Why the new FISA bill is even worse than you think
As you know, just prior to adjourning for its August recess, Congress caved in to Bush administration pressure and passed the Republican version of a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Sixteen Democratic senators and over 40 Democratic representatives voted in favor of the bill, ensuring a comfortable margin of victory in both houses. I'm not convinced that these Democrats fully appreciate what it is they've done.
I say that because the full implications of these amendments are not obvious from the four corners of the bill itself and it seems to have been intentionally structured (and sold to the public) in a way that obscures its true scope.
The bill has two basic components. First, it creates a carve-out that exempts nearly all international communications (even when one party is in the U.S.) from FISA's regular provisions (which require individualized warrants, minimization, judicial review, etc.). The second half of the bill then grants the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence the power to authorize warrantless surveillance of the category of communications carved out by the first half of the bill. This authority is conditioned on compliance with a series of not-very-rigorous procedures and oversight requirements. The Attorney General and DNI must certify in writing (and under oath) that certain factual predicates have been met, and they must come up a set of operating protocols designed to ensure that only the carved out category of communications are intercepted. These operating protocols are then submitted to the FISA court for review on an annual basis (the court reviews them under the highly deferential "clearly erroneous" standard).
Most of the debate in Congress and coverage of the bill in the media has focused on whether these procedures and oversight requirements are sufficiently rigorous to protect Americans' civil liberties. They're not. But that's more or less beside the point because--and this is what I think many people do not yet appreciate--given the way FISA is structured, the President is under no obligation to follow even these watered-down oversight requirements. They are merely optional.
To understand why this is the case, you need to understand how FISA works. The key provision in the FISA statutory framework is 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). It's quite convoluted, so to make things easier, the words you need to read are in bold:
Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
This provision, which has always been a part of FISA, does two very important things. In the first half, it expressly disclaims any intent to interfere with the president's foreign intelligence gathering powers except with respect to "electronic surveillance" as defined by FISA. The second half--which is often referred to as the exclusivity provision--makes it clear that, with respect to "electronic surveillance," FISA's procedures are exclusive, i.e, that Congress did not intend to leave the president with any residual power to conduct this sort of surveillance outside of the FISA framework.
Unlike previous administration proposals, the bill that Congress passed last week left this provision intact. But, and this is critically important, the bill significantly narrowed FISA's definition of "electronic surveillance." Here's what the amendment says:
Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
Thanks to this carve out, many--if not most--intercepted communications between someone in the U.S. and someone in another country (even if that person is a U.S. citizen) are no longer considered "electronic surveillance."
That means that, pursuant to section 2511(2)(f), the president retains his inherent authority with respect to this sort of surveillance and FISA does not purport to establish the "exclusive means" by which it can be conducted.
In other words, because this carved out category of surveillance is no longer considered "electronic surveillance," the warrantless surveillance authority granted to the Attorney General and DNI in the new FISA bill is redundant. By FISA's own terms, the president would appear to retain the power to order this sort of surveillance on his own authority and according to his own terms, subject only to the Fourth Amendment. The procedures and oversight requirements laid out in the bill are therefore optional.
Furthermore, the bill passed by Congress did not amend FISA's criminal and civil liability provisions, which, like the exclusivity provision, are still tied to the definition of "electronic surveillance." For instance, section 1809 of FISA makes it is a felony to "engage[] in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." All of the other punitive provisions are similarly worded.
Therefore, as long as the government is engaged in "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States," it cannot possibly run afoul of FISA's criminal or civil liability provisions, even if it totally disregards all of the procedures and oversight requirements spelled out in the bill. There's no penalty for non-compliance.
It is imperative that members of Congress and the media be made aware of the full scope of this bill. It is not as advertised. By carving out a large category of surveillance activities from the definition of "electronic surveillance," the bill effectively exempts such surveillance from FISA altogether. And while the bill purports to establish conditions and procedures for conducting warrantless surveillance, these requirements are effectively optional and, in any case, there is no penalty in the statute for disobeying them. Those lawmakers who voted for this bill need to be confronted with these facts and shamed into doing something to correct the situation.
1st again?
Please read this NYT article:
Reported Decline in Surveillance Spurred Quick Law
It tells exactly how the Democrats got snookered into passing that atrocity. The House and Senate majority whips aren't doing their jobs.
watch and listen to them!....Why?....Because I SAID SO!!!...you don't need to know anything else...JUST DO IT!....bu-bu-but it's illegal.........NOT ANYMORE......DO IT!.....NOW!
don't forget that our very own Jim Webb voted for it, citing the example of DINO Dianne Feinstein
press release
we are being tracked and traced like human cattle while corporations face no regulations
I would truly love for all the pro-war types who support the eavesdropping/spying powers to realize that the government might be recording each and every pornographic site they visit.
Seriously, someone ought to air this widely: if they support govt intrusion and surveillance, will they gladly acquiesce to the government monitoring their online porn consumption? Connected to their name in a database?
I'd love to see the look on their faces as they would presumably blanch at the idea. And you know the pasty pro-war bloggers probably look at a LOT of it, more than the 90% of guys who occasionally do.
This bill is designed for one thing and one thing only. Create fear and distrust amongst the American populace and to enhance Bushes dictatorial powers.
Intelligence agencies from all over the world, Russia, Israel, France, England, you name it including our own were screaming to Bush all the way up to Sept 11, 2001 something was coming down and Bush Co ignored it.
What further proof does one need it isn't and wasn't the intelligence system and warrant system that needed fixing and modifying, it worked perfectly fine, it's something else that fixing. And we all know what that is.
One might almost conclude that everything is going according to plan.
sigh, how stupid of me to think that when the democrats won - that we'd finally be safe because either of the houses of congress could block the further progress of the neocons. i know, I'm not always correct. I guess it was just desperate wishful thinking on my part.
But now what do we do?!!!
America,
Land of the FreeBut thats ok, as long as we're safe from da turrists. i have nothing to hide.
Now excuse me while i eat this glue and watch cavuto.
This is just the beginning of the nightmare. Tie this monstrosity with the bringing back of the draft and requiring job seekers to get approval from Homeland Security and you tell me what you've got and what it leaves the door wide open for.
I've already figured it out. Now let's see how many more do.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/110807Job.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/110807Draft.htm
Someone should inform our elected officials that the Bush administration can't be trusted. That means before legislation is voted on, those same elected officials should read it.
The House and Senate majority whips aren’t doing their jobs.
I've been wondering why the hell Steny Hoyer is in a leadership position at all. Can someone explain?
it is slowly becoming more and more clear just how bad we have been sold out by these democrats. Not being able to pass legislation because of an obstructionist minority is one thing, this is insanely different. The truth emerges, the dems are not conducting themselves this way because they percieve it is what will get them reelected, they are doing it because, fuck you, thats why. This is why I hate when people herald bill clinton and the white-knight democrats. These people have one thing in common, From Tom Delay on down to Stenny Hoyer, they will only behave as much as we force them to. Sick, sick, sick. I AM NOT BAITING!, I am not a republican, I am a human being, an american citizen, and sick of people who let other people do the thinking for them.
Reasonable Person Would Understand This Act Is Unconstitutional
It's absurd to call electronic surveillance "outside" FISA as "non-electronic." The Constitution is silent on the means the warrant requirement is violated; only that the courts oversee that a lawful warrant is issued. The President ignores an irrelevant standard; then defines something as not being within or without an irrelevant benchmark. His assertions and OLC positions are without regard to the 4th Amendment. This is clear to even a passive observer. The motivation to make this complicated is to make it appear as though a "reasonable person" would not understand this requirement. This is false: A reasonable person does understand that the 4th Amendment requirement is ignored; and that this Act of Congress is not lawful. The President's current smokescreen and public discussion on this non-sense is not a credible basis to argue that there was confusion.
FISA can't trump the Constitution; nor can Congress in updating the FISA trump the 4th Amendment; nor does the President have the power to define something as "outside" something else without being subject to the 4th Amendment.
A Plan Reading of the Act Shows Many Definciencies
I appreciate the analysis above, but it would be helpful if there were some challenges to the President's arguments. His assertions are not valid; and Congressional statements in the bill are not legally binding nor lawful. If the bill were timely analized, with a detailed breakdown of the various provisions, it would have been clear that there were many "opt out provisions" which still have not been discussed. Moreover, the way the bill is structured, the AG can go back to 1947 and arbitrarily define anything as being a "directive", and classify that evidence, order, and all subsequent activity.
President and Congress Have No Power To Jointly Modify 4th Amendment
The governing law is the Constitution, not this bill or the President''s assertion of what he is going to ignore. Start with the Constitutional warrant requirement, not whether the current bill is or isn't consistent with FISA. It's all interesting what "electronic surveillance" may or may not be defined as, but this does not mean the 4th Amendment is gone; or that there is no warrant requirement. But this is a meaningless diversion from the 4th Amendment.
Just because Congress or the President say something, or want us to believe something, doesn't mean that it is lawful, binding, or Constituional. I was hoping for some analysis showing why the President's application of the illegal warrantless surveillance would be overturned; not a convoluted embrace of what remains unsupportable law. Thank you.
Gonzales can now listen to any conversation or read any email without a court order.
It's that simple.
How dare you question President Mugabe, I mean Bush!
-GSD
The passage of this bill continues the Republican partys shameless exploitation of 9/11 which has morphed into a broader so called war on terror.This is a perfect illustration of just how much power the GOP was handed on that fateful day.They are still able to manipulate moderates from both parties with impunity.The Dems really are stuck between "Iraq" and a hard place".
(sorry I couldn't resist)
I have to wonder if all this wasn't supposed to go down under Pres. Clinton.
Remember how after the OK City bombing, the first news reports were of "Arab-looking men"? If Tim McVeigh wasn't so stupidly anti-government and didn't have a license plate and thus got caught, the U.S. would've invaded & occupied Iraq back then.
This beast has been patient for a very long time.
pinkobait @ 18:
yeah, the democrats had no choice but to sign. uh huh.
There's an old joke that goes "He's not as dumb as he looks. He couldn't be."
Everytime they pass one of these bills that the Busheviks want, we find out later that there are little, often innocuous sounding changes to existing law contained within them.
No one can explain how these changes got inserted or who inserted them, but they turn out to be major departures from the previous laws.
Like the change in the Patriot Act that lets the President appoint new US Attorneys without Senate approval.
Like this change to FISA, which basically guts most of the law.
That's why the rush to get the bill passed, they didn't want anyone to have the opportunity to read it carefully.
In Bushspeak, "Trust me" means "Fuck you."
This is late-stage capitalism eating its own offspring.
myiq2xu Says: In Bushspeak, “Trust me” means “Fuck you.”
I think the Native Americans figured out something to that effect.
And a lot of the rest of the world.
I wonder why we're so slow?
I have a very difficult time understanding the criminal mind, but I can understand zoology. Parasites kill the host at their own peril.
One of these days there will simply be a line in a large bill that simply nullifies the constitution, the Congress and Judicial branch.
If that hasn't happened already. These guys are jealous of the powers their colleagues have in countries like China and doing their best to replicate them, while being able to say it's all "legal."
Both instances, The Patroit Act and new FISA law, our Congress was either asleep or
just too damn lazy to read all the "small print" before acting...As Mark Twain said:
"Suppose you were an idiot. And supposed you were a member of Congress. But
I repeat myself."
Now you understand how the 300 richest families in America plus maybe the top 100,000 wealthiest players in this crooked game of financial fraud are systematically stealing the life savings of a whole generation by using greed, pure and simple, ramped up to unbelievable heights.
hadenuf @ 24:
A poorly developed parasite kills it's host. A well developed parasite will not.
At the third stage of parasite evolution it becomes a symbiote, where the host and parasite become inter-dependent.
This GOP-led government is a poorly developed parasite that is killing its host. The Democrats at their worst were well developed parasites.
Let's try for stage 3 - a government that flourishes along with the people.
The act is designed to act as a defense for continued illegal Constitutional violations. One objective of defense counsel will be to point to "reasonable confusion". Their goal is to shift focus from the standard -- Geneva or FISA -- and point to irrelevant confusion over definitions -- whether something is or isn't torture or electronic surveillance. This defense has no merit. A reasonable person would clearly know the objective of the government wasn't to provide lawful guidance, but to muddy teh waters, leaving contractors and US government officials left holding the bag.
Specifically, note the similarity between the way this argument is crafted over FISA and the torture issues. As with Geneva, the Constitution is a clear requirement; yet, rather than refuse to abuse, the President asked the public to focus on "confusion" over whether something is or isn't torture. The definition of torture is meaningless; the Geneva standard is abuse. The photos show there were war crimes. That the treatment was or wasn't "torture" is irrelevant. Similarly, the WH and EOP hopes to create confusion over illegal warrant violations. Again, rather than focus on the Constitutional standard and the warrant requirement, the President and Congress are pointing to "Confusion" over whether something is or isn't surveillance or related to electronics. As with Geneva, the Constitution is the standard; the 4th Amendment requirement remains in tact; and whether something is or isn't electronic surveillance is meaningless for purposes of the 4th Amendment.
Be wary of the Congressional-Presidential assertion of what they say is or isn't reasonable. Their goal doesn't appear to be to clarify anything, but to create non-binding assertions about what the law is or isn't to keep Corporate CEOs connected with illegal warrant violations appeased. Don't take the bait. Orders by the President about "authorizing" prisoner mistreatment or any warrant violations are not lawful. The public is well advised to see the real objective: Congress and the President know they have a war crimes-Constitutional defense problem on their hands. Rather than provide lawful leadership, they hope to illegally induce DoD contractors to continue doing what is illegal. These orders are not lawful. Follow them at your own risk.
hadenuf @ 23:
Because up to now we've not experienced what it's like to be a target of this gov't, Native Americans know full well what it means.
Buckle up.
Perfect Host, meet the perfect parasite.
You see your honor, because I was having an affair with my next door neighbors wife it was reasonable for me to believe that he meant both of us immanent bodily harm this morning when I saw him open his mailbox. That's why I shot him.
It was 41 repsenatives not 40 that caved it.
The American people get what they deserve.
They elected Bush to a second term in 2004, because they felt
that John Kerry just wasn't up to the standard that Bush has set.
America is a pretty dumbed down nation these days.
I have put together a plainspeak legal primer on the fisa which covers many of these and other nuances, pulled from various sources like yale law, brennan center, aclu, etc.
It is on our new site, Plural Politics, here
I will add a link to this post as well.
[...] C&L. Why the new FISA is worse than you think. [...]
Arroyo @ 33:
As I have said on other C&L Theads, bush-lite was not elected either time: 2000 he
was annointed/selected by S/C and in 2004 the State of Ohio was "stolen" by Repig
fraud.
carol @ 11:
Don't think they'll bring back the draft. They'll collar kids under the softer-sounding National Service is my GUESS. We're in deep trouble but what you're doing is fear mongering, meaning your high-pitched screeching is assisting with the same tactics as the WH. You're doing their job for them.
None of these things have happened and so they are not REAL or EFFECTIVE.
Prison Planet is garbage. No dates, no fact-checking, no references, and so crudely written it's embarrassing.
Time is better spent at solutions than what looks like a cheap attempt to lasso reality.
The justifications given by the Bush Administration do not warrant usurping the First and Forth Amendments to the Constitution. In other words the fucking law is unconstitutional. Let the arrests begin. Unfortunately, it may be necessary to impeach a couple of Supremes since Bush has stacked the judicial deck. Failing that, it may be time to march in support of the Constitution.
yea? well? what are you going to do about it?
I'm tired of reading about these crimes without there ever being even a "call your local senator and house members" at the end. It's just sour grapes. "did you hear about such and such doing so forth?"
I appreciate the journalism but if this is to be an activists blog (which it poses to be) then how come theres never any battle plans drawn to compete with these acts of aggression against us?
is the new FISA bill retroactive ? anyone ?
krob @ 40:
yes.
old hack @ 39:
Because it isn't. It's a Dem blog, supporting Dems almost 100% of the time. If it's anything to show ReTHUGs negatively, it's on here. If it shows Dems negatively, it's on here, then the next posting explains how to vote Dem, they are the true saviours of America. Then some posters will attack you and call you a troll or a paid shill for ReTHUGs if you don't buy the "Dems will save us" koolaid. Or, the site monitor will "edit" you and say "don't like it, get your own blog"....
does it not retro-legalize some of the things bushco has done?
rcg @ 9:
just keep typing, do nothing...
typing is just thoughts and words about thoughts...
thoughts aren't actions. therefore so long as you think but don't act, you'll be safe...
As will every poster on every liberal blog who wishes just to type, but not do...doing means effort, effort means ambition, ambition is dangerous for all of us, because it is a threat to are safety; why, aren't the terrorists ambitious?...
just type..hey, it's free!
no one can take your typing seriously so long as there are no actions behind the words.
Hey! what's Britney doing today?
What was I saying?
Oh, it doesn't matter, I'm just typing to make myself think I'm bringing about change...like so many liberal-minded poster poseurs do here,there and everywhere.
I think I'll have Double Cheeseburger Combo while I shop at Wal-Mart...
Why should I fight for America? No one else is...
you can thank a democratic lying weasel for giving Bush that law. I know not all of them voted for it, but from taking impeachment off the table to pussy footing around with a perjuring attorney general, the democrats have betrayed us from the moment they took the majority.
BASTARDS
NChomsky @ 42:
Please. This is not a Dem blog. John Amato is a liberal. His contributers fall along the liberal/progressive spectrum. However, don't lie and say we don't call out Democrats when they've done wrong. How many times do you need us to say that the Democrats caved on FISA? What, are you thinking that for us to earn your version of credibility we have to endorse Ron Paul? Not going to happen.
And for "old hack", at least once a day we write a post linking to the Congress contact page for you to contact them. We've highlighted progressive political actions weekly. We endorse ones on other sites. We are actively vetting and supporting progressive candidates.
However, Mr. Chomsky, we are a little tired of the "Dems are the same as Reps" meme you've been pushing. You do nothing but discourage participation. They aren't the same. We don't have a large enough majority at this point (nor do we have enough truly progressive seats) for us to move as fast as we'd like, but AT LEAST WE'RE DOING SOMETHING.
"However, Mr. Chomsky, we are a little tired of the “Dems are the same as Reps” meme you’ve been pushing. You do nothing but discourage participation. They aren’t the same. We don’t have a large enough majority at this point (nor do we have enough truly progressive seats) for us to move as fast as we’d like, but AT LEAST WE’RE DOING SOMETHING"
Nicole, I apologize for part of my statement, but every American KNOWS that the Dems are the same as the ReTHUGs, and if you guys/gals read your own posts and the replies, you will find as I pointed out to one of your site monitors, that alot of posters agree with me. However, after denying that you are Dem but liberal, you then use the "we don't have a large enough majority...." We Nicole? "We" aren't a Dem site, but when referring to Dems you people always say "we". It's also worth noting that the only people that are ever even given the chance to govern the US are rich, rich, rich. Who they gonna look out for? Common Americans? Think Hillary cares about the poor/middle class more than Rudy? Or Romney? Please.
As much as I don't like Ralph Nader, I think this clearly shows that his claims all these years were accurate. There's no difference between the Dems and Repugs. None of them care abut the American people or the country, they just go to D. C. to line their pockets with corporate money.
Of course, Nader is also guilty of that. So, what hope is there for the American people? Very little for anyone who wants to live in a democracy without leaving home.
Most of the idiots in this country have no problem with eavesdropping and spying. And are completely ignorant of our democracy or what is happening around them!!!
Why?
They've never been falsely accused of a crime based on bad on intelligence, evidence, rumors, false reports or corrupt court proceedings. The idiots that make up the mainstream (i.e. Repugniscum Christianistas) in this country deserve the shit that is coming to them. (Being more broke than a pale turd)
They've spent their lives sucking up to the rich Repugniscums who are robbing them blind!!! When the dollar starts dropping like a rock then these idiots will maybe just wake up and stop sucking a bunch of Jebus d!ck and realize they been snookered by Repugniscum, Christianista con men.
Examples:
Jerry Falwell (dead)
Pat Robertson (looks dead)
James Dobson (con artist, JesusMonger)
Name one; just one phucking Repugniscum or Christianista who will stand with the poor and for justice and feed the starving amoung us???
Name just one Repugniscum/Christianista that can start making a real difference starting now!!!
They don't exist!
Why?
Repugniscums and JebusMongers live on hatred and racism and self-disgust!!!
Their racist, blue-eyed, blonde-headed Jebus has forsaken them!!!
They can't do anything positive for this country!!! It's thier nature!!!!
If the mainstream idiots keep watching American Idollitry and hiding from the destruction of our democracy; sitting silent and doing nothing then they deserve a jail cell for failing to stand up and speak truth to power!!!
NChomsky @ 47:
No, every American does NOT know that, Mr. Chomsky. You may believe it, but you're hardly in the position to speak for 300 million people. I don't doubt that many people--although not the majority--agree with you (and many of the commenters) and there are times, I admit that I am frustrated likewise by the inaction of Democrats. However, I cannot let the truthiness of your statement go unchallenged.
For the record, I am not a Democrat. I am a Green. This is NOT a Dem blog because we are not sanctioned nor supported by the Democratic Party. However, in our two-party system (because whether you want to believe it, it is basically a two party system), progressive values fall much more in line with the Democratic platform.
I'm not sure why you're pulling socio-economic status into the discussion, as the discussion of was on whether there were distinctions between Reps and Dems. It takes money to run a campaign. I'm not of the belief that having money makes you automatically suspect. Although a millionaire (of his own making, mind you), Edwards has certainly done admirable work on poverty issues. Would a Republican be similarly committed? I think not. It's not part of their platform.
As to the Hillary/Romney question, that's a false choice. Those are the only two? Nope. And though she is too centrist for my tastes, I would still go with Hillary over Mitt. We've seen the kind of damage conservatism can do in terms of imperialism, domestic policies and even food safety.
NChomsky @ 47:
Actually, I do think the Democratic candidates have to care more about common people because that's their voting base. If you compare Clinton's administration to Reagan or W or any other Republican there's no comparison. The American people and the country were in much better shape because it benefits the Democrats. Sure, the corps were thrown some sops, but the whole country wasn't abandoned to them. That's the difference.
The sad thing today is that the Dems participated in bringing Clinton down and they had no other leader to take his place; always the situation in the Democratic Party. So now the people in Congress are the truly venal members of the Demcratic Party who cowtow to the corps. We need leadership. You'll never get it from the Republicans because they are owned body and soul by evil corporations. It is possible to get a true leader from the Democratic Party now and then.
Every great president in our history was a Democrat. That stuff about Reagan is just propaganda, he was W lite. Lincoln was a Republican in name, but he was a liberal and he served before the corporations took over the country after the Industrial Revolution. Lincoln and Grant were the last two Republicans who cared about the democracy. Grant was overwhelmed by the corruption around him and he was not a politician like Lincoln. He didn't want the presidency and he couldn't stem the corruption.
Edwards has certainly done admirable work on poverty issues. Would a Republican be similarly committed? I think not. It’s not part of their platform.
Truedat!
Repugniscums hate the poor!!
(Sirius is playing "Slave To Love" by Bryan Ferry...got to go...)
In response to the above 4 or so posts, go after the Bluedogs, go after the Bluedogs, go after the Bluedogs. Anyone complaining has NOT rattled the cages of the Bluedogs by calling and emailing their offices. THEY are the spoilers. THEY are the wreckers, because their either fucking stupid or they've sold out. Some really are just fucking stupid.
Write them and scare the bejesus out of them and tell everyone you know to do likewise.
Interesting Moveon is not on this. Think I'll write them as well as I sit here waiting for clients.
Congress has no power to legalize something that clearly violates the Constitution. There's also an issue of ongoing litigation: By passing a bill targeting ongoing state level litigation against the US government, the Act of Congress illegally asserts judicial power in determining the outcome of an ongoing gase.
matt greer @ 43:
However, there's something else. When considering changes to the law, the issue isn't just the retroactive law, but whether justice is done. In this case, the injustice of a retroactive law is that it immunizes people for illegal conduct which expressly violated the Constitution. Injustice is done to those who were violated; and in moving the standard on what the public can reasonably expect: Full compliance with the Constitution.
Some laws can be retroactive; the issue is whether there are greater duties, obligations, immunities, and consequences. In this case, the duties have not changed; what has changed in the compliance with clear standard in the Constitution: To be free from warrantless intrusions, unless there is a warrant issued by a court.
crazylove @ 41:
Whether the new FISA Act is lawful is a separate issue. it is not lawful. It ignores the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. Whether something is or isn't electronic surveillance has no relationship to the clear requirements in the 4th Amendment. Without a lawful warrant, the ongoing surveillance is illegal, regardless what changes Congress and the President made to FISA.
Even Barbara Boxer didn't vote against it, she just didn't vote. I didn't think she'd be afraid to vote against any conservative issue.
As far as Fenstein, what do you expect? She's patterning herself more and more on the other 'Rational Democrat' Joe Lieberman.
And the only issue here is whether or not Bush is monitored by the rubber stamping FISA court. For shame.
old hack @ 39:
The President and VP can be prosecuted. Outside Congress. Outside impeachment. Call your local prosecutors and state bar leadership: Ask them to put together indictments to prosecute. If they fail, they could be adjudicated for having not fully asserted their oath. Without impeachment, there must be prosecutions.
I would love this one question to be answered: What percentage of those listening in are fluent in Arabic?
BigPicture @ 55:
Isn't this true only if the SCOTUS is fair and believes in and defends The Constitution regardless of party or religious beliefs? If CJ John Roberts along with the facist Scalia and moron Clorine Thomas want to destroy our system who can stop them?
We are all ph*cked!!
Democracy is DEAD!!!
DonsBlog @ 56:
The interesting thing, there were 6 no-vote dems and 6 no-vote pigs.
dixie blood @ 52:
Aw, Republicans don't hate the poor. They LOVE the poor! They'd love for the poor to keep working in their stores and factories for below-poverty wages and no health care. They'd love to squeeze every tax dollar out of their workers (returned to the corporation as a tax write-off), work them like mules in harness and preferably die of a heart attack at 60 so there's no threat you'll demand a pension come retirement. They'd love for you to take out a credit card to buy things from their stores you can't afford (pick the 23% interest rating, if you don't mind. That yacht isn't going to pay for itself, you know). And they'd love for you to believe that, if you work hard enough for them, don't join a union, don't ask for benefits or a raise, they'll reward you with trickle-down economics so that maybe your children will be able to afford to go to college......someday (and if not, join the army! They'll pay for your college! Join! Right now! They're looking for new recruits!)
Oh, they love us poor people. They always tell us that they can't live without us. Can't get milk without a cow, right?
Bananaphone @ 61:
You are right onLY if you mean they love the slavish ways of the poor. And they keep it that way with poor education, poor nutrition for infants, poverty etc.
My point is that many "middle-class" (so they believe) vote against their best interest by voting for Repugniscums over and over again!!
THE BIG ASS REPUGNIGSCUM LIE IS THAT THEY CARE FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE!!!!!
BULLSHIT!!!!!!
WHEN WILL THE AVERAGE (NOT RICH) REPUGNISCUM REALIZE THEY AREN'T INVITED TO THE PARTY????
dixie blood @ 59:
They could be prosecuted for failing to preserve the 4th Amendment. Just because a majority of Americans don't want to stand up to the President, doesn't mean the Constitution is gone.
crazylove @36
Don’t think they’ll bring back the draft. They’ll collar kids under the softer-sounding National Service is my GUESS. We’re in deep trouble but what you’re doing is fear mongering, meaning your high-pitched screeching is assisting with the same tactics as the WH. You’re doing their job for them.
None of these things have happened and so they are not REAL or EFFECTIVE.
Time is better spent at solutions than what looks like a cheap attempt to lasso reality.
I'll over look any part of your post that may come across as attacking or accusing. I hope you are right and I'm wrong. I sincerely mean that. Time will tell.
The Bush Cartel has broken so many laws, broken so many treaties, committed so many crimes that I would not put anything past them at this point. Not anything. I have never in my life seen any administration as criminal and out of control as this one. Bush makes Nixon look like a choir boy.
What type of solutions do you have in mind that we should be spending our time at? Calling, writing our reps does not seem to be doing any good or getting us anywhere.
The solutions at this point that MIGHT start to take effect would be civil disobedience, boycotts, and perhaps national strikes.
BigPicture @ 63:
Who would prosecute the idiots in the SCOTUS? The Repugniscums? The DemocRats? Nobody!
Again, we are all screwed and Democracy is DEAD!!!!!!
No 15, Not So Impressed, well said!
The directives 51 gives this president immense power to undermine the Fourth Amendment in times of national emergencies.
There is hypocrisy involved even in the interpretation of the laws!
Man is but a beast in nature.
We all know in our hearts where this is headed. It could easily get beyond very ugly very soon.
But, WE CAN STOP THE FASCIST TAKEOVER!!
Is your Rep signed onto House Res. 333? If not, make it happen. Picket, protest, lock yourself to his front fender, let people know that 18 brave souls have co-signed the res. its been 1-2 every week for a few months now. Have you heard one word about it from the propaganda spewing whorehouse we call MSM?
It will be much harder to Nuke/invade Iran, start a draft, declare martial law and toss the few who don't kneel to kiss the boot on our neck down a dark whole forever with no word to family or a lawyer w/some torture thrown in just for kicks.
Shredding the 4th ammendment is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Act now, they are not waiting around for supreme court opinions or elections. Read Presidential Directive 51 signed May 9. Read the Executive Order signed July 17. Why was Defazio(member of homeland comit.) denied even a peek at the COG???
We must get off our couches, comp chairs and get in the street.
Force the issue with HR 333!!! Make your Rep realize not signing is aiding and abetting treason.
Quantum Physics proves it's really true: we actually do each create our own reality. My dimension is going to have Cheney face a firing squad as the law demands. We are going to continually evolve as a species until things like planetary peace and love are no longer laughed at by the brainwashed and the weak and all them trembling in fear.
What's your dimension gonna look like?
Together we can stop the madness.
After that SOB strongarmed his bill through Congress he was back to blaming Congress for his own footdragging over funding US bridge repairs, once again after getting his photo-ops in.
dont the lawmakers (dems in particular) have LAWYERS to fine tooth analyze this type of thing for them before they turn it into law? i realize some of them are lawyers, but i mean lawyers whose responsibility it is to correctly and accountably advise as to the ramifications of such obtusely written items? of course they were supposedly bamboozled into rushing ahead with this piece using bad-faith negotiations, but...
it has been rather shocking to me to learn just how many laws are rushed through and passed without even a read-through, but it seems like even good read-throughs by real lawyers would not bring to light all that is really in this thing. not without a good chunk of quiet study by those who understand the language well, and the context.
Even if we accept the premise that the Constittion is gone -- which it is not -- the replacement document -- the original thing which Existed long before the Constitution -- makes the Government's case weaker, not stronger.
dixie blood @ 65:
If the question were rephrased, it would be not who would prosecute, but what would prosecute. The States may prosecute. The States have this power: It is retained through the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is still alive; yet, even if it is ignored, we still have the Magna Charta: The leadership must assent to the warrant requirement.
Look at the list of things which the Magna Charta respects, and prevents the leadership from denying: "(52) If any have been disseised or dispossessed by us, without a legal verdict of their peers, of their lands, castles, liberties, or rights, we will immediately restore these things to them;" -- Without a lawful warrant, the information gleaned must be returned; and cannot be retained by the NSA Contractors.
Here is the language which reminds us that the DOJ Staff must comply with the Law of the Land: "(45) We will not make Justiciaries, Constables, Sheriffs, or Bailiffs, excepting of such as know the laws of the land, and are well disposed to observe them." The DoJ Staff cannot be ordered to follow one law which violates the Magna Charta.
The information sent to our homes -- like anything of value -- is ours, and it cannot be taken without compensation: "(28) No Constable nor other Bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other goods of any one, without instantly paying money for them, unless he can obtain respite from the free will of the seller." The government has not, contary to the Magna Chara, obtained the information through the free will of either. If the government says that there is no presumption of security of information sent by wire, then the President may not claim the same immunity. Yet, this Congress recognizes a shield for some, but not all. That is contrary to the Magna Charta.
The proposed general warrant to invade our communcations is contrary to the explicit prohibition from taking anything of value, nor using it without permission: "(30) No Sheriff nor Bailiff of ours, nor any other person shall take the horses or carts of any free-man, for the purpose of carriage, without the consent of the said free-man" We, the People of the United States, did not consent to this intrusion: Our Consent was only if there was a warrant; without a warrant, the Government and contractors know, or should know that the taking, acces, and intrusion s not lawful.
This government -- contrary to Magna -- refuses to recognize the value of this information is diminished once it is disclosed, examined, and reviewed: "(31) Neither we, nor our Bailiffs, will take another man's wood, for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of him to whom the wood belongs." This defect caused by the illegal intrusion could be managed if the court were involved with reviewing the warrants. This is note the case where the AG is given free reign to self-issue reviews.
Some may suggest that there is a blurring between the lines; that the AG is really not a bad person. This is irrelevant: He works for the President, and is not independent. Note this: "(28) No Constable nor other Bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other goods of any one, without instantly paying money for them, unless he can obtain respite from the free will of the seller." The AG has yet to announce who he plans to appoint to take this information; today's NSA intermediaries are just like a process server: They handle the paperwork to handle the transfer of the information. Thy are an agent of the President; not a judicial officer charged with defending the Constitution.
In this country there is no "replacement document" to the "Constittion" [sic] and I don't think you know your history!!!
The other way to look at it, even if the US Constitution were ignored, the State Constitutions would then become the Supreme Law. dixie blood @ 65:
The same requirements within the US Constitution are repeated in the State Constitutions. Instead of Congress ignoring one Constitution; it is now in contravention with 50. Clearly putting Congress at a disadvantage.
The Congress relies on the resources from the very entities it says must comply with illegalities? That is absurd. Then the States are free to not comply with these agreements: Once the Congress declares itself illegal -- as it has done with this illegal FISA Act -- the states cannot be compelled to enforce any contract putting this illegal activity into effect. This further undermines the President's legal position: He's moved out of Constitutional law into contract law: He has no basis to compel compliance with any contact attempting to put this illegal activity into effect.
Conversely, once the Federal Government attempts to engage in illegal contracts to enforce unlawful Acts, the States are permitted to prosecute those US government officials attempting to use state resources for activity which defies state law and the Magna Charta. Rather, the states may contract with anyone they choose to ensure the law prevails; this agreement, when made now when Congress is in rebellion, can be agreed to with anyone or any entity attempting to lawfully defend the States' rights; and enforce the State law against NSA Contractors, intermediaires, Members of Congress, and the Executive Branch.
Was t0aking the absurd argument to its logical conclusion: If the US Constitution is "gone" then what do we have left? Magna Charta. Once the Constitution is "gone", then the Magna Charta remains. Unless you want to go to the Articles of Confederation which has no bill of rights. Is that what you would prefer?
An absurd argument cannot rely on absurdity for its defense; nor absurd claims. But a defense of the Constitution -- where it has not been taken -- means showing that even if the absurd argument were true -- that the US Constitution is "gone" -- something else must replace it, or take precedence.
The US Constitution and Articles of Confederation, after the Declaration of Independence, replaced the Magna Charta as the basis for the English. If we can't go back to 1776, 1789, or any other era for a basic document, what do you propose: That there is "no law"? That is absurd. Again, once the absurd argument -- that the Constitution is "gone" -- is entertained, the point is that even if we rely on the "previous" document in the Magna Charta, the US government's case isn't stronger, but weaker: The violations spread from a "simple" warrant violation, to many other violations of the Charter.
You're missing the point: There is no replacement for the US Constitution; it is the Supreme Law; but even if there was, the "replacement" (as measured by the Magna Charta) doesn't support the US Congress's FISA Act either. The act is illegal, whether it is relative to the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation, or the Magna Charta. It is a meaningless argument that democracy is over, or the Constitution is "gone": If it were "gone," then those "remaining, founding documents" before the US Constitution would not support this US Government's position.
But as to your overall point: "There is no replacement" -- sure there is, We the People can enact a New Constitution. You're wrong on all levels. But that's not the point: FISA is illegal relative to all current or prior laws which could be applied to these rights, not the land. The history of the land is a different issue than the legal protections of these rights.
AnonLib, I am grateful for your analysis. At least you have read the law. Most of my readers would not do so at gunpoint. I see that a similar laziness besets your readers, who prefer outrage to homework.
You and I agree on many points, especially on the crying need for greater oversight.
But you have misunderstood key issues.
I have come to the conclusion the most of the problems that have everyone so upset were inherent in the original FISA legislation, not in the update. In other words, the Dems in Congress really did hose us -- during the Carter administration.
Let's take section 105(A), which you consider a massive "carve out." Look at it again, and try to read it with fresh eyes:
"Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
Now, when we try to assess the ramifications of this, what is our best first move? Seems to me we ought to look up 101(f) and scope out the definition of electronic surveillance.
And here it is.
It's too lengthy to quote here, but if you read it, I am sure you will agree: The definition has ALWAYS been restricted to a "person in the United States." No mention of citizenship.
Seems to me, then, that the new section 105(A) simply restates what was inherent in the original law.
I think that the original FISA law is poorly worded and even, at times, contradictory. In fact, I think the law is terrible. It needs to be rewritten top-to-bottom. But the fundamental errors were made in 1978, not 2007. (As I recall, a lot of people thought that way back in the day.)
Before proceeding, let's link to the actual text of the new amendments, a.k.a. S1927 -- the thing everyone screams about but nobody wants to read.
Your argument is that all the intercepted communications which do not come under the rubric of electronic surveillance are not covered by the provisions of 105(b). I think this is a ridiculous assessment. Look:
"Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States..."
...and on and on. Nothing in there about electronic surveillance, is there? Nope. Just "the acquisition of foreign intelligence information."
That term receives a special definition at 101(e) -- and yes, the definition is too broad. So contrary to your statement, all of these provisions apply to any intercepted communications between foreigners and people within the United States.
And that means these intercepts are subject to the minimization procedures designed to protect the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Almost no-one talks about these procedures.
First read 105B(a)(5) of the new law. And then read the definition of "minimization procedures" in the original: 101(h), here.
Puts things in a different light, eh wot?
(As a basic rule, any post or news article on FISA which does not include the word "minimization" will contain misleading information.)
So even though 105A talks about "a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States," that doesn't mean the AG can willy-nilly spy on any American who happens to be abroad. The minimization procedures forbid this. More than that: The Fourth Amendment forbids it. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and cannot be superceded by any other law.
If you read the minimization procedures, you'll see that foreign-to-domestic intercepts were countenanced back in 1978. So it's not a new problem, and let's all stop pretending that this has never cropped up before.
When you look very closely at the problems claimed to exist in S1927, you'll see that they all lead back to the original Act. The issues only seem new. We never realized how poor that Act was until the recent controversy focused our attention.
My advice: We need a quick-n-dirty revision as soon as Congress returns. We need greater oversight, better-defined minimization procedures, and more stringent rules regarding which foreign nationals can be targeted.
Eventually, we need a full rewrite of FISA. That would best be done under a Democratic president, since Bush would veto a truly good law.
But that terrifying "carve-out" you describe -- well, depending on how you look at it, it either simply does not exist, or it has existed since 1978.
Joseph Cannon @ 74:
What' you're doing is making a convoluted argument to support a faulty revision. Regardless what the Constitution forbids, this Congress has ignored it. The issue isn't FISA, but the the 4th Amendment. Your analysis is misguided, faulty, and not focused on the real issue.
This is wrong on so many levels: "doesn’t mean the AG can willy-nilly spy on any American who happens to be abroad."
The issue isn't whether the US citizens are abroad, but whether they are at home; and whether they can have their communications intercepted -- without warrant -- because they receive communications from abroad. The answer is yes.
Rather, the AG can, under this illegal act, spy on anyone when he can link them to anyone he chooses to arbitrarily define as being a target. There is no information on the AG opt out provisions on this updated FISA Act. This President say, even with these changes, he can ignore the updated FISA Act. Why update it at all if he can opt out for any undisclosed reason? No answer here. If some want to claim others haven't "read" the FISA update, let's make sure we're focusing on the real standard: It's not FISA, but the Constitution. Don't argue the President's point -- as some do over Geneva violations -- The issue isn't definitions of torture or surveillance; but whether US government action will or will not comply with Geneva and the US Constitution. FISA, like the definition of torture, is not the standard to measure law or government actions. The Constitution and Geneva which are Supreme.
"The answer is yes." It's a separate issue whether this is lawful or not. It is not. The error is to change the law to permit wider Constitutional violations; while refusing to use existing systems which comply with the Constitution. That is a budget issue. Congress chooses to permit illegal activity, and fund it. Two strikes.
BigPicture: Ah yes, more large pronouncements on the law from someone who would not read it at gunpoint.
My argument is not convoluted. My points are presented in logical order, expressed in clear language, and backed by evidence. You simply refuse to read.
The minimization procedures, which you lazily won't look at, were designed to handle Fourth Amendment issues. Do they suffice? Frankly, I have my doubts. I think those procedures need a serious overhaul. But that problem has existed since 1978. So that issue has nothing to do with the new Bill.
I did not support "a faulty revision." I criticized it. I asked for the quickest possible rewrite. If you had bothered to read what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, you would have seen this.
My points are that the "carve out" described by AnonLib just isn't there, and that the protections of 105B really do apply to intercepted communications. If you can contradict what I have said, by all means do so. I stand ready to admit that I am wrong if proven wrong. But in order to do so, YOU MUST READ AND CITE THE LAW.
Do not cite what AnonLib has said, and do not cite what the NYT or the Washington Post have said. (In my view, they have misled many people.) Read and cite the law. It won't kill you.
Alas, people like you would prefer to scrape their nipples off with a potato peeler than to do some study.
Two things. First, every democrat who voted for this or who abstained needs to be fired. The recall moves or grassroots/netroots activities to lawfully remove them from office need to commence immediately. those who voted for this betrayed the country and the constitution. Second, this bill violates Constitutionally granted protections for due process and the right to privacy. congress cannot write laws that attempt to amend the Constitution. This law is illegal and needs to be challenged in court. A lawsuit needs to be filed immediately. I will be writing my Senator condemning him for this vote and informing him that I will support any move to recall him or will support anymove to votehim out of office. this is hisfirst term and he was voted in last year.
NSA has technology that fully complies. No FISA update is required.
Joseph Cannon @ 78:
This is playing into the wrong/incorrect GOP-WH spin. This issue isn't the FISA, but with the oversight/compliance. This is different than the budgeting.
That's the point: Since 1978, the FISA Court has done just fine, and the NSA has contracted for a lawful intercept system. This was not used. Rather than bend the interceptoin to the existing standard -- in the Constittion-- the red herring is to focuseon whether FISA doesn't or doesn't bend. That's the wrong focus.
This is a trap: Speed, where none is required, is not the solution: "I asked for the quickest possible rewrite."
The error, as with post 9-11, is to say, "We need a fast update." Don't fall for that. The focus should be: Why wasn't the complying technology used; and despite that funding cut, why is Congress spending money on what is illegal? Given the failed oversight on FISA, the last thing we need is a "fast" rewrite. Look what this rewrite gave us: Too much that is illegal, and not enough deference to considered debate. FISA updates are a symptom, like the Patriot Act: Moving quickly without thinking. FISA doesn't need an update; the AG needs to be fired. Go look at their opt-out provisions: They're not within the statute. They haven't been disclosed. IT doesn't matter what FISA is or isn't; the issue is the President, even with this new FISA change, reserves the illegal right to opt out. That's another can of worms using criteria that are equally questionable.
You need to make a better argument. Your argument requires "speed of an update" relative to a standard that is moving -- FISA -- but which is not the central concern: The 4th Amendment. Don't play their game. Your attention should be put on the WH-EOP and making them justify their actions. You're looking in the wrong direction. That's what is hoped.
can we all at least agree that "talking" (and all forms of it - i.e. phone calls, letter writing, petitions, waving protest message signs, etc.) does NOT work?
rcg @ 81:
Yes. Prosecutions have not been attempted.
"The AG can, under this illegal act, spy on anyone when he can link them to anyone he chooses to arbitrarily define as being a target."
No, he cannot. You are so wedded to your outrage that you refuse to believe me even when I present the evidence. You won't click the links and you won't read the words.
Read 105(B). Those provisions govern how the AG can handle foreign-to-domestic communications. These include minimization procedures designed to protect American citizens and make the law Constitutional: 105B (a) (5). I've already cited this; you won't read it.
You won't read the minimization procedures. And you won't read the original FISA law. Christ, what do I have to do? Pay you to read?
If you did, you would see that -- contrary to all this nonsense we are hearing now -- foreign-to-domestic communications were spied on without warrant back in 1978. Back then, the law dealt with foreign intelligence agents talking to people in the U.S.
Look, I'll reprint it here. Try not to skim. The following is from 1978, not 2007:
Do I think that these protections are adequate? No. But (as I keep repeating) the problem was created in 1978, not in 2007.
If you read carefully the procedures above, you will see that they were designed to deal with foreign-domestic intercepts. So let's all stop pretending that this is something new.
For what it is worth: I have been told that when a foreign-domestic intercepted telephone communication is used within the intelligence community, the hard copy actually presents only the foreign target's end of the dialogue; the domestic end is mostly white space. That white space may be filled in when someone gets a court order.
Needless to say, new technologies make the problem much more severe. Data doesn't go away so easily. That's why I think we need a full rewrite of FISA.
Joseph Cannon @ 78:
Good advice. You do that, and perhaps your comments may get taken seriously. Do, show, and demonstrate; don't talk about it. You're not making headway.
Joseph Cannon @ 83:
You need to read the entire Act, as it's been updated; not just this update. Also, need to look at it from their perspective: Not what the words are saying, but how they're interpreting this. You're not presenting evidence. You're attempting to make the WH's argument using logic; can't do that: You need to use their convoluted logic to understand how they are enacting this illegal bill. The words are designed to appear one way; but to be interpreted differently. Again, make your argument not to me, but to those within the FISA court who are listening to the DOJ Counsel on what the FISA Act -- in its entirety says.
Big Picture, the FISA Court is a good idea, but it has not done "just fine." The ease with which they have issued warrants indicates -- to me at least -- that they have not done due diligence in protecting our privacy rights.
You criticized me for asking for the quickest possible rewrite. Oy! On all the other progressive blogs, they got pissed off because the sunset provision was a full six months away. Over and over, the outraged liberals cried: "We can't wait six months!"
Well, which is it? Is one month too soon for a revision? Is six months too long?
I opt for one month. If you don't, then what do you say to all those other progressives who think that the Bill must be fixed now now now NOW?
A full rewrite of FISA will take much longer, of course. There must be lengthy hearings and debate.
By the way, Big-O: I am getting really ticked off at people who won't read the law yet profess to pontificate on it. How's this: I will send you a nice, crisp ten dollar bill if you A) READ THE LAW (1978 and 2007) and B) tell me where I went wrong in my interpretation.
If ten bucks is not inducement enough to get you off your high horse and onto your reading sofa, tell me what your price is.
Big-O -- I HAVE read the act. I don't think you have. I have presented evidence. I have cited the law every step of the way. Have you? Have you done that even once? Look at your posts. Is there even one citation of the law similar to what I have given?
I am hardly attempting to make the WH's argument. I read the law and reported what I saw. And that is IT.
But ignore what I said. Consider: DoJ's counsel did not have any credible comment when CCR opposed the FISA update before the court. Surely, if the DOJ is silent, the public would not have a better argument than the WH. Don't do the WH's arguing for them. You're trying to use reason to explain what defies reason. Stop doing their work. The burden in on the WH. Their counsel cannot explain this. Neither can you.
"do, show and demonstrate..."
I did. Every step of the way. You refuse to read what I write. I am the one who cited the law and provided links to it. I have reprinted long sections of it on my own blog.
I cannot deal with someone who responds to an imaginary text instead of the one I actually provided. Perhaps you should see a doctor about your propensity for hallucination?
Not_impressed @15,
Good point.
Joseph Cannon,
I agree with you, that the problem orginates in the original law. And, yes it is a poorly written and a bad law. It reads to me as if it was deliberately written badly in order to intentionally skirt with non-compliance of the 4th amendment, or to sidestep the 4th amendment entirely. In which case the entire law is illegal. In that regard, I'm with BigPicture. Revising theoriginal law to allow even wider violation of the Constitution only compounds the original violation of the 4th Amendment.
You are resorting to ad hominem and subject-switching. I cited the law itself to prove that the "carve out" alleged by AnonLib does not exist. You have not presented one iota of evidence to the contrary. I am perfectly willing to revise or retract what I said if someone can show that I misinterpreted the law. But you have not cited the law even once. And you accuse ME of doing that which YOU are guilty of.
If you really want to get active, and you should if you care about your rights to free speech and assembly, help this group www.equaljusticealliance.com who is working diligently to reverse this deplorable Act made into law last Nov. '06 - AETA the Animal Enterprise Terriorism Act. Read official text here: http://noaeta.org/bill.htm
www.shac7.com - read here about 6 animal activists to be the first convicted under this law and who are all serving jail sentences, some for up to 6 years! Their crime? For having a website which promoted and urged people to protest HLS Huntington Life Sciences (an animal research laboratory) who were found to routinely abuse their laboratory animals. Plenty of undercoverage footage prooving this.
If nothing else, please write letters to these 6 activists who really need to hear from people who understand the travesty done to them.
I am sooooooooooo disgusted with this Administration....my blood is boiling.
Paul, Big Picture seems to think the original FISA law was fine. So you do not agree with him.
Whether the Constitution has been violated depends on how you read the minimization procedures. For 29 years, those few paying attention to such matters have argued that they provide adequate Fourth Amendment safeguards. I think they are inadequate (especially in light of new technologies) and need to be rewritten. But I'd like you to explain to me -- CITING THE ACTUAL LAW -- how the problem has been worsened in 2007. The problem was the same in 2006, 2005, 2004...
Pray for a stockmarket crash that will make the crash in 1926 look like a cakewalk. It is the only thing that will wake up the stupid American People who, in my opinion, deserve everthing they get for electing Bush. They are too fat, lazy, and stupid to see that their country is falling apart at the seams, and still they do nothing about it!I don't care anymore. I have had it with the stupidity of the electorate. It is a hopeless situation. Want democracy, better move to another country like Canada!
You know, as I re-read this exchange, I find myself getting pissed off. I stand accused of not reading or citing the original FISA law. Yet I did. Repeatedly. I even reprinted a 259 word chunk of it.
I feel the Gustav Mahler might have felt in 1909 if someone had asked him: "Yeah, but when are you going to try your hand at writing a long symphony?"
Your assertions are flawed on countless levels. This remark in no way represents a full analysis of your defective position, for too long for C&L readers to endure. However, despite their short patience with this non-sense, perhaps we should touch upon your most glaring errors within your argument.
First, you're using a smokscreen, and not maing an argument. We can agree on this: Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Second, what may or may not have happened elsewere is interesting, but irreleavnt:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Third, this is an irrelevant choice, which you don't appear serious. You'll have to raise this issue with Members of Congress who appear to not understand the Constitution:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Fouyrth, your basis for estimate is questionable, irrelevant, and without a foundation:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Fifth, you'll have to answer this yourself. It appears you're trying to convince someone -- possibly yourself -- of something:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Litigation Against President
Sixth, we first look to the four corners of the existing FISA requirements and the Constitution. Then we examine the known procedures NSA contractors are using. Where the procedures are not updated, we know the existing activity has violated the FISA when it was in full force before these updates. Focus on the FISA updates is a red herring from the ongoing illegal activity by the NSA contractors:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Seventh, if it were "obvious" a rewrite was needed -- which it is not -- then that would be self-evident and require no explanation. Rather, how do you propose to send anything -- to anyone -- when the debate of classified problems has not been presented before the Intelligence Committee, much less subject to any oversight, review, or investigation? The basis for your assessments on FISA -- that things are fine with your changes -- are not supported by the public record. It has not been developed. Yet. This is silly:
Joseph Cannon @ 86:
Eighth, you outline your revisions; and explain -- why, despite those missing revisions -- there have not been more FISA violations; and why the FISA Court is still relevant. Then when you discuss the FISA Court procedures -- all of them, even the secret ones -- why would the FBI violate these procedures and lie? Speed in not the issue; the question is why, despite the Constitution, is the NSA existing technology -- that complies with that Constitution -- not being used; and conversely, why are the illegal procedures fully funded?
When you answer that, then we can discuss the updates. The updates are on hold until the FISA Court is brought full and center; and the AG and other DOJ Staff -- who have defied the Constitution -- are banned from the FISA court. How you liking that update? Get writing. As with the Patriot Act, don't attempt speed where caution is required. The issue isn't FISA; it's the President's non-sense that the warrant requirement can be ignored. That's illegal. Your argument, although possibly linked with the law, fails. The FISA Court has seen this non-sense before. Things are very serious.
Ninth, you are asserting that something needs to be changed on an arbitrarily timeline; then asking the world to believe in your assertion of what the conclusion is without any basis. There is no basis for your change. Rather, the known information supports enforcement of the FISA act, and adjudication of those crimes; not a sideshow over whether FISA should or shouldn't be changed.
Ten, we need adjudication of violations, not changes to FISA. When we determine the means by which the existing violations occurred, we may have a sense of the larger pattern of conduct in the opt-out provisions. This President, as he did with Patriot Act, would have us believe the problem is with the law. No, the problems are with his reckless, illegal orders. Changing FISA doesn't change his illegal activity; rather, when we examine his illegal activity, we'll get a better sense of how he really plans to implement these FISA Changes. It's premature to argue with certainty what must be changed when we have not understood what has been violated or failed.
Eleven, before we solve a problem, we have to determine whether it is real; and what the problem is. You're asking us to solve a problem that may or may not be real; then implement it against someone we know today has no plans to comply. Legislation is based on fact finding; we don't need more facts to know this President is going to violate the updates. No sense Congress passing new laws when the President is going to ignore them; we don't need more hearings to learn that. We need a new spirit that will enforce the and ensure the proposed roadmap is sound, not arbitrarily set. If there is a real emergency, the AG can brief the Gang of 8. Until then, the FISA Court retains all lawful jurisdiction. This act, and your proposed changes are void; and not credible.
Changes cannot be credible until we understand what is really going on. Legislation requires investigations first, then an analysis: What will ensure this -- whatever "this" is -- will not happen again. The time table is simple: First we prosecute/adjudicate; then we consider legislative changes, in light of known violations and ongoing criminal activity. Horse before cart.
While many in congress might be a little weak on their homework skills -- I don't think they were tricked by this bill they passed.
I think that congress is scared, and it has to do with who gets Anthrax. Not that it is the most dangerous thing to worry about -- it's the message it sends.
The secret spying program, was set up for the same reason that Hoover used it; to get dirt on people and extort.
So there are enough compromised Dems, coupled with the lock-step Republicans, that really, the Dems aren't in power yet. It looks like Horse trading, or incompetence -- anything but what it really is; "If you don't do what we want, Tom Dashell..." Did you know, that Gonzales justice department is supposed to investigate the attempted assassinations of two Democratic Senators? Yeah, how's that creeping along?
The stories coming out now, about General Smedley Butler, makes the whole picture come clear. Our wealthy elites are sick and tired of even the pretense of Democracy, and want to hurry up with the takeover of government. We plebes need not question the grand designs of our betters.
What does it say to you, when you see our wealth elites, sponsor candidates who; hollow out America, such that foreign countries own our weapons manufacturing and roads, put all the citizens in debt -- but hide the consequences by churning empty capital for years, promote candidates who don't like Birth Control while the planet is getting too crowded, keep us on an energy policy when Peak oil has arrived and for a fraction of the money spent on Iraq, we could convert to biofuel AND give every child in America Healthcare?
Instead of having a positive future, where we all learn to live within our means, choose to have fewer kids (happens when you are prosperous), and find alternative resources -- the elites want everyone busy scrapping with each other over dwindling resources. Human life is about to get pretty cheap -- that's just a gut feeling I have.
crazylove @ 53:
It's not true that we haven't gone after the Bluedogs. The only thing that can change the dynamic now is to vote these people out and unfortunately most of them are very well entrenched. Still, it's about the only option open to us.
Well, now we know why the Republithugs wanted to rush this legislation through, even going so far as to threaten Congress with losing it's August vacation time.
And unfortunately for our freedom-loving country, the same minority of mad-dog Blue Dog Democrats who criminally assisted the Republithugs in this rushed, deceptive legislation will block attempts to undo what nefariously has been done when this legislation is reviewed six months from now.
So, why did the Republithugs and especially Karl Rove in the White House want this legislation so desperately?
Could it have something to do with the upcoming November 2008 elections and illegal Nixonesque surveillance planned against Democrats?
Of course it does.
My basis for "one month" is simple. Nancy Pelosi has asked John Conyers to revise the FISA update when Congress comes back in session, one month from now. Six months, she argued, was too long to wait. Countless progressives have said the same thing. So it really does come down to a choice between having Conyers look into the matter one month from now or waiting six months for the Bill to sunset. You are the first alleged progressive I have encountered who prefers to wait.
“Third, this is an irrelevant choice, which you don’t appear serious.”
Uhh...you know, you aren't making a whole lot of sense. English translation, please?
"Focus on the FISA updates is a red herring from the ongoing illegal activity by the NSA contractors."
If I correctly interpret your questionable use of the language, we actually have some room for agreement here. I've developed a similar idea as a sub-theme for a series of posts on my own site.
"Eight, you outline your revisions; and explain -- why, despite those missing revisions...”
I don't understand. Are you telling me to do something, or are you describing something I have done? I honestly cannot comprehend your point.
As for the NSA's existing technology complying with the Constitution -- that's a related but separate debate, one which I have also developed at some length. The NSA is the toughest nut to crack in the world. If you pretend to know for sure what's going on in there, you are a blowhard. Nobody knows that. I have offered what I believe to be informed speculation, clearly labeled as speculation. One source of info is Russell Tice -- and if you know of a better source, then by all means tell me about it. Here's a section from his oft-cited Reason interview:
He speaks of illegality. Doesn't seem to me that the NSA program is necessarily in compliance with the Constitution.
But I'm not going to rely on anything you have to say about that program -- unless you worked for the NSA.
Is the need for a full rewrite of FISA "obvious"? It is to me. I have made a long argument to that effect, presenting the evidence, citing the law. It is up to each reader to read the law and come to his or her own conclusion.
You are right that the President did claim that the problem was with the law. To be specific, he claimed that the law no longer applied after 911! I don't think that he would make such a ridiculous assertion nowadays.
FISA always did apply, of course -- it may be a crummy law in my view, but it is still the law. I still have to abide by traffic laws, even when I think they are badly written.
So Bush's violations of the law remain violations.
I never said otherwise.
What I said was that the carve-out alleged by AnonLib does not exist.
That claimed "carve out" was my subject in my original post (73). That was also the subject of Anon Lib's main post. That's what he and I came here to talk about.
You are angry at me, and yet you could not tear down my argument on a factual basis. And so you are pretending that the subject was something other than that "carve out." Don't you think it is swinish behavior to switch topics when you don't have facts on your side?
As for what you have said re: "implementing the law against someone who has no plans to comply": You misunderstand me completely.
I am talking about what the text of a law. What it says. How it should read. That debate has nothing to do with the question of whether a sitting AG or President will break or has broken the law. I think they have and I think they will. But think it about it: If someone is willing to break the law, then it does not matter how the text reads. He'll simply break it no matter how carefully you word it.
If I am a bank robber by trade, do you think I am going to be re-routed into another profession if you write more carefully-worded laws against bank robbery? No.
You rewrite a law for other reasons. In his case, I argue for a complete overhaul of FISA because I think the 1978 law is inherently contradictory, technologically out of date, and insufficiently protective of our rights. The evils ascribed to the 2007 Act were, in my view, present in the original.
When we are talking about the text of a law, we must always keep in mind that the law must apply to more than one administration. The US Code will -- I presume -- long outlast this president.
I have not addressed some of your points because you did not express yourself clearly.
Oracle:
Nonsense. No iteration of the FISA bill allows Bush to spy on political enemies. You obviously are another person who has strong feelings about the law but who will not read it.
A separate question: Would the Republicans spy on political enemies illegally?
I think so. I can't prove it, but I have speculated that just such behavior may lie behind the infamous "race to the hospital" story.
For the record, I am not a Democrat. I am a Green. This is NOT a Dem blog because we are not sanctioned nor supported by the Democratic Party. However, in our two-party system (because whether you want to believe it, it is basically a two party system), progressive values fall much more in line with the Democratic platform.
I'm not sure why you're pulling socio-economic status into the discussion, as the discussion of was on whether there were distinctions between Reps and Dems. It takes money to run a campaign. I'm not of the belief that having money makes you automatically suspect. Although a millionaire (of his own making, mind you), Edwards has certainly done admirable work on poverty issues. Would a Republican be similarly committed? I think not. It's not part of their platform.
As to the Hillary/Romney question, that's a false choice. Those are the only two? Nope. And though she is too centrist for my tastes, I would still go with Hillary over Mitt. We've seen the kind of damage conservatism can do in terms of imperialism, domestic policies and even food safety.
Sorry for the slow response Nicole. Was out. Um...I have one question that even as a Green you should be able to answer then, if everything you say is true and what you believe. Why do you insist there are only "some" Dems that are ReTHUGlican like, but paint all Reps with the same brush? And you do on here, and I know I am prob just as guilty. I am just amazed that so many people get so defensive when the subject of any Dem is brought up or say, well, I don't support THAT Dem, but the others aren't like that. Sorry, been alive for more than 50 years, and yes, both are exactly like that. Sure you might find a handfull of representatives from both parties that are decent hard working people that do look out for the common American, but as a whole they look out for Mr. Corporation, and everybody knows how the political system works. Give me cash, thy will be done. It's that simple. And every time it's election time, they promise, promise, promise and it works. Like I said, millions voted for Bush----TWICE. Enough said about American intelligence.
Joseph Cannon:
I appreciate your substantive response and your civil tone. Respectfully, though, I think your analysis is off. You claim that the carve-out I refer to in my post isn't real, that this category of communications was never a part of the definition of "electronic surveillance" under FISA. But that's just not true (there's a reason the administration wanted this amendment, you know). The relevant section in the original FISA is 101(f)(2), which says that "electronic surveillance" includes:
This provision clearly includes international communications (so long as they are intercepted within the United States). All that matters is that either the sender or the recipient be "a person in the United States." The FISA amendments passed by Congress last week carve out a big chunk of these communications, i.e., any which involve "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
That's why the administration wanted this new definition. If it wasn't a carve out, they woudn't have bothered.
Additionally, you seem very confused about the primary point of my post. You write:
Well, it would be if that's what I was arguing. But quite the contrary, I was arguing that the provisions of 105B (including minimization) are only applicable to surveillance that falls outside the definition of "electronic surveillance" and because of that, they are non-exclusive. Those provisions only come into play if the AG and DNI choose to invoke them by certifying a surveillance program under their terms.
But since the FISA's exclusivity clause (and penal clauses) apply only to "electronic surveillance," they clearly don't apply to the procedures laid out 105B. FISA only purports to be the "exclusive means" by which "electronic surveillance" may be conducted. Since the type of surveillance discussed in 105B is, by its own terms, not "electronic surveillance," 105B's provisions are not "exclusive." In other words, the president retains his own separate authority to conduct such surveillance. He need not invoke these provisions. Given how toothless 105B's requirements are, the president may well choose to invoke them (rather than rely on his own separate authority), but he doesn't have to. They're option. If he wanted to disregard them entirely, he could. That's was my point.
Joe and big Pic, your quarrel was tiresome 30 some posts ago.
Lets cut to the chase shall we. The Dems and R's are 2 wings of the same party. We need radical change yesterday.
When Abu Gonzales(i cant take credit for that gem) brought flowers to Ashcroft in the hospital, he left w/o a signature or ok from JohnA or Comey(who Tenet had to make sure wasn't thrown out of the room). They continued w/"the program" anyway.
That was clearly illegal. Retroactively bending, ignoring or wiping one's ass with the Constitution is no defense.
I made the case on why and how to impeach Cheney in #66. When this is underway we will shine a bright light into the filthy White House kitchen. Swarms of cockroaches will be wildly scrambling for cover.
Pigs will squeal. Rats will jump ship. We the people will then have an opportunity to storm the Bastille and take back what is ours, starting with the airwaves. ABCNBCCBS use our airwaves. They have used them to dumb us down so far that we eat shit and say yummie. No more. When we own the media, FISA and the NSA will be used to spy on corporations and white collar criminals....the REAL terrorists.
Then we call an Article 5 convention and do what the declaration of Independence compels us to do when our employees in Washington forget they work for us........"ABOLISH" the whole diseased carcass, outlaw the Dems and Repubs, cast out the evil cancer in our midst.
If YOU do everything in YOUR power to have your Rep sign on to HR 333, the pendulum will start to swing in the other direction.
We are capable of great, undreamed of things as a species. Or we can continue pointless lawyerly semantic mumbo jumbo games and childish school yard taunts. I'll give you all 10$ for one good reason not to put all of our time and effort into impeaching dick.
Please, joe, stop it man, ur killin me over here.
"No iteration of the FISA bill allows Bush to spy on political enemies."
Allows? ALLOWS?! He wasn't allowed to do warrantless wiretapping. He did not fucking care, do you get that? (not really he, they) .
OK, since its comedy hour (SNL is on downstairs) lets play a trivia game. Who was Pelosi's Dad? Who was Chertoff's Mom?
And why did shrub stay in that elementary school for a half hour?
Everything is "merely optional" to these guys. The Democrats grabbed their ankles yet again. They still believe that Bushco is playing it straight. (Pun intended.)
carol @ 11: THANKS for the links !!
crazylove @ 37:
Crazylove : boy, so much HOT AIR, where is the SiteMonitor when needed to keep kids from fighting ?? You went kind of crazy after another poster w/out providing ANY diff proof/solution yourself. ..meet the kettle ?
The 2 links provided are clear enough - one is from the Associated Press. That you think you know better than anybody else is just your personal problem. You don't like the links, how the AP reports ==> tell THEM !!! Don't click. People here have enough brains to decide for themselves (as very legit many protests about C&L invasion by schizo cats all over, few days ago ..) ..
I am very glad to see ANY links/info from posters, read when convenient, and decide by myself what and if is applicable to what extent. Am coming back to C&L for these poster-posted links/info as much as for the main content, and for laughs. So vent your frustration at repigs, or get jogging. Get laid.
RE: draft:
1.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/
updated 9:31 p.m. EDT, Fri August 10, 2007
Iraq war czar: Consider a draft
2.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22226178-5005961,00.html
US military draft 'should be considered'
Article from: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Washington
August 11, 2007 09:40am
A TOP US military officer in charge of coordinating the US war effort in Iraq said that it makes sense to consider a return of the draft to meet the US military's needs. ""
3.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/10/war-czar-military-draft-is-on-the-ta...
War Czar’: Military draft is on the table.
In an interview with NPR, the White House’s “war czar” Gen. Doug Lute said that “it makes sense to certainly consider” a military draft.""
Re:.." requiring job seekers to get approval from Homeland Security ""
that's PRECISELY how Soviets (and commie Germans) controlled population for all the years. Other commie countries did similar, to a lesser extent. The next step is you can only live where you work/ are "useful" to the machinery of govt abuse, and you cannot travel unless it is for the govt purpose - with the controlled travel, NO FLY lists, it's covered already how-to.. Am surprised it did leak out (THANKS for the LINK!!).
It will be a federal crime for you to make any money/ survive in this DHS controlled jungle unless you become a chicken w/out head following the orders. If you do, you can watch your plasma TV screen w/ infomercials, and Faux 'news'.. If you snitch on others you'll get the govt coupon for a large size of plasma screen - expensive, but the govt will help you to get 30-yr loan - you'll snitch more to keep the job, to keep the large TV screen. Otherwise, all the Joneses around will know you are not a patriot. You'll tank in the "society"..
The DHS man in charge of all these tasks: comrade Evgeny Primakov, fmr KGB chief, on DHS payroll for a number of years. The US 'internal passport" is also his baby. These are facts, so if you do wish to stay ignorant, it's YOUR choice, do not harass other people. Till what extent/when it will be implemented is a little variable, but don't argue it's not happening.
The latest FISA scandal started years ago w/telecoms deregulation.. It was not that much about money, but giving all the control of telephone/new internets traffic to some entity OUTSIDE of the US (hey, at least we know bastards do not trust us, the little people, are suspicious we do care about our nation..) .. Without deregulation and outsourcing NONE of this could be done/possible ! As of now, 95% of all US telecom related traffic; numbers, directories; billing, real-time tapping is in the hands of ONE 'trusted' company: AMDOCS, with HQ in Tel Aviv. Would anybody believe that it was possible, 15-20 yrs ago ??!! Tail wagging the dog .. AIPAC is just a meager front for the REAL shadow US govt..
And, if you bother to click on the link by ali eteraz@34, and read, you'll see the biggest problem is that it's not about national security/ terrrrrists any more: ANY US citizen is subjected to this abuse. Just as carol@11 warns us.
With such massive scale info harvesting that has to be outsourced to NON-GOVT, non-US entities, their equipment, personnel (hey, your neighbor, MIL, brother/sister-in-law may be spying on you ! just as it was in commie Eastern Germany behind the Wall. A lot of most private info on US citizens in hands of NON-govt, non-US people !!! Very interesting from LEGAL pov !!), what about FUNDING ?? The fmr communist countries were spending enormous portion of national budgets on domestic spying, it was their undoing - there is NO product here of any value but to DHS.
Just imagine how many election conversations by the opponents of this administration will now be monitored. Legally. Duh.
Bring back the rule of law and order and you will be safer than with all this subterfuge.
[deleted--do not advocate violence against anyone on this site.]
Thats the only
"rule of law" the slimy reptilians can comprehend.
Raw brute force. So, we the people must bring it, en masse.
We must act soon. Make your Rep sign HR333 to impeach Cheney.
First we must become our own media. Then we will take over the propagandistic whorehouses currently corrupting our every thought.
Dems and R's r one party. I'm afraid Capitalism itself is the ultimate culprit. Lucky for us it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is "Corporation".
If it now is "advocating violence" to remark on the penalty for treason during war....i apologize.
or, as Mick Jagger says,
"Every where i hear the sound
of marching, charging feet"
Anon, you're missing it.
I proved that you misunderstood section 105A. You simply do not address my point -- that it simply restates what was already in the definitions section of the original law. Did you look it up? Honestly, I really want to be double checked, and if I got it wrong, I will happily concede.
Regarding 101(f)(2), you state:
Yes, but they still fall under the protections offered by 105B. Regarding which:
At last, someone other than Balkinzation and myself actually uses the word minimization! Thank you.
But your view of 105B is bizarre. Frankly, I find it unfathomable. Look, I am willing to admit I am wrong if you can point to a piece of text that supports your view. Right now, this paragraph seems solid:
There's only one way to interpret this. The DNI and the AG may acquire the intel if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include: 1. minimization (i.e., protection of privacy of any U.S. citizen involved), 2. the determination that the target is foreign, 3. the data is retrieved from a communications provider, 4. the intel meets the definition of foreign intelligence information.
I just do not see any indication that the DNI or AG may acquire the intel without meeting those four conditions! Where does it say that?
You cited 8 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). I've read it and read it. Nothing there says or implies in any way that the conditions set out in 105B are ever optional.
That paragraph basically says that the rules which govern and spying on Americans do not apply to spying on foreigners. In other words, Uncle Sam has to get a warrant to spy on your neighbor Fred, but does not need one to spy on the Russians. The paragraph contains the stipulation (which you cleverly did not boldface) that all spying on foreigners must be
Well, section 105B is a Federal law, innit? So how the hell does 105B become optional?
Look, all I am looking for is for some citation to support this statement:
I'm sorry, but I think section 105B, quoted above, clearly states that all those qualifications are mandatory under all circumstances that do not fall under the electronic surveillance label. There is nothing in that paragraph that mentions certifying a surveillance program. The text, on its face, applies to all acquisition of intelligence. I don't see the word surveillance or the word certification anywhere in 105B.
You earlier write:
May I remind you that 105B begins with the words "Notwithstanding any other law..."? That sounds pretty exclusive to me!
Nothing in that entire section -- or in any other section of FISA that I've seen -- gives any indication that the AG or the DNI may simply choose not to observe the 105B regulations.
I'm asking you to give me a citation of any paragraph of any version of the FISA law that says (straightforwardly, without reliance on weird and abstruse interpretations) that the AG and DNI can "choose to invoke by certifying a surveillance program under their terms."
If you can do that, I will happily say "I was wrong and you were right." As simple as that. Nothing further added.
If you cannot give me such a cite, then you should say "Joe, you were right and I was wrong." As simple as that. Nothing further added.
Neither of us should allow pride to stop us from making that admission quickly and without reservation.
That's fair, isn't it, counselor? So let's get to it.
And please understand that, even though I think your interpretation is bizarre, I also find it a joy to talk to you. It's a relief to find someone else who has read the law. Most of my readers won't do it, no matter how I beg, and your merry band of zealots won't do it either.
There was a movie that came out in the 1980s -- can't recall the title -- where a schoolteacher goes crazy and forces students at gunpoint to do they reading that they won't do under any other circumstances. I'm starting to understand the temptation.
Read Pelosi's floor address: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/speeches?id=0070 Speaker Pelosi reiterated these points during a live interview with (I believe) Lionel on Air America today.
• The primary point is that the Dems are introducing a rewrite of the FISA Act in September. There was not time nor political energy to bring that forward prematurely.
She didn't say, but it is clear, that Bushco isn't following the old FISA law -- that many of the techniques used will NEVER be legal under FISA. It is clear that his administration is guilty of multiple felonies. The amending of FISA doesn't cover any of that, and so the net impact is not particularly significant in real terms. Yes, they are already spying on Americans. No the political power to pass a better FISA Act is not simply a gimme.
As Greenwald said (however begrudgingly):
He went on to opine: "But what this legislation does, as a practical matter, is make that sort of accountability virtually impossible, because now there is a bipartisan and congressional stamp of approval on this behavior."
Given the 218 votes Yea on the first FISA interim bill, and the 190 Dem votes nay on the second bill (the R bill)(*80%), and the 27 Dem Senate votes against the second bill -- there is no way to call that a 'bipartisan' passage. 29 Blue Dogs and 12 others in the House does not characterize the 221 person Dem House caucus. NONE of the leadership voted for this supposedly 'bipartisan' second bill. This bill was in no significant way 'bipartisan,' and the reason is that the Dem caucus is about to present a complete rewrite, in September. So Greenwald's opinion is either ignorant or slanted by his anger at Pelosi over the lack of sixty-seven votes in the Senate.
Lionel(?) asked the Speaker if warrants are required for phone calls which involve American citizens, and the Speaker said, "Not just American citizens, American persons." The Speaker's words make clear her position on these issues, and we WILL be moving forward in September, come what may.
Vote the Junior Senator from Minnesota Out. Let's get
a real Senator like Wellstone back in. She makes me sick!
Doggiebobo @ 36:
Actually, the state of Ohio was stolen by Democratic fraud AND incompetence. My hometown of Cleveland can be thanked for that... well, that and all the dumbasses who voted for Bush either time.
Joseph, this was the very first point I addressed in my response to you. Here's what I said:
The definition of "electronic surveillance" in section 101 has four parts. The second part, which I quoted above, is the key one. It includes any communications intercepted within the U.S. in which either the sender or recipient is a U.S. person. It is to avoid this requirement that the administration decided to bypass FISA (illegally) and create the TSP. The new FISA bill carves out a big chunk of these communications from the definition by making it clear that it is not "electronic surveillance" if the interception is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside of the United States" (even if the interception takes place in the U.S. and the sender or recipient is a U.S. person).
So this is a major shift in the definition of electronic surveillance, which is why the administration wanted it.
As to this:
You're still missing the point. The exclusivity clause, which is the linchpin of the FISA statutory framework, is needed because courts have found that (unless Congress says otherwise) the president has inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. So unless you say, "these procedures are exclusive," the president retains the inherent power to authorize this sort of surveillance. Because the provisions of 105B only apply to non-"electronic surveillance," they do not fall within the scope of the exclusivity clause. That means that they are non-exclusive. The president can choose to invoke them, or he can rely on his own constitutional authority.
This isn't some crazy novel theory. If you read the case law and the legal briefs on this topic, it is clear that the interaction between FISA and article II is of central importance and that the exclusivity clause is the key to the statutory framework.
I'd suggest that you read the various legal briefs and white papers that were issue shortly after the NSA program was revealed. They are instructive as to this point.
You seem to want me to pinpoint a section of FISA that says "this is option," but that's not how this stuff works. The drafters of the legislation are much cleverer than that. As we speak, lawyers at the OLC are drafting opinions interpreting this law in a way that gives maximal power to the president. And if you read the DOJ white paper issued in 2006 to defend the NSA program, you'll see that they relied on arguments that were significantly more far-fetched in order to avoid the original FISA. With the amended version, their arguments will be significantly better.
I have always said, on my blog and elsewhere, that the new law firmly places foreign-to-domestic communications within the scope of 105B. My point was that the definitions, if read carefully, indicate that the old law did so as well. I refer specifically to the minimization procedures, and even more specifically to 1801(h) (4), which clearly refer to foreign/domestic communication. That was back in 1978. And the minimization procedures only come into the play when we go outside the scope of "electronic surveillance."
So really, what has changed? The carve-out occurred in 1978 -- were it otherwise, 1801(h)(4) would read differently. In fact, it probably would not even be there.
Now, if your argument is that the original FISA law was confusing, and should get a careful rewrite -- well, hell, that's my point.
All over the net, I keep hearing that the wording means that now U.S. citizens abroad may be targeted. My points: 1. Minimization procedures (and the Fourth amendment) prevent this, and 2. The new wording mirrors the original definition of electronic surveillance.
So much for the entree. Now for the main course:
As I read and re-read it, what you call the "exclusivity clause" is simply a way of saying that the President has to get a warrant to eavesdrop on Ned in Nebraska but doesn't need one to eavesdrop on Ivan Tuspyonyu in Minsk. I noticed how cleverly you avoided applying boldface to these words:
conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system
Were you being disingenuous when you tried to pretend that those words weren't there? I'd prefer not to think so. However, I am a little miffed that you refused to address what I said, because it really was the clincher. I'll say it again: Section 105B is Federal law. And it applies. There's just no escaping it, counselor.
He cannot choose not to conduct himself in according with applicable Federal law. Says so, right there in the paragraph you quoted. And there's just no way anyone can argue that 105B is not applicable. Christ, even Cheney's lawyers aren't that gonzo.
Okey dokey. Name three other lawyers who say that section 105B is optional. Name one who says that. Name a judge. Name a congressperson. Name a member of the intelligence community. Name a former member of the intelligence community. (I'm thinking of guys like Ray McGovern.) Name three reporters, pundits or bloggers who came to that conclusion completely independently of your post. For what it is worth (maybe very little), the White House official interviewed here clearly indicates that 105(b) is mandatory.
Looks to me like you're kind of all alone out there on that tree branch, counselor.
Of course, your loneliness does not necessarily mean you are wrong: Minority opinion has been known to prove correct, historically speaking. But unless you can attach some names to this "105B is optional" assertion, unless we have someone other than an anonymous litigator making this pronouncement, then I think the word "novel" is quite justified. "Crazy"? Perhaps not. But "novel"? Oh yes.
Love to. Send 'em over.
But I'm not sure I would take them very seriously. Right after that program was revealed, BushCo desperately tried to get away with all sorts of crazy (truly crazy) legal arguments. The craziest one held that FISA no longer applied after 911. As you note, as recently as 2006, there were folks out there scribbling away at all sorts of papers designed to buttress these strained theories, in a doomed attempt order to provide political and legal cover for a President caught with his belt-line at knee-level.
Well, guess what? The recent court ruling -- the one that gave rise to this legislation -- knocked down the wacky notion that FISA was null and void. Even Bush now admits that he cannot simply wish the law away.
And even though I am by nature a cynic, I am 100% confident that no court in the world will countenance the "105B is optional" argument, even if a thousand hacks write a thousand silly white papers.
(Except -- perhaps -- if a new 911 occurs. In that case, I'm sure all sorts of truly insane and dangerous things will happen in this country, and the sanctity of foreign-to-domestic IRC chats will be the least of our problems.)
What makes me so confident? I'll repeat the words, just to be snarky:
conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system
105B is applicable Federal Law.
I believe the term is prima facie...?
Joseph, I have to step out, so I can't reply now, but I will later. And I'd note in the meantime that I am not the only lawyer to read the law this way. Marty Lederman (professor and former OLC attorney) agrees. As does Publius over at Obsidian Wings and number of others. You continue to ignore the signficance of the exclusivity clause and the change in the definition of electronic surveillance.
Kevin Cleary @ 115:
That's complete bullshit!!! Read the stories in Rolling Stone by Robert F Kennedy Jr. and the Repugniscum VOTER FRAUD that occured in the completely backward state if Ohio. They shoot students there don't they!!!
"FOUR DEAD IN OHIO"
"FOUR DEAD IN OHIO"
"FOUR DEAD IN OHIO"
"FOUR DEAD IN OHIO"
Anon: I have work to do as well and may not be back for a while. Of course, I will check out what those fellows you cite have to say. "I may not like being taught, but I am always willing to learn," as Churchill said.
Even so, I think you are paying way too much heed to "white papers" that were really just desperate attempts by BushCo to justify his having broken the law. These guys were up against the wall, so they got creative. It's like Cheney's lawyers saying he is not part of the executive branch: Who saw THAT one coming? You can't take crap like that seriously.
If you write a law while trying to foresee how a bunch of frenzied, fanciful, and totally gonzo legal hired guns might misinterpret plain English -- well, you'll never be able to write anything, will you? It's like those movies where the guy tries phrase his wish in such a way that the genie can't turn it against him.
And when you come back, consider these three scenarios:
Scenario 1: It's 2009, and President Gore has appointed Calvin Cleancut to be his AG. Calvin receives an urgent intelligence briefing: Notorious arms dealer Viktor Bout has just sent a text message to an unknown party in Illinois, someone who may or may not be a U.S. citizen. The message reads: "LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. A CONTACT TELLS ME THAT A BIG PARTY WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE SEARS TOWER TODAY."
(I pick Bout because progressives will agree that he is a genuinely dangerous man whose rolodex is filled with the names all sort of really, really, really dangerous men.)
Scenario 2: It's 2008, and I'm having hot IRC sex with a lady in France. (In real life, I wouldn't do this. I don't know any dirty words in French.)
Scenario 3: It's August 2008, and after finishing hot phone sex with the same French lady, I tell her: "By the way, I'm working for the Gore campaign now. Here's what he's going to unveil in the next debate..."
Now, you seem a reasonable chap. I think you will agree that the AG should get the message pronto in scenario 1, but has no business seeing the messages in 2 and (definitely) not 3.
How should the FISA law read?
We should all make it our business to ponder that question, because there is likely to be debate in Congress when it resumes. I've offered my suggested improvements on my blog. What are yours?
If I may weigh in. I agree with Anonymous Liberal but I also know where Joseph Cannon's coming from. I'm one of those Marty Lederman dressed down in his "window dressing" post. He weighed in on a lengthy exchange between me and someone who knows FISA immeasurably better than I. For a long while I thought my opponent was seeing the Virgin Mary in the proverbial grilled cheese sandwich. I now see what he was pointing me to. It's troubling that the feature is so hard to see. I wonder who saw it in Congress, to be honest.
So I think A.L.'s points are right, but allow me to come at this from a slightly different angle. Joseph, you recite 105B's lead-in: "Notwithstanding any other law, ... may ... if ...." Indeed it says this. But notice, it has an "if," not an "only if". And while that may seem a pedantic point, it's anything but that, the activity in question having been taken out of the zone of FISA exclusivity by 105A.
105B could have done what you say with an "if" had it said more. Look at FISA section 102(a). It authorizes electronic surveillance of foreign powers, but its structure is revealing. Here's clause (a)(1):
Then the certification is spelled out (yes, including minimization -- there, I've said it ;)). So the logical structure is the same as 105B's. But now look at the first sentence of clause (a)(2):
Had 105B ended in words to similar effect there'd be no issue -- well, not this one at least. But it doesn't. And regardless of whether 102(a) needed the words, they're certainly needed in 105B since 105A took the conduct outside the range of exclusivity.
There are other points surfacing at Marty Lederman's posts. I'll just point you there rather than dilute the one just made. But Anonymous Liberal should be applauded for getting the word out. And I fully agree with you that the hand-wringers should start reading. But they should also call their representatives and make sure that they at least are aware of the matter. As for the 1978 law, it may not be terrific, but this is change is an incremental disaster.
Joseph, here's the more substantive response I promised.
It seems that your skepticism of my analysis stems from an unfamiliarity with the constitutional case law that looms in background here. By your interpretation, the exclusivity clause is essentially superfluous and meaningless. But that's just not accurate. The exclusivity clause is key. As the legislative history of FISA makes clear, the exclusivity clause serves a vital purpose. You have to understand that prior to FISA, this clause was essentially a massive carve-out from Title III (which governs law enforcement surveillance). It essentially said that Title III didn't apply to foreign intelligence activities, which were left to the president's discretion. FISA changed that, and the purpose of the exclusivity clause was to make it clear that Congress did not intend to leave the president with any residual power in this area.
To understand why such a clause was necessary, you need to understand the relevant constitutional case law. You may be familiar with the Youngstown Steel case, which is THE most important case on the interaction between Congress' Article I powers and the President's Article II powers. Under Justice Jackson's oft-citedframework, there are three kinds of situations. I'm going truncate this somewhat, but I recommend reading the whole thing:
Situation 1) "When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."
Should the president work within the FISA framework, he is in situation 1 and his claim to authority is strongest.
Situation 2) "When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility."
Situation 3) "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter."
With respect to anything that falls within FISA's exclusivity clause, we are clearly in situation 3. So if the president authorizes any "electronic surveillance" outside of the FISA framework, he is almost surely acting illegally.
But the procedures laid out in 105B are not covered by the exclusivity clause, which means we are in situation 2, where "there is a zone of twilight in which [the president] and Congress may have concurrent authority." Indeed, in light of the first half of section 2511, the government might well argue that this is closer to situation 1.
Either way, the point is that the scope of the exclusivity clause defines the boundaries of situation 3, where the law trumps all. With respect to anything that falls outside its scope, the president retains concurrent authority.
This isn't some fanciful, wild-eyed interpretation of the law. It is an argument that many a federal judge would find convincing.
You write:
I think you're very mistaken. But more than that, I think this isn't a particularly useful way to approach the issue. Because these activities take place in secret, and because of legal hurdles like standing and state secrets doctrine, it is very unlikely that these kind of issues will ever be the subject of a court ruling. What matters is what the DOJ will be willing to sign off on (and what the telecom companies will accept), and that's a considerably lower standard. The DOJ has shown itself willing to sign off on legal arguments far less colorable that what I'm describing. The law needs to be structured in such a way that those who violate it are really taking a risk. These amendments to FISA create sufficient ambiguity to allow government lawyers to make good faith arguments that the new provisions need not be complied with. That's what matters. And it needs to be corrected.
Oh, and Occasional Observer, you make an excellent point regarding the difference in wording.
NChomsky wrote:
No. Let me make an analogy: The Republicants are like the Nazi Party. The Democrats are like the Centre Party. Look up the history of the Enabling Act (1933 IIRC) and you'll see why I make the comparison.
Um, as you know, we don't know the congress caved into any pressure. It looks from all accounts that the people we elected to protect us from this drug crazed megalomaniac joined hands with him and they all pissed on the constitution together. For you to assert that chimpy is smart enough, strong enough or popular enough to twist the arms of the democratic majority is quite insulting to our intelligence. If anyone needed yet another example of the one party system in the US, this would be a fucking good one.
Don't try to pull one of those right wing revisionist stories on us. Boo-Hoo... The poor dems had guns to their heads and they were frog marched up to the voting box and clubbed silly until they voted for the bill :(
I've seen enough propaganda, by much more talented liars than Anonymous Liberal to fall for this stinking pile.
Um, as you know, we don't know the congress caved into any pressure. It looks from all accounts that the people we elected to protect us from this drug crazed megalomaniac joined hands with him and they all pissed on the constitution together. For you to assert that chimpy is smart enough, strong enough or popular enough to twist the arms of the democratic majority is quite insulting to our intelligence. If anyone needed yet another example of the one party system in the US, this would be a fucking good one.
Don't try to pull one of those right wing revisionist stories on us. Boo-Hoo... The poor dems had guns to their heads and they were frog marched up to the voting box and clubbed silly until they voted for the bill :(
I've seen enough propaganda, by much more talented liars than Anonymous Liberal to fall for this stinking pile.
old hack @ 39:
Hear Hear! I urge all you readers to see how YOUR rep in the House voted (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml). If they voted "yea" -- let them know of your displeasure. If they voted "nay", drop them a note online telling them "thanks". This is all done online...if you've got time to read this blog, you've got time to communicate with your Congressman/Congresswoman.
Thanks for the in-depth analysis. It's one thing to know it's bad, or really bad, or even worse than advertised, and another thing to know why specifically it's so damn dangerous and bad.
Look, I suppose there is little point in offering a substantive response because no-one else is reading at this point. Let me just say that I'm doing my best to read up on what you've said and to follow your links. And in the end...well, I think Occasional Observer said it:
I'm definitely getting a Franz Werfel feeling here. Well, nobody ever mistook me for Jennifer Jones, and no matter how hard I squint, I can't see what you're seeing.
OO: Believe it or not, in an earlier post I had written -- and deleted -- a paragraph which said, in essence, "You can't really be asking the framers of the law to write 'if and only if' instead of 'if'". And then you pop up and, bingo, it turns out that you really are asking for just that.
Cah-MON. I've never run across that "if and only if" formulation in ANY law. And while I may be no lawyer, I did once have a really tedious job proofreading laws. So I've read a few.
If I had a kid, and if I told him "You may watch TV if you finish your homework," the sentiment would be plain. He would know that I do not consider his homework optional. If I held a gun to your head and told you "You may live if you sing me a Beatles tune," would you think there was some ambiguity in the statement, or would you start belting "Hey Jude"?
And AnonLib -- I read the 1952 ruling. I think it buttresses what I'm saying. Just because the Law offers a rigorous definition of "electronic surveillance," does not mean that any Laws outside that that definition are optional. The President does not act "in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority." Section 105B is not absent.
By the way, both the WH (if the source I cited can be trusted) and every Congressperson who has commented on the matter have all acted as though 105B is non-optional.
You still haven't addressed the words I boldfaced in a paragraph you cited.
As Mr. Jackson helpfully reminded us, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." Section 105B is law. I mean, if it is optional, then how would one word it to make it non-optional? As I said before, this is beginning to remind me one of those movies where a guy has to word his wish in such a way that the genie can't turn it against him.
Now, since you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the words I've held under your nose about four or five times now -- well, I'm sorry; I do not mean to be impolite here, but to be frank, I'm beginning to suspect bad faith on your part, or at least stubborness.
But isn't that how this movie started? A court ruled that FISA forbids foreign to foreign communications using a U.S. server -- a ruling which effectively hampered most American ELINT operations (not just the ones against terrorists), thereby necessitating an emergency patch. I admit that such things happen rarely, but they do happen.
We can agree, I think, on the need for oversight. The horribly insufficient oversight is the primary reason why I would have voted against S1927.
Okay, guys, that's enough for this thread. I'll take solace that your legal view, like the views of the folks who deny global warming, is very much in the minority. I may or may not reprint some of this on my blog, if you don't mind.
And next time you run into the Blessed Mother, tell her I said Hi.
And next time you run into the Blessed Mother, tell her I said Hi.
I did and said hi just as the Tooth Fairy ran by. Damn it I love the Tooth Fairy!! The Blessed Mother is a bore!!!
This is more for the record because I doubt anyone is reading this anymore, but there are a few points I have to address.
First, Joseph, and I don't mean any offense by this, you approach legal interpretation like a layman, not a judge or a lawyer. The interaction between constitutional principles and statutory language is inevitably complex, and small differences in wording and statutory definitions can make a HUGE difference. You seem highly skeptical that the features of the law I'm pointing to are significant, but if you spent time reading constitutional case law, I think you would quickly be disabused of that skepticism.
For instance, you say things like this: "Section 105B is law. I mean, if it is optional, then how would one word it to make it non-optional?" There are a multitude of ways. And the most obvious way would be to have included conforming amendments that altered the scope of the exclusivity clause and penal provisions of FISA so as to cover 105B. That wasn't done.
Moreover, I think you're not quite getting what I mean by "optional." 105B is more properly understood as an "if you want X, then do Y" kind of statute. There are many like that. They don't purport to be the exclusive way of doing something, but they offer the government something to incentize use of statute. In this case, if the President chooses to invoke 105B, he can compel cooperation from third parties (like telephone companies). That's valuable to the government. If the president relies on his own inherent authority, he is more dependent on voluntary cooperation from these entities (though the telecoms have voluntarily complied so far). 105B is one way for the government to proceed. Not THE way.
As for this:
I'm not sure what words you're talking about, but I resent the implication of bad faith. I've tried to address all your points and have very patiently explained key concepts with which you were apparently unfamiliar.
If you're referring to this this: (“conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system”), I'm not sure why you think that phrase is significant. First of all, this clause, by its terms, is limited to "foreign electronic communications systems." But the new FISA bill was crafted specifically to allow surveillance involving switches located here in the U.S. (a significant percentage of worldwide traffic now passes through U.S. switches). Second, and more importantly, as I've patiently explained, there is nothing about 105B that prohibits the president from conducting activity pursuant to separate authority. 105B says that the AG and DNI "may" do X,Y,Z. The word "may" is repeated throughout. So acting outside the 105B framework would be "in accordance with federal law."
And finally if this phrase meant what you seem to think it means, it would render the whole section immediately after it superfluous and meaningless. It's a basic canon of statutory construction that statutes aren't to be read that way. And it's not as if there is no case law or legislative history to help us decipher what the exclusivity clause means and why it was included in the statute. We don't have to guess. It was included in order to render the rest of FISA's provisions mandatory. But by scaling back the definition of electronic surviellance, it now only covers part of FISA's provisions. It doesn't cover 105B.
Ah, hell. Thought you would say that. Sorry, but the wording is broad -- "involving a foreign communication system." (You left out a word. Again: Clever.) Anyone in Paris or Amsterdam or Madrid is going to be using a foreign system at some point as the bits of data work their way from sender to receiver, even if the data ends up going through an American router and from their into the wide-open maw we call the NSA. A foreign system will inevitably be "involved."
You're reaching.
Well, look, those two words pretty much sum up my response to the rest of what you've said. "You're reaching.
The "may-if" formulation means someone may do this or that IF he follows a condition. Even the critics of the law that I've heard interviewed act as though 105B is non-optional. That has been the implicit assertion of the Congresspeople who have commented on these matters -- I've heard a few on the radio and seen others quoted. I'll take their view of the 105B over yours, since they write laws and you don't. And they are hardly "laymen."
Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.
Listen, I don't mean to seem like I'm running from a fight. I'd love to keep sparring, but it seems pointless to put the energy into it in a forum that everyone has stopped reading. If you want to present your views over on Cannonfire, I'll print what you have to say unedited and with respect. Hell, I won't even respond, if you would prefer. THAT is how happy I am to hear from someone who actually has read the law.
But I just don't want to put the energy into a thread where nobody sees what's happening, and I'm kind of sick of having to come back here. So if you want to continue, can we do it somewhere else? Any other time or place you choose. I just don't want to pull up this page again, and I bet you probably feel the same way.
Comments are closed on this entry