FISA Violated

Joe
.
No comment on the issue of whether or not the NSA targeted a member of Congress?

Carter, Clinton welcome The Once to ARTICULATE LIAR FAILURES alumni club, hope to see him Woodrow Wilson Weekend at Notre Damascus.

.........

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Obama voted FOR the bailout bills, and FOR the FISA flip-flop.

So it must be Bush's fault that President Skippy inherited these messes.

..........

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

When, when I ask will the pirates and other unclaimed terrorists begin to appreciate the appeasement and whining and kowtowing of the Jihad Joke Kleins and Brick Obongos and Reno Nippalitos of the ACORN World Orifice?

1-2-3-4,
Let's All Smoke
And Lose A War.

Goooooooooooooooooo Team Vichy!

........

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Joe-The bad news is NSA apparently has been overstepping the law?
.
No. The bad news is there is very weak oversight. Once the deed is done the harm is done. There is no recourse.
.
I'm just supposed to trust Eric Holder. Why? Because he called NSA for their improper behavior? What did he do send a strongly worded letter? And if I do trust Holder and he proves worthy of that trust is he going to be AG until I die preventing a less trust worthy AG and administration from allowing the abuses to continue?
.
Sorry Joe. There are no consequences for the abuse and that is the problem. No one will be fired or indicted. The past administration and the Obama administration will insure that never happens and you in the media and the democratic congress will be of great assistance in that effort.

Time-AOL-Jazeera runs 24/7 gratis Obama ad, seeks free contribs from non-union writers that aren't they're union writers.

...................

http://ow.ly/30iC

Ahhh. The honeymoon is over. Joe discusses FISA and we can all suddenly see that any areas of broad agreement are abruptly unimportant.
.
is infuriating that the government can't seem to abide by them.
.
It is not infuriating Joe. It is utterly unsurprising, unremarkable and entirely expected. If you give boys toys, they're going to play with them. If you aren't willing to keep an eye on them, they will do something stupid. If the only incentive the NSA faces is the fear of missing something important and there's no coutervailing incentive to protect the rights of the innocent, then abuses are as predictable as spring thunderstorms.
.
I know you've painted yourself in a corner already so your not in a position to come out and admit that GG the EFF and the ACLU have been right on this issue all along but that doesn't change the fact that they have indeed been right all along.

"The bad news is there is very weak oversight."

....

But enough about Rezko, and Blago, and Wright, and FISA, and PayPal Gaza...

....

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

Obama voted FOR the FISA flip-flop before he voted sorta kinda maybe how's the new puppy pirates what pirates hey look at al the French food Michelle have you seen my Newports kids get the dog off the carpet will someone please keep the MIL out of the kitchen what's that wet stain on the marine One tires for Pete's sake of course we never vet our staff or contributors this is Amnesia not America and as I've sworn twice before at least I'm POTUS and we stopped Bush's third term say hello to Hugo and Fidel for me Vlad look I don't do math and my mob could care less hope and change hope and change praise Allah dollars almighty hope and change...

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

= MARC RICH ACCOMPLISHED =

Guess nobody is following this clown on twitter so he is back to phuck up the thread. Peace.

"1. There is a real need to monitor conversations terrorists may be having with their associates in the US."
.
Duh. That's not the issue Joe and you know it. That's like saying there's a real need for a police force to combat crime. No one would disagree.

While I have some hope that Mr. Obama might attempt to restore the Constitution as the basis of the US government, I don't think that he'll really succeed. Power is just too tempting for most of us to refuse, regardless of our inclinations and self-images. The deliberate, systematic and thorough way that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush set about removing any remaining checks on Executive power went so far that I don't think they can ever be restored, even partially. The hyperventilating by the right-wing punditry would be amusing in a horrible way, if it wasn't entirely predictable, when they finally seem to have realized that the powers they desperately wanted to use against their enemies now might be turned against them. Alas, all we former Republicans can say to them now is "If you're not guilty of anything, then you have nothing to worry about, right?"

Those of us who supported FISA reform last year did so for two reasons:
.
Let me suggest a few other reasons:
.
1. You didn't understand the law, as originally enacted.
.
2. You didn't understand the "reforms".
.
3. You refused to believe that abuses were entirely predictable.
.
4. You refused to admit that abuses had already been revealed even before the "reform" legislation was being pushed.
.
5. You refused to admit (or draw any conclusions from the fact) that Bush administration officials -- and Bush himself! -- had been openly lying about the NSA's surveillance programs.
.
6. You were afraid of being labelled a DFH.

It's really a shame. At rick of overgeneralizing it seem that those on the left who care about government overreach and protecting our Freedom have been doing so out of priciple and because they beleive its right. Those on the right OTOH only care about it when it when their team is in the field.
.
I'm very fond of linking to this:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
Because it harkens back to a simpler time, when the Republicans were right on the issue of privacy and were fighting against a Democrat's overreach.
.
That's also why I was so amused when spob linked to Powerline accusing 'the left' of remaining silent about Obama's abuse of power and between SG and I we were quickly able to gather names of 10-20 prominent left-leaning commentators willing to call the Obama administration out.
.
Needless to say, those who's notion of bipartisanship involves taking the worst of the Dem's and Repub's postions and blending them into a flavorless mush, find such actual concern over an issue disorienting to say the least.

rick=risk

Joe, me lad - wha' be Mr Holder doin' t' hold th' scallywags accountable?
.
I might be a wee bit more understandin' were there t' be some real, actual, consequences fer' violatin' th' privacy o' American Citizens by th' NSA.
.
An' real, actual changes t' th' law t' prevent oversteppin' in th' future!

I don't know, Joe, you make a valid point, but so does the NSA. I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.

Paul Dirks
.
I believe Joe did admit he was wrong in this sentence.
.

Those who opposed the program believed--correctly--that, despite the safeguards, the potential for government violations was substantial.

One other point I think its important to make is that the various things that we like to think of as our civil rights, the things that our founders saw necessary to include in a Bill of Rights, weren't put in there just to formalize what's obvious. They were put in there because the temptation to violate them even with majority support is so strong. If the temptation to codify religious tenets into law weren't common, there'd be no need for the first amendment. If the temptation to coerce confessions out of suspects weren't strong, there'd be no need for a fifth amendment. If the temptation to spy on political enemies weren't strong, there's be no need for a fourth amendment.
.
In each case, not only is the temptation strong but for many such activities securing public approval is relatively easy. You just have to yell BOO!! loud enough.....

Unlike many of my fellow commenters I came to the swamp after the FISA debate, so I don't know all of the nuances of the different opinions, but the one thing I do know is that every piece of legislation the government creates for one specific purpose they adapt for unintended uses. No matter how much I might trust Eric Holder or President Obama, I'm pretty sure there are folks sitting in jail right this moment because of the rico statute that have nothing to do with organized crime.

Mr. Klein, you consider yourself an experienced sophisticated observer of politics and you're surprised the government overstepped its bounds? BTW, read Glenn Greenwald's 'How would a Patriot Act?'. The safeguards were in place before last year, they just needed to be enforced.
.
Hulagate et. al will understand FISA when Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck get 'spitzered'.

Spencer Ackerman's top three posts are on FISA including one a piece with statments from DiFi and Feingold respectively
.
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/

Joe: But how did the original FISA law not meet the requirements of (1)? The fact that the Bush administration couldn't be bothered to go through the FISA court does not, by itself, mean the law needed amending.
.
And is that mock surprise that the NSA is "overstepping its bounds" (ie breaking the law)? Or you really thought a spy agency would voluntarily restrain itself? I mean talk about naivety.

"Those who opposed the program believed--correctly--that, despite the safeguards, the potential for government violations was substantial."
.
I'm calling B**** F***king S***! This is fundamental BS! The safeguards are pretty much nonexistant. That's the problem.