Jim

In an attempt to find some common ground, I think that the issue here really does boil down to whether you view this to be a war. I bet that Severian would not object to this program if it were being carried out in WWII (of course assuming that the technologies existed in the 1940s). If the national survival was at sake or if we were fighting the evil of Hitler, I bet he would want a highly efficient mechanism to intercept and read every communication by the enemy into the United States. He would probably say that he'd prefer a warrant to be obtained but that in wartime when the national survival is at stake the important thing is to intercept every such communication. Am I right so far? As I've posted before, I think the point at which the discussions here really break down is whether we are in a real war against a real enemy. A portion of the administration's position is from the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld opinion: This decision deals with "the legality of the Government's detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an 'enemy combatant.'" Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that the detainment of prisoners is "so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the 'necessary and appropriate force' Congress has authorized the President to use." What makes you uncomfortable, I'm guessing, is that this "war" has no end in site. It's not being fought against any country and there is no ground to gain. I've posted earlier that I share this concern although I'd wager I am closer to thinking this is a genuine war than you. The point of Justice O'Connor was that Congress did not draw this kind of distinction in its authorization of force resolution. Perhaps it should but it did not. Instead, on September 18, 2001, Congress passed the following joint resolution:

While you have that dictionary open, you might look up pedantic and pleonastic.

You've just got to enjoy the US move here. It's not what I would do but it is funny that we are not supporting the Europeans. Hilarious cartoons like this serve an important function. The self-righteous seriousness of the Muslim world needs to be skewered with humor. Political cartoons have a long history of changing thinking and touching the untouchable. http://www2.truman.edu/parker/research/cartoons.html

Your slippery slope argument is absurd. The examples you give have no logical connection except for your paranoia about this administration. This program was briefed to the leaders of the intelligence committee and is about to be subjected to enormous scrutiny at Congress. There is no evidence that it is going to lead to internment camps in America. The program at some point would get out in the press and if that didn't happen, we will have another president some day. I'm not saying the concern about civil liberties is irrelevant. My problem with your posts is that you go to extremes. I am, in your view, more of a threat than Bin Laden. I didn't put that LOL in there gratuitously; you really did make me laugh several times today. Thanks. Pangloss, if the offending post was in response to something of mine, I'd prefer to deal with it. Please trust me that nothing I've seen thus far from Severian is going to get under my skin.

The reaction does seem deeply defensive:

Boy, this is tough. Let me see if I can draw lines here. These examples all blend so easily into the other. As a general matter, I would accept: 1. Monitoring calls by suspected terrorists into the United States. 2. Invading a hostile, unstable regime, friendly to terrorists, callous to human life, with the potential to acquire WMDs when that regime had invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, committed to disarm WMDS and disclose, refused to disclose, attempted to assassinate a former US president, been subjected to UN sanctions and still continued to refuse to disclose even as US military power gathered to invade. Oh, nooooo, I'm on the slippery slope! Can't... help... myself.. I suddenly find myself compelled to support... it's all blending together, can't.. stop... must ... support... abuse of prisoners, shooting people on subways and... *sob* internment camps. I stand corrected.

You are in a position to assess the NSA's ability to build a list of suspected terrorists? Seriously, reading the 9/11 report, I'm struck with how carefully the agents were applying the FISA standards. I see no evidence that the NSA is a rogue agency that would "bug anyone who disagrees with them."

I'll take you seriously when you are prepared to descend from lofty generalities and get with the rest of us in the trenches of detail. Did you understand that the program is designed to catch communications into the U.S. by El Qaeda?

Your initial post spoke to a "lot of bigotry" yet you only cited to one poster. I'll let her speak for herself but you seemed to be attempting to tar more than one person. If that is your intent, have the guts to be specific. There is a question of where you draw the line. I would draw the line based on the ability to influence. I had no ability to influence Stalin or Mao. The south was judged more harshly than the US but whatever. Responsibility should be based on ability to influence. If Christian fundamentalist churches in the united states had a contingent that started bombing abortion clinics and left wing journalists, the leaders of those churches would have a moral obligation to speak out and do everything in their power to stop the violence. I'm not convinced that Muslim leaders have made such an effort. I guess they should come over and kill me then. I'd be in good company if I were a target. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm I think the publisher was making the point that you were condemning in your post. The republishers were reacting to the attempt to cow freedom of expression.

You understand none of us here drew the cartoon? The question was whether we should be cowed in the face of this furor. The answer is simply, no. I sure wouldn't try to say what is the best way for a journalist to write every article about Muslims. I do question the initial publisher but not the republishers.

I have no problem with the NSA bugging any phone calls I have with suspected El Queda agents. FWIW, I hope you will not judge my opinion based on that one post as I have provided a lot of detail in previous posts as to why I think the program may well be lawful.

My recent posts have gone to the need, not the lawfulness, of the terrorist surveillance program. I have previously posted why I believe the administration has a good faith legal position.

I can't figure out why you are resisting this. Didn't you say that you "absolutely" wanted to monitor the communications into the United States by El Queda? Yes, I suppose that the government could ask for information from 31 different sources, but why? If the communication is from El Queda suspects, why not just get the email? As the 9/11 report makes clear, sometimes time is of the essense in these kind of investigations as some of the leads were coming in as late as 8/01. I'll look into your legal claims tomorrow. Today is my old guy basketball league! I was speaking to my personal take on the situation, not yours. I do know that earlier in these threads I've tried to elicit the concession that Bush did not do this for grins but was instead trying to protect the national interest. I seem to recall getting some resistance on this point from some sources. Motivation is almost always relevant in criminal proceedings, if nothing else in the sentencing phase. I sense from the left some sort of validation in this episode as to Bush's ill will. I'm glad you don't share in this mindset but there certainly is a ABB crowd. Bottom line: Whether it be via email or telephone calls, a terrorist may well need to marshall resources inside of the U.S. to mount a spectacular attack. I want to monitor every communication by El Queda into the U.S.. FISA does not allow this, instead permitting only communications with agents of foreign powers to be monitored. President Bush acted in the best interests of the country and on the basis of a good faith legal argument that he had the power. He may well not have wanted the terrorists to know we were pluggint his hole in FISA. This is an extremly modest restriction of civil liberties in proportion to the reduction of risk obtained.

I'm not being clear. If information had connected Atta to El Queda, under the current program, we could intercept the communications merely because they were communications from El Queda into the U.S. It doesn't matter how many non-El Queda foreign inquiries are made to U.S. fligh schools. This program kicks in when the NSA has an email address or phone # linked to El Queda. They follow that number and, in this example, find out that El Queda has called 31 flight schools in America. The next logical question would be why El Queda agents needs to learn to fly jets. However, even if we had known Atta was with El Queda and even if we had known he was emailing into the United States, FISA would not allow a warrant to issue so we could read those communications because the U.S. recepients were not "agent of a foreign power." Therefore, if El Queda were planning another attack which used U.S. resources such as a flight school, FISA would not let the NSA monitor those communications. The Bush adminstration has repeatedly stated that it can't discuss the operational details of this program. This is an example of how getting into the nuts and bolts can apprise our enemy. Having a full blown congressional debate on FISA, even to the largest degree in secret, would likewise have potentially revealed information. Rather than assume Bush is motivated to infringe civil liberties, it is more reasonable to me after reading quite a bit of material to believe that he was motivated to protect the national interest.

These applications could not be under FISA law because the recipients of the communication - the flight schools - were not agents of foreign powers.

To continue the analysis, please note that this incident would require 31 different FISA application because it involves 31 different United States citizens/firms. All of the applications would fail because the flight schools were not agents of foreign powers.

This is turning out to be a very revealing incident and I think the lessons learned are going to take a while to digest. My initial reaction is that in any free country people have the right to protest and to boycott any paper which offends. If someone dips a crucifix in urine, that is intended to provoke a reaction, and the artist cannot complain if Christians react lawfully. What I'm trying to guage is how widespread are the threats of violence. I can't help but hope that this religion does not flourish. One billion seems quite enough. They seriously need to unclench.

More Washington Post hijinks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html

Yep. It is a less extreme but similar mindset. It is what results when human beings require that everything be shoved through a single filter.

This would be funny if it weren't so serious.

Even if the NSA knew that Atta was a terrorist and was sending emails into the United States, under FISA, no warrant could be issued to intercept these communications because there was no basis for believing the flight schools were agents of foreign powers. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html If Bush had come to Congress and proposed a rewrite of the FISA, it would have been a matter of public record and media attention. Reading the 9/11 commission, I'm struck with the intelligence and education of our adversaries. It would have been foolish for Bush to believe that they would not have paid attention to this public legislative process. Therefore, instead of the full legislative process, Bush invoked his Constitutional power as commander in chief during a time of war and Congress' authorization of the use of force. He briefed the so-called "gang of eight" and quietly put a program in place to intercept exactly this kind of communication by terrorists into this country. Democrats would do well not to bet the ranch on this issue.

The democrats bogged themselves down in irrelevancies like the CAP non-issue. They knew Alito could not ethically answer many of the questions they asked. They were playing a game just so they could argue that Alito was not forthcoming. This isn't just me. I've heard several liberal commentators say they thought the Senate Democrats did a terrible job.

I'm going to be out for most of the rest of the day so it looks like I'll miss the Post's apology. Dang....