Comments on: Explain this to me… http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/ Just another Pajamasmedia.com weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:39:12 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: orangebob http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74078 orangebob Fri, 10 Feb 2006 05:50:16 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74078 I don't think timeliness is the issue since FISA allows electronic interception with the court's approval after the fact. There may be an issue with the allowed 72 hours and the sheer bulk of requests swamping the FISA courts and the ability of the good guys to prepare mountains of documents. A more important problem is that FISA is oriented toward existing legal methods of dealing with criminal behavior, but the real need is for interdiction of acts of war. Not the same thing. I think the analogy flensor makes with radar searches for speeding cars is apt. Posner made a similar argument on his blog and was roundly criticized by many lawyers, but then that's what lawyers do. Congress wants to send lawyers to the fight when they need to send soldiers. I don’t think timeliness is the issue since FISA allows electronic interception with the court’s approval after the fact. There may be an issue with the allowed 72 hours and the sheer bulk of requests swamping the FISA courts and the ability of the good guys to prepare mountains of documents.

A more important problem is that FISA is oriented toward existing legal methods of dealing with criminal behavior, but the real need is for interdiction of acts of war. Not the same thing. I think the analogy flensor makes with radar searches for speeding cars is apt. Posner made a similar argument on his blog and was roundly criticized by many lawyers, but then that’s what lawyers do. Congress wants to send lawyers to the fight when they need to send soldiers.

]]> By: lmg http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74077 lmg Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:40:46 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74077 This obsession with warrants is ridiculous. Now I suppose there will be efforts to make the warrant application/approval process nearly instantaneous. That will also make it meaningless, because the grantor will have no time for meaningful review. Why not just let the Executive branch do its job? This obsession with warrants is ridiculous. Now I suppose there will be efforts to make the warrant application/approval process nearly instantaneous. That will also make it meaningless, because the grantor will have no time for meaningful review. Why not just let the Executive branch do its job?

]]> By: Sandy P http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74076 Sandy P Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:10:57 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74076 Did I read a headline correctly? Remember the guy who got on the plane, trying to run away because his girlfriend/wife broke up w/him? And they pulled him off, IIRC??? It was last year. He was making ricin, or was it someone else? Did I read a headline correctly?

Remember the guy who got on the plane, trying to run away because his girlfriend/wife broke up w/him? And they pulled him off, IIRC??? It was last year.

He was making ricin, or was it someone else?

]]> By: Sandy P http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74075 Sandy P Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:47:56 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74075 -- How is obtaining warrants in a timely manner really possible in the modern world of near instananeous satellite communications?-- Instant gratification crowd. Same thing's happening w/this new medicare drug policy. Enrolling millions of people and it should work seamlessly from day 1. – How is obtaining warrants in a timely manner really possible in the modern world of near instananeous satellite communications?–

Instant gratification crowd.

Same thing’s happening w/this new medicare drug policy.

Enrolling millions of people and it should work seamlessly from day 1.

]]> By: stumbley http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74074 stumbley Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:20:03 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74074 By the way...anyone who is talking on a cell phone and thinks that their conversation is "private" has no clue how a cell phone operates. It's a little radio transmitter, for heaven's sake! ANYONE can listen in with the right equipment. And of course, now that they've been briefed, now that the program has been hopelessly compromised, Harman and the other congresspeople are "okay" with it... By the way…anyone who is talking on a cell phone and thinks that their conversation is “private” has no clue how a cell phone operates. It’s a little radio transmitter, for heaven’s sake! ANYONE can listen in with the right equipment.

And of course, now that they’ve been briefed, now that the program has been hopelessly compromised, Harman and the other congresspeople are “okay” with it…

]]> By: zefal http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74073 zefal Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:11:25 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74073 Is there any doubt that many democrats have wet dreams of the US mainland being attacked again during Bush's presidency so they can then argue (some more) that the war on terror was all for naught. Anything that helps prevent this from happening they are going to attack for this reason. Is there any doubt that many democrats have wet dreams of the US mainland being attacked again during Bush’s presidency so they can then argue (some more) that the war on terror was all for naught.

Anything that helps prevent this from happening they are going to attack for this reason.

]]> By: Cynic http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74072 Cynic Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:57:50 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74072 Now here's an American who could have been phoning some nice guys: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010124.php "An American citizen held in Iraq since 2004 allegedly worked with terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and helped plan insurgent attacks on foreigners in Iraq, NBC News has learned." Now here’s an American who could have been phoning some nice guys:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010124.php

“An American citizen held in Iraq since 2004 allegedly worked with terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and helped plan insurgent attacks on foreigners in Iraq, NBC News has learned.”

]]> By: photoncourier.blogspot.com http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74071 photoncourier.blogspot.com Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:45:30 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74071 I wonder precisely what kind of warrant they would like to see, under what circumstances. For example: if NSA indeed has systems that scan traffic for keywords, would they want a warrant that defines the specific keywords the system can look for? What if interception of traffic on certain kinds of comm links requires recording of *all* traffic on those links, which recordings can later be analyzed to find specific calls? Would they regard that as a violation of the rights of everyone whose calls were carried on those links and whose conversations were therefore recorded? I don't denigrate the right to privacy or the importance of civil liberties; however, I see little understanding on the part of the Democrats of the real complexities of these issues. I wonder precisely what kind of warrant they would like to see, under what circumstances. For example: if NSA indeed has systems that scan traffic for keywords, would they want a warrant that defines the specific keywords the system can look for? What if interception of traffic on certain kinds of comm links requires recording of *all* traffic on those links, which recordings can later be analyzed to find specific calls? Would they regard that as a violation of the rights of everyone whose calls were carried on those links and whose conversations were therefore recorded?

I don’t denigrate the right to privacy or the importance of civil liberties; however, I see little understanding on the part of the Democrats of the real complexities of these issues.

]]> By: Plainslow http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74070 Plainslow Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:40:33 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74070 It was a joke Anne. Sorry It was a joke Anne. Sorry

]]> By: RogerA http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74069 RogerA Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:10:27 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/02/09/explain-this-to-me/#comment-74069 I am starting to see this whole NSA thing as a struggle between the Legislative and Executive and executive branches for power--yes, there are Republican/Democratic political issues, and ideological "left and right" issues however useless those terms are becoming. There isnt much recourse for the Legislative branches unless they (1) want to cut off funding for the program and the recognize the inanity of that response in an election year--cutting a program a majority of Americans seem to think is OK; (2) Revising Legislation or the Authority to Use Military Force and sending it to the President for signature (surely a veto); trying to impeach the President in the House (too many Rs and besides would the Ds really be happy with Dick Cheney if they got what they wanted; or hope the courts deal with the issue--and absent some specific information from someone who has been wronged by the program, they would have a hard time finding someone wronged--and ultimately, the court tends to avoid separation of powers issues and if pushed tends to defer to the executive in times of national emergency. Finally--the Ds are dealing with a lame duck president who doesnt appear to be content to roll over. I think Ms Harman is going to see very slow progress indeed, because neither the Legislative Branch, nor the Democrats seem to have a lot of options. I I am starting to see this whole NSA thing as a struggle between the Legislative and Executive and executive branches for power–yes, there are Republican/Democratic political issues, and ideological “left and right” issues however useless those terms are becoming. There isnt much recourse for the Legislative branches unless they (1) want to cut off funding for the program and the recognize the inanity of that response in an election year–cutting a program a majority of Americans seem to think is OK; (2) Revising Legislation or the Authority to Use Military Force and sending it to the President for signature (surely a veto); trying to impeach the President in the House (too many Rs and besides would the Ds really be happy with Dick Cheney if they got what they wanted; or hope the courts deal with the issue–and absent some specific information from someone who has been wronged by the program, they would have a hard time finding someone wronged–and ultimately, the court tends to avoid separation of powers issues and if pushed tends to defer to the executive in times of national emergency. Finally–the Ds are dealing with a lame duck president who doesnt appear to be content to roll over.

I think Ms Harman is going to see very slow progress indeed, because neither the Legislative Branch, nor the Democrats seem to have a lot of options.

I

]]>