. The death of American soldiers and Iraqi families can be placed directly at the feet of the Neocons who invisioned this invasion many years ago. Our policy of remaking the world in our image and country building is a FAILURE.

Sorry if you can't accept failure. Be a man. Admit it and let's move on.

And how many warrants have been turned down?

What makes your judges so special that only they are capable of deciding when we need to listen in on a terrorist?

Oh yes, that's right, your liberal judges are looking out for the criminals and terrorists! Law enforcement personnel capture criminals and terrorists and your liberal judges and the ACLU look for a loop hole to let them go! We need people making decisions whose objective is to stop and capture terrorists -- not ones who are more concerned about their "rights" and letting them go than the lives of the American people and the safety of our cities!!!

Have you heard of any "warrantless listening" to overseas terrorists phoning terrorists in the U.S. that resulted in anyone being illegally convicted of a crime?

Since liberals are so concerned about the "rights" of those terrorists, they must be liberals themselves!

If all of you libbies are so concerned that listening in on the terrorists are illegal, then ask your liberal Democratic members of Congress to change the laws to make it legal. That should make you happy -- make it legal!

AAR

Back OT:

Those who leaked the details of the NSA intercept program are the worst kind of traitors. They did not sell out their government for money. They did not use the established methods to reveal government wrongdoings. They did not have basic ideological differences with our form of government.

No, they jeopardized the safety of millions of Americans because they hate the President and disagree with his policies. Sorry, we have elections and the party that wins gets to set policy. Not some, low to mid-level beauraucrat.

Identify the traitors, give him/her the jury trial our system provides, and if guilty, execute him/her.

As for the "journalists" who betrayed the public's trust, for the same reason - hatred for the President - they need to be given a jury trial of their peers, and if found guilty, do some long time at Leavenworth.

Rev,

True. One should not feed, encourage, or otherwise recognize the trolls.

My concern is with the program, which few of you have addressed, that the Exective office is running is the one were all the calls by amyone are being looked at. Not being monitoring the actual calls but asking the phone companys for the all the calls that have been made. I am sure some of you conseratives see nothing wrong with asking all the telephone companies given the gov. the records of all call made by anyone. But i ask, would you be so uncercerned is your worst fear, Hillary is elected and with that power has someone look up the phone numbers of all the local NRA offices (something that can be easily done by anyone) and than has all the info form the tele co. searched for anyone who called those numbers. Power, unchecked, can be easily abused.

RS,

Why do you waste your valuable time and energy on a lowly troll? They are best left talking to themselves and other trolls who are just as mad as they.

Exactly, Spook. Let Warrior, Freedom, AAR, and Almiranta put those trolls in their places...

My concern is with the program, which few of you have addressed, that the Exective office is running is the one were all the calls by amyone are being looked at. Not being monitoring the actual calls but asking the phone companys for the all the calls that have been made. I am sure some of you conseratives see nothing wrong with asking all the telephone companies given the gov. the records of all call made by anyone. But i ask, would you be so uncercerned is your worst fear, Hillary is elected and with that power has someone look up the phone numbers of all the local NRA offices (something that can be easily done by anyone) and than has all the info form the tele co. searched for anyone who called those numbers. Power, unchecked, can be easily abused.

My concern is with the program, which few of you have addressed, that the Exective office is running is the one were all the calls by amyone are being looked at. Not being monitoring the actual calls but asking the phone companys for the all the calls that have been made. I am sure some of you conseratives see nothing wrong with asking all the telephone companies given the gov. the records of all call made by anyone. But i ask, would you be so uncercerned is your worst fear, Hillary is elected and with that power has someone look up the phone numbers of all the local NRA offices (something that can be easily done by anyone) and than has all the info form the tele co. searched for anyone who called those numbers. Power, unchecked, can be easily abused.

Ash,

Each and every American soldier or Iraqi family killed or wounded by a terrorist is a vote for your liberal [progressive] Democrats and your anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda!

You keep on encouraging them with your spineless, weak, liberal, cut and run mentality, and they keep voting for more just like you!

Ash, why don't you and your libbie friends move to a really successful country like France?

Day 1,229.5 since liberals began their anti-American, pro-terrorist campaign that has caused the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi families!

AAR

OhioGolfer,

If Hillary is elected, we have far more to worry about than what telephone number was called from another number!

If you haven't been placing lots of calls to a mountain top in western Pakistan, or to Osama bin Laden's private phone, or to the head of Hezbollah or Hamas, don't get too concerned. As we have hashed, hashed, and rehashed many times before, no one cares how many times you call your relatives or local Wal-Mart.

We are after terrorists, not your relatives. In case you don't remember, they are the ones who flew those four passenger planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the ground. You might review the video in case you have forgotten!

AAR

Ash,

Its quite simple, really: a serial killer, once in custody, poses no real threat to anyone anymore, so there's no need to kill him. A traitor, on the other hand, has risked the life of every single American, and his treason will have affects even decades after the traitor is caught.

Golfer, on the off chance that you are genuinely interested and not just regurgitating predigested pap from Air America trying to make some point, let me give you an example of how general phone info might be of help---without identifying any person or conversation.

Let's say that the government is trying to find patterns of usual/normal phone conversations. So they data mine the records of several phone companies. And they establish patterns that they define as being within "normal" perameters. They learn, for example, that very few phone calls last less than, say, a minute and a half.

So they concentrate on phone calls shorter than that. And they learn that the "normal" parameters for calls that are shorter than that fall into very distinct patterns---say, a number calls another number, the call lasts 20 seconds, and then the calling number dials a number that is one digit off from the number called last. So they establish that "normal" patterns for very short calls usually involve what are clearly wrong or misdialed numbers.

How is this helpful? Well, computers can be programmed to pick up calling patterns which are outside the parameters of what have been determined to be "normal". So let's say the computers pick up a series of very short calls, each lasting 23 seconds. And then the computers follow up and find that no followup calls were made by the calling numbers to similar numbers. Hmmmm. So the computer is then alerted to go to the next stage, and it finds that each number called then called five other numbers, and each of those calls lasted exactly 23 seconds. And then it learns that each of those five numbers immediately placed calls to five other numbers, and each of those lasted exactly 23 seonds. And so on. And it learns that within about half an hour, a very large number of calls were made, each lasting the same length of time, but all stemming from that original call.

Suspicious? Well, it could be a soccer mom telephone tree, informing other moms of an awards picnic. Or it could be far more ominous. A check on the owners of the phone numbers in question would answer that pretty darned quickly.

This is a very simple example of how data mining of call PATTERNS obtained from telephone company records can be used to find threats and track plotters.

Surely you can see how the mere gathering of information can lead to a tool that can quickly identify suspicious activity and also identify those who participate in that activity, without in any way compromising the privacy or rights of those who merely had their call PATTERNS entered into a data base to be compared against other call PATTERNS to establish norms.

It's not about tracking individual calls. It's not about snooping into private conversations. It's most definitely not about "domestic spying" or "warrantless wiretapping" or any of the other misleading terms tossed about by the Left to create false impressions among the gullible.

Of course, once it's exposed, all the terrorist cells have to do is use more disposable phones, juggle the length of their calls, use a series of pay phones, or find other ways to subvert the process. And once they do this, all you have to do is hope their target is not in Ohio, or a plane on which your wife or momma is a passenger. Because our ability to track the numbers which appeared in an anomolous pattern has been destroyed---not to protect any right of any law-abiding American, but to subvert the ability of this Administration to protect its citizens, thereby increasing the chances of the opposition to gain power.

The Round Brown Eye plops out this little brown nugget:

"What he wants is a blank check to tap anyone he wants, stay on the line for indefinate periods, without any evidence, until something incriminating is said..."

Says who? Spurce your snippet, oh great sphincter of wisdom.

Yes, your guru Ranty Rhodes tells you all about what Bush WANTS and what Bush THINKS and what Bush is REALLY UP TO....but how, exactly, do you verify the Ranter's claims? Where did she GET that crystal ball she depends on to fill her in on what things REALLT mean? What evidence is there, real EVIDENCE, from any source, that anyone listening to any conversation at any time fits into your wild-eyed claim?

Because the paragraph I quoted is simply, totally, unequivocally, false. It is fantasy. It is fever-swamp invented paranoid fantasy. There is simply not one single shred of evidence anywhere in the world that supports one iota of this regurgitation of neorad cant.

Hell, you don't even know (or care?) what the meaning of "tap" is. There are no "warrantless wiretaps". None. Zilch. Nada.

There are some electronic intercepts of international transmissions, some of which terminate within the borders of the United States. When a call is placed by a known terrorist overseas and it is intercepted, it continues to be intercepted even if the recipient is located here. Big whoop.

If a specific number within the United States looks like it may be productive, a warrant is requested to continue surveillance of that number, on incoming and outgoing calls.

But your bizarre paranoid characterization of basic police and intelligence work is really just an unwelcome glimpse into the murk of the Lefty neorad consciousness......ick, times many.

The biggest traiter of the past fifty years (or more) is John Kerry for travel to Paris to meet with the communists while he was still an officer in the Naval Reserve. I believe he received a dishonorable discharge from the Navy and received an honorable one several years later after a review by a court of officers, courtesy of Jimmy Carter.

Mark, It must be nice and easy to live in such a black and white world.....

A traitor, on the other hand, has risked the life of every single American, and his treason will have affects even decades after the traitor is caught.

You have no proof that there have or will be any lives risked as a result of the NSA being called on it's seedy proceedures.

And yet a much better case can be made for the outing of Valerie Plame being a risk to our security.

BTW: Any reaction to your fellow Catholic/Born Again/ Mel Gibson?

Ash,

True, we cannot know how many terrorist plots will not be stopped because a traitor in our midst, with the help of the MSM, has told the world about our efforts to thwart the next terrorist attack. But, you can reasonably conclude that by disclosing this information, the traitor and those in the MSM who aided and abetted in disclosing classified information have limited our ability to stop the terrorists. Hopefully, we will stay one step ahead of the terrorist and will still be able to detect their plans.

If the NSA program was so "seedy", where was your outrage when President Clinton was using it to intercept domestic communications? Oh, right, he's a liberal, so it was okay when they were conducting domestic intercepts without a warrant. But its not okay when a Republican Administration intercepts international communications to gather foreign intelligence to stop a terrorist attack.

To equate the disclosure of a classified program that has been successful in detecting terrorist plots with the Plame non-affair is ludicrous. You do realize that Plame's employment by the CIA was "outed" twice before: once by Aldrich Ames, and once by the CIA when a diplomatic pouch being delivered to the US Interest Office in Cuba was opened and read by the Cubans. You can't "out" someone who has already been outed. Besides, that paragon of virtue, Joe Wilson, ensured that anyone with half a brain knew that his wife worked for the CIA. But that would exclude most liberals.

So you actually think mentioning that Joe Wilson's wife put him up for the gig in Niger was more damaging to our national security than telling the world how we are intercepting terrorist communications?

But keep up your howling at the moon. You moonbats confirm, on a daily basis, that liberals cannot be trusted with our national security.

Well I can suggest you keep buying the propoganda from our Tyranny of Fearmongers (AKA Dick Cheney and his puppet George W)

As long as you are afraid, ZZZZZZZZZ Will do as mastah says ZZZZZZ

Almiranta: "Suspicious? Well, it could be a soccer mom telephone tree, informing other moms of an awards picnic. Or it could be far more ominous. A check on the owners of the phone numbers in question would answer that pretty darned quickly."

You seem to have a pretty good general idea about what's going on. When you're doing a pattern analysis you have a choice of how specific it is in discriminating actual hits. If you're more specific then you run a greater risk of "false negatives" -- i.e., missing a pattern that IS suspicious. Likewise, if you're less specific you generate more "false positives" -- i.e., detecting patterns that turn out not to be suspicious. Soccer moms is an obvious example. And you're right -- the only way you know is to actually check it out, by checking out the actual individuals you suspect. The thing is, some of the "false positives" aren't all that obvious. So you end up having to check out individuals more thoroughly. And in the process you invariably end up gathering all kinds of information -- information which isn't relevant to a terrorist investigation, but may be relevant in another context: say, the activities of a political group, or a company that you don't happen to like. It's not that they're doing anything wrong, it's just that you don't like them. So now you have this information about them. Without oversight, how do you know the spooks involved don't make use of it? In fact, without oversight, your techniciams can tweak the system to maximize the possibility that you gather those kinds of patterns -- in addition to terrorists, of course. And frankly, I don't want Hillary doing that.