Is That Legal?

newshour w/lehrer showed some clips of the service tonight. i think my favorite was jimmy carter's observation that the kings had been the subject of wiretaps...

Yeah, the Kings were the subject of wiretaps...authorized by democrat Bobby Kennedy.

Wellstone was also a political person.

There is a difference between remembering a person's life (including politics) and conducting a political campaign at a funeral.

One is appropriate, the other is just ghoulish.

Yup, I had no idea that George Bush and John Ashcroft had tapped Martin Luther King's phone. Sure am glad Jimmuah Carter explained it to me.

Nicely done.

Yup, the Kennedys and Johnson had MLK and family wiretapped.

Hey, I can't even stand it when preachers use a funeral to preach a sermon. Maybe the deceased would have approved, or maybe not, but it seems like an awful presumption.

A funeral shouldn't be turned into a political debate. If some of the speakers decide to heap verbal abuse on some of the other attendees, then it's only the forbearance of the ones being attacked that prevents it from becoming a free-for-all. Carter and the others who chose to attack Bush were counting on Bush to show more class and not get into a back-and-forth with them. Don't you have a problem with that? That the dignity of the occasion was only preserved by Bush taking the high road? Where does that leave the Democrats?

I'm asking this question in earnest, because I don't want to live in a one-party country. I don't want a Pat Robertson presidency. I can see it coming though. It's a race to the bottom, and the Democrats are way out in front. Instead of the my-party-right-or-wrong attitude, maybe you should start tugging on the reins just a little.

Unfortunately, Eric, the only way I could possibly take your statement seriously is if I thought you'd have taken the same attitude if *everyone else* at the funeral had delivered solemn, respectful words of remembrance, and *Bush* had delivered a political screed.

I think launching partisan attacks off the bodies of dead blacks is pathetic. So is taking cheap shots at guests in the audience. They came to honor Mrs. King's life, not get into a political debate. Wrong time, wrong place.

I also find it interesting that Carter failed to mention Bobby Kennedy was the one who spied on King. The Democrat Plantation continues to keep the black man down.

Yeah...subject to wiretaps by Democrats and the Kennedys, something Teddy didn't bring up.

I often wonder if Reynolds is ever embarrassed by his own image in the mirror each morning. He and others clearly want Coretta Scott King's funeral to be quickly assimilated into the conservative narrative of the civil rights movement as one that struggled against social forces whose remnants are not in fact still alive and well in the current regime. Evidently, the proper testimony to King -- if Malkin and Professor Hack are to be believed -- would consist of devotional monologues on behalf of the nation's "inclusiveness," with perhaps a few barbs thrown up against the "Islamo-Fascists" who threaten us all.

And I have no doubt that Malkin, writing in 1967, would have advocated deporting the Kings to Ghana.

Wiretaps that were ordered by the Kennedy administration, no?

Wow,

Did you have to change planes and take a bus to miss the point that badly?

Hmmm.

Wiretaps of the Kings? Oh yeah, extremely amusing.

Particularly since it was done by Democrats.

Notice no one is trying to refute that it was Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ordering the wiretaps. I also see no one has mentioned it was Democrats trying to stop the civil rights admendment. You know like former KKK member Robert Byrd trying to Filibuster the Senate.

Of course, they can not refute it because all of those things are true.

Now who in their right minds cares if it was done by Dem's or Rep's? Just because we hate the current Republican regime doesn't mean we are supporting Democrats. Why do republicans always act like 6 yr olds in a playground fight. "well they did it too!" ....and? and for the record, i think the black community is far less suportive of king george than bushites are letting themselves believe. Note to republicans who let these religious rightwing nuts speak for you, they are ruining your reputation!

how many blacks has the war on drugs incarcerated? as compared to how many whites for which purchasing is not a felony? gee, i wonder why the community doesn't like rich white republicans (reagan era)

I wish Chuck D would have been there. T

note to rightwing nutballs: you are idiots. how about you go to iraq and find the WMDs for us, i'd rather see one of you come back in a body bag than innocent boys. my jesus doesn't like war or lying.

As Taylor Branch says in his third installment of the King biography (at least according the NYT book review), the wiretapping was primarily driven by J. Edgar Hoover's paranoid obsessions. JFK and Johnson can certainly be faulted for not reigning him in, although as a kid growing up in DC at the time, I remember how genuinely scared everyone was of Hoover.

Funerals are, I think, primarily for the family and to a lesser extent friends, of the deceased. I've read nothing to suggest that this wasn't the sort of funeral the King family, and the deceased, wouldn't have wanted.

I didn't know J. Edgar Hoover was a Democrat. Get off it. It was Hoover who wiretapped everybody, not just King, without authorization. He had a dossier on everybody, including the Kennedys.

"The Democrat plantation continues to keep the black man down." In other words, those stupid blacks just don't know what's good for them. Dey's too dumb to get off dat plantation. Condesending, scornful and superior. Just the right tone.

Do I hear "poverty pimps" anyone? That's another good.

Do all of you who are pointing out that it was Democrats who ordered the wiretaps -- do you all imagine that that makes ANY difference to us liberals?

I don't know about you, but I'm not about Democrats vs. Republicans; I'm not about Right vs. Left -- I'm about Right vs. Wrong.

The fact that Bobby Kennedy ordered it is no kind of defense. And us liberals -- we don't care. We don't care who did it -- we care that it was done.

The important thing is that warrantless wiretaps, aimed at political opponents, are Wrong. Heck -- warrentless wiretaps aimed at terrorists, I happen to think, are wrong -- our job as a society isn't to save our lives but rather to save our laws and our justice. The highest good our government can be working for isn't simply saving our lives, but rather, saving our freedom. Doing wiretaps without legal oversight attacks those freedoms -- and is therefore wrong even if it potentially saves lives.

Freedom's more important than life. That's why, in 1776, a whole bunch of Americans decided to risk their lives in defense of the notion that the power of an individual ruler was strongly limited. It would have been safer to NOT do that. It's not about being safe.

And it's not about "my side's better than your side," either. It's about fighting for what's right and good and true -- not about fighting for political gain or political parties.

So why do you think that anyone CARES whether the wiretaps were done by Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, or the Likkud party? What matters is that they were done, and they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Jimma Carter should go to an old folks home for the mentally deficient.

what was the whole purpose of MLK, Jr.'s (and Coretta's) life? they didn't live so that government workers could get a day off of work.

thoughtful republicans do worry about the fact there are so very few black members of their party (and none in congress).

Excuse me. Let's can the faux outrage. MLK on 4/18/59 addressed how he wanted to be eulogized at his funeral:

"I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness."

Sounds like exactly what Rev. Lowery and Pres. Carter said about his partner in that lifelong cause doesn't it?

I am NOT a Bill Clinton fan at all but after listening to him (he should be a preacher) then the robot/bobblehead Hillary I was struck by how good a speaker he is, and he was not political, he had some very good moments.

They should have had Hillary first, after Bill she showed how bad of a public speaker she is.

I did think of Monica when Bill said Coretta was still sexy.....

There really are few things as odious as a bunch of white reactionaries who disagree with everything that the Kings stood for presmuing to tell their family how to conduct her funeral.

The point of observing that the wiretaps of the Kings came under Democratic administrations is the corrective to the insipid implication that what Bush is doing is identical to what Hoover did. If you do not care for vapid guilt-by-association drive-bys you should not engage in same. Or at the least, object to it when practiced by your side's leaders. Particularly at an inhumation of this stature. The Wellstone analogy is quite apt but if you don't like it, m'kay. Because it will happen again. It's never over with these clods.

The left is so tied up in its hatred for the conservative "other", and so assured of its own self-righteousness that it is completely incapable of noticing when it is collectively behaving like an ass and driving away the centrist votes it so desperately needs to win national elections.

This country needs a responsible center-left party to counter the GOP but its not going to get it with the current ghoulish crew running today's Democrat party. Celebrating crude grandstanding at funeral after funeral? Enjoy your political dhimmitude, fools.

I only regret that it makes it more likely that the GOP will grow mushy, fat, and lazy as it wins election after election, basically by default.

Lest we forget, the GOP is the party of emancipation and the true heir of Dr. King's legacy - as Rep. David Drier eloquently explained to Tavis Smiley the other night:

Tavis, I watched your interview with John McCain, and when we unveiled our plan, and here we are, on the eve of Coretta Scott King's funeral, and I'm glad the President is going to be able to be there. I'm sorry I won't be able to be there. But you, that night, offered a quote which I had remembered reading, from one of the most famous letters from Birmingham jail that Dr. King offered.

And that is, the warning of the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. And I have used that as a model as we've pursued these reforms. Dr. King's really been an inspiration for me as we pursue this reform. So what we saw last week is simply a first step to pursue bold reforms. We've gotta remember, though, Tavis, every single American has a right to petition their government.

And as we do this, while I wanna be bold, we wanna make sure that we don’t, in any way, encroach on the Constitutional rights of Americans to petition those of us that are elected leaders.

If "no one cares" whether Repubs or Dems did something bad, why is the party affiliation usually missing when the perp is a Dem but almost always highlighted when the perp is a Repub?

Ian Osmond wrote:

I don't know about you, but I'm not about Democrats vs. Republicans; I'm not about Right vs. Left -- I'm about Right vs. Wrong.

The fact that Bobby Kennedy ordered it is no kind of defense. And us liberals -- we don't care. We don't care who did it -- we care that it was done.

The important thing is that warrantless wiretaps, aimed at political opponents, are Wrong.

>>>>Agreed! So please tell us who Bush is wiretapping for polical purposes??

>>>>Put it right here:

Heck -- warrentless wiretaps aimed at terrorists, I happen to think, are wrong -- our job as a society isn't to save our lives but rather to save our laws and our justice.

>>>There you have it, folks: liberal idiocy distilled into a single sentence. The expression "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" hasn't entered this guy's consciousness.

>>>Then there's the gem "our job as a society", as vapid a phrase as I've come across in a long time. Society has a job, and that job is ours? Sheer flumdoodle.

The highest good our government can be working for isn't simply saving our lives, but rather, saving our freedom.

>>>You moron! Your freedom cannot be saved if you are DEAD!

Doing wiretaps without legal oversight attacks those freedoms -- and is therefore wrong even if it potentially saves lives.

>>>But what is being done is not "wiretaps" against innocents, or political opponents, but against those who are communicating with our sworn enemies, people who want to kill us, and in the process destroy our freedom. A string of Supreme Court cases gives the President the right to gather foreign intelligence without warrants, as an inherent power. Congress authorized Bush to use all necessary means to engage and defeat al Qaeda. Congress could not pass legislation forbidding Bush or any president to exercise his constitutional powers.

>>>And, of course, you've tiptoed past the statements of Clinton administration officials who say the practice is both old (Echelon) and proper. You guys' amnesia is simply amazing, and a sure sign of naked and hypocritical partisanship.

>>>Americans with common sense know that requiring the President to seek an unelected judge's permission to engage and defeat our enemies is non-sensical.

>>>Have another snort from the bong and pass it on, will you?

Hey X,

The point wasn't "Well, they do it too." The point was that people tried to bring up that the Kings were wiretapped and implied through ommission that it was a Republican administration that did it. If you want to decry it - fine! But be honest about which party authorized it.

Oh, by the way, nice comment about Iraq. I've been there(Feb 03-Jun 03) and might go back anytime. Learn who you are talking about before you stick your foot in your mouth and wish for people to die. I didn't know wishing for death was something Jesus did either.

There were only a few remarks which were in any way controversial. This outrage is a sham drummed up by Republican operatives and intended to deflect attention from the serious news that's out there now. The funeral was exactly what the family wanted, and showed total respect for the only person who mattered: Mrs. King.

Right-wing zealots are just plain Swiftboating Mrs King's funeral to whip up some more false outrage from the Billy Joe Bob crowd, the Southern strategy has worked for years why stop milking it just because a this woman's entire adult life was devoted to fighting for dignity and social justice for every America. Instaidiot and the ever shrill Malkin don't want the things discussed that made Mrs King an extraordinary America woman, because deep down they don't think she should be honored at all.

As to the domestic spying issue, Bush has sworn an oath to uphold the laws passed by Congress. The FISA laws were passed in 1978 and adhered to by every president since then including his father. The Constitution does not give for the right to spy on Americans without a warrant, the AUMF gives him no such right. Bush can with my blessing and that of all Democrats spy on terrorists to his hearts content. He may not spy on Americans except under FISA guidelines which are very accomodating.
This is supposed to be a nation of laws by and for the people. It is not a nation of rule by unchecked executive power.

Ian Osmond wrote: "Freedom is more important than life."

Only because it is a fundamental requirement of human life. The American colonials chose to take up arms to defend their freedom, because their lives were too important to them to live as slaves. There was no conflict in their minds between freedom on the one hand, and life on the other. In choosing freedom, they were choosing the life proper to Man.

In taking up arms against the Crown, they were risking their lives in order to actively resist the slow withering away of their freedom. They were not passively resigning themselves to a life of fear, rather than risk encroaching on the freedoms of their would-be murderers. To suggest any comparison between the two is ludicrous.

As for my own position regarding the wiretaps, I would be far more comfortable with them if we were fighting under a declaration of war, so that they were understood as part of a president's wartime powers. This compromise war-that-is-not-a-war is a long-term threat to our freedom, because it blurs the line between what a president may properly do during war with what he may do during peace time. I don't see many Democrats cognizant of that fact who are also cognizant of the fact that the war must be fought. The Islamists are a far greater threat to our freedom in the short term, and this is the only war the political landscape allows us. It's Scylla and Charybdis, and I'm holding my breath to see if we make it through.

What is it with Democrats and dead people? They seem to instinctively climb on top of the nearest corpse whenever they need to score a political hit. They do it with the troops in Iraq; they have done the same thing here. It's absolutely freakish.

some delusional poster stated:

Lest we forget, the GOP is the party of emancipation and the true heir of Dr. King's legacy

in 1863, yes. but today?

dr. king was completely against war - he would have been marching against the Iraq war just like Vietnam. and people for the Iraq war would be slamming him for it.

"Yeah, the Kings were the subject of wiretaps...authorized by democrat Bobby Kennedy."

And people think this is a partisan snipe!

Ardsgaine said:
... I don't want a Pat Robertson presidency. I can see it coming though.....

I am nearly as conservative as they come, and consider myself religious as well. There is NO way that Pat Robertson would be elected as a Republican candidate. May happen in your nightmares, but in the real world, most conservatives are better grounded than you give us credit for. Robertson couldn't win the nomination. And even if so, wouldn't attract 2/3rd of the party faithful to the polls.

I see that this thread quickly descended into the ahistorical muck, with passers-by yodeling incoherently about Democratic resistance to the CR Act of 1964. To describe the Republicans as the "party of emancipation" makes about as much sense as referring to the Democrats as the party of "universal manhood suffrage." By this pretzeled logic, I suppose we'll be hearing soon about how the Democrats fouled up the War of 1812 with their foolish decision to invade Canada. And will the Republicans now lament the unfulfilled dreams of the Whig Party?

I'm with the Kossacks on this one. The Democrats are so lame, that yesterday's snide remarks pass for an attack. I was kind of hoping for some Democratic speaker to whirl around on Bush, and go after him with a cane, a la Preston Brooks. Say what you will about the early Democrats, they knew how to fight Republicans.

Emile King wrote:

*...Bush has sworn an oath to uphold the laws passed by Congress.*

Wow; to actually be in the (internet) presence of someone who thinks the President is just a servant of the Congress!

nclitigator:

Bush has freed 50 million people from governments that treated them like cattle living next to a slaughterhouse.

King would have been against that? I think not.

But if so, shame on him. (In any case, shame on YOU).

A funeral can be a time for everyone to pay respects, to set aside the issues of the day, and to reflect together on human mortality and the deceased's well-lived life.

Or a funeral can be a vehicle for attacking people at a time when they dare not say even one syllable to defend themselves.

If the Democrats repeatedly opt for the latter, who am I to sit in judgment? Knock yourselves out. (But don't play partisan politics and then expect everyone to treat the event as a sacred, reverential rite.)

fulldroolcup: How many people have died at the hands of "terrorists?"

Not so many, in the grand scheme of things.

How many freedoms are you willing to live without to reduce the, almost trivial, risk of dying at their hands?

Me, I take Patrick Henry's view of such things:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course other's may take, but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me Death."

If you want to give up your essential freedoms for an illusion of security, well there's places you can go, where they'll be willing to let you.

I, however, am not going to roll over and let my country become a place like that, not without a fight.

And before the rhetoric of my not being clued in, or my lacking patriotism comes out... I was in Iraq, from April '03 (after three charming weeks in Kuwait) to July, when I was medevaced out.

I am an interrogator. I've looked people in the face who most definitely wanted to kill me, and might have been willing to come here to kill more people (though mostly they just wanted the US out of their country, which I can't, looking at the way things have been run, fault them on. If someone was running roughshod over California like that, I'd be pretty pissed too).

Having done that, I still; perhaps more, don't want to give up my freedoms, just so you can sleep easy at night.

TK

The funeral was interesting because it demonstrated the increasing marginalization of the "Rumbling Reverends" Jackson and Sharpton.

In the past, they'd be right there on the body of Mrs. King, leading the entitlement charge, extorting, er encouraging, white America to get them paid!

Very sad to only see them google up as a side show.

Tom Paine-

Well, you can just ask Dr. King what his views on war were when you pass into the great hereafter someday, but . . . . oh yeah, you can't cause you're GOING TO HELL!

that was as constructive as your comment.

even ann althouse is somewhat rational on this subject.

I liked Reynolds' response to this post. Don't you understand, Prof. Muller? The Democrats are the suckiest sucks who ever sucked a suck, so they aren't allowed to invoke the civil rights movement, because they suck. And if they stop sucking, they will naturally become Republicans.

If someone had brought up the case of MLK in support of a law preventing Republicans from engaging in warrantless wiretapping, then I would agree that failing to mention the Democratic source of those wiretaps was a lie by ommission. But FISA applies to any administration regardless of party, and so any example of an adminstration's abuse of wiretapping is an appropriate argument for upholding it.

The expression "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" hasn't entered this guy's consciousness.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how requiring the administration to get a warrant from a secret court within three days of installing a wiretap hampers their ability to conduct surveillance at all, much less qualifies as a suicide pact. Even if the restriction is harmful, does that justify the president simply ignoring it? Do you believe that congress is so clueless or so traitorous that they wouldn't amend the law if that were necessary for maintaining national security? Or is it that you think democracy and the rule of law are themselves suicidal?

A funeral can be a time for everyone to pay respects, to set aside the issues of the day.... Or a funeral can be a vehicle for attacking people....

Or a funeral can be a time for permitting hypocrites to shed crocodile tears and claim fellowship with someone who, in life, they opposed at every turn. If Bush had shown some integrity (look it up) and said that though he and Ms. King and he disagreed on many issues, he still admired her as a person, the first option you mentioned would have been possible. As it was, the only choice was between the second and third options, and I can't honestly say I think Carter, et al, chose the wrong one.

Uh Oh - Africa Reports its First Bird Flu Case

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184188,00.html

See this update from Reynolds:

"nd this post by Eric Muller only serves to underline the very point it attempts to refute. The problem with today's Democrats is that they try to invest the naked hunger for power with the dignity of the civil rights movement, a dignity that they no longer possess because it was based on a self-discipline that they no longer possess."

"Dignity" and "self-discipline," hallmarks of today's American Right.

Beth,

You misread my comments. I have nothing against using a funeral as a vehicle to launch partisan attacks alleged hypocrites -- and that's especially powerful because the attackees can't realistically defend themselves. As I said, to do that is entirely the prerogative of the King family and Democrats. Enjoy!

The only thing you can't do is launch the partisan attack and expect the rest of us to treat the funeral with reverence.

Clearly it looks like UNC pays a heck of a lot more for its basketball team than it does for its faculty. Professor: your point was?

There really are few things as odious as a bunch of white reactionaries who disagree with everything that the Kings stood for presmuing to tell their family how to conduct her funeral.

Whoops, I guess judging people based on the content of their character wasn't one of Dr. King's ideas that you agreed with. It makes it easier to dismiss your opponents when you paint them all as closet racists, huh? Your illiterate screed is all the more ironic considering that those "white [racist] reactionaries" are calling for the memory of a black woman to be honored, while you use the opportunity of her nationally televised funeral as an impromptu campaign stop.

Terry Karney:

Your position is utterly irrational and completely irresponsible, in that you think that since the number killed by terrorism THUS FAR, in America, is "only" 3,000 or so, that future attacks will be of the same magnitude, and something we could live with.

Yet if the terrorists get their hands on nukes or biological agents, they could kill in several orders of magnitude larger.

You want to take that risk? Not me. And thank God the POTUS doesn't either. By trivializing 9/11 and the WOT in general, you reveal yourself to be a KOOK, sir. Your extremist view would give terrorists free rein, with Americans to passively accept whatever is thrown at them. That's not America, sir.

Secondly, you and the kook Left utterly misread/misrepresent what is being done here. No one is listening to Mom and Pop's conversations with their priest or psychiatrist. No one is listening to, for instance, Sen. Leahey's phone calls; if they were, you would be sure to know that Leahey would trim his criticism of the administration. That's what the Kennedys did to try to intimidate MLK. That's what Nixon did against his domestic political enemies.

No, a bunch of NSA spooks pluck out of the billions of conversations a tiny number that originate outside the US AND are known to be Al Qaeda people. How on god's greeen earth can doing that violate your privacy, deprive you of any freedom?

Now, you might say Bush "could" do a litany of things that would violate the privacy of conversations. But he's not, and he's not claiming the power to.

Your extreme view isn't even shared by the Dems, NONE of whom has demanded that Bush STOP the current program. Why? Because no serious politician wants to be seen depriving the POTUS of the ability to "connect the dots". And no serious politician wants to be blamed if he's responsible for those nots not being connected, leading to another attack.

Finally, you totally misread Patrick Henry's declaration, in which he says he is willing to risk death FOR liberty, vs the tyranny of the English crown. And how does he risk death? By taking the side of the rebels, by taking action against the tyrant.

Henry is NOT arguing a passive attitude toward tyranny. He's not saying "we can put up with" the actions of the tyrant. He's saying he would FIGHT and die, if necessary, to OBTAIN his freedom.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

(quaere: what "essential" liberty are you giving up by the POTUS intercepting messages between our sworn enemies, Alqaeda terrorists?)

p.s. thank you for your service to your country, but your Iraq experience has no probative value; you are simply offering the fallacious "Appeal to authority". On top of that, you falsely imply that Iraqis had it better under Saddam than under U.S. occupation. For that, I think you must have been a piss-poor observer or a moral imbecile. Or both.

Rev. Lowey responded to critics: Well, I don't think so. I certainly didn't intend for it to be bad manners. I did intend for it to -- to call attention to the fact that Mrs. King spoke truth to power. And here was an opportunity to demonstrate how she spoke truth to power about this war and about all wars.

NSA eavesdroppers not finding any threats
Washington Post
2/6/2006
WASHINGTON - Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing no terrorist threats, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources.

Bush recently described the warrantless operation by the National Security Agency as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al-Qaida, we want to know why."

But officials conversant with the program said that a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

Domestic spying outside of FISA law is not a completely partisan issue, Republicans like Lindsay Graham, Sam Brownback, John McCain, Arlen Spector, and:Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

For Beth:

From powerline.com

"...... heard on the mainstream media and left-wing web sites that FISA's onerous procedures are really no problem, since the statute contains a 72-hour "emergency" provision that would allow surveillance to begin immediately, as long as a judge signs an order within 72 hours thereafter. This, however, is wrong. As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has patiently and repeatedly explained, surveillance cannot begin until the Attorney General makes a finding that 1) an "emergency situation exists," and 2) "the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." That means that even in an emergency, the same onerous factual showing that is normally made to a judge must be made to the Attorney General--legal opinions, "minimization procedures," and all. In the meantime, as the days tick off the calendar, the al Qaeda henchman overseas can continue calling his American contacts "with impunity," as I put it in my original post."

I realize that's pretty thick, from a technical and legal standpoint, but it points out why lightweight lefties like you, with your complete lack of grasp on these matters, make the uninformed statements you do.

Different strokes for different folks.

I mean, R. Reagan lived a pretty political life. And yet I missed the many speeches slamming Jimmy Carter for his dead-end presidency, his weakness in foreign affairs, and for his complete lack of class as a former president. Those would have all been fair criticisms, and, apparently, would have been seen by most Democrats as perfectly appropriate, given Reagan's politics. The fact that Mr. Carter was present at the funeral would have made it even more appropriate: speaking truth to the powerful, and afflicting the comfortable, or some such excuse for what would otherwise be understood as rudeness.

What you don't get, fulldroolcup, is that the law gives the AG the authority to delegate that determination. It's not like they have to get AG Gonzales out of bed to make an emergency wiretap.

May God have mercy on anyone that needs legal help hires Hindrocket from Powerlies. In post previous to the one sighted above Hindrocket/Powerline failed to acknowledge FISA's 72-hour warrantless window and only acknowledged it after a few e-mails from some non-Bush apologists. One needs to raed all of the FISA law, its not very long. The AG may only make the determination that eavesdropping is called for in cases where the subject is not an American citizen or an American citizen in transit abroad.
FISA is the holy grail of domestic spying and is quite acomodating. Bush, the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI may begin eavesdropping immediately on American citizens for 72 hours without a warrant, after which they must obtain a warrant from the FISA courts. Bush and Gonzales know this because they've done it over 2000 times. The administrations has already been caught in a LIE. Thierfirst excuse for bypassing FISA was the need for immediate eavesdropping required it to violate this law. FISA gives them that ability.

Given Congress's bend over backward efforts to accomodate changes in the FISA laws it would have been easy to change the law, FISA related provisions had just been amended the prior year by the Patriot Act. The President is not a title or position equivalent to KING, so to secretly violate laws, give spurious explanations afterwards is inexcusable. To say that one supports what Bush has done is to be deeply against the rule of law in America. The rule of law is the fundamental foundation that separtes the USA from dozens of authoritarian regimes. Using fear as a kind of national blackmail makes all this even more inexcusable.
from Legal Standards for the Intelligence Community in Conducting Electronic Surveillance:
"For example, in order to conduct electronic surveillance against a U.S. person located within the United States, FISA requires the intelligence agency to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If the United States person is abroad, the Executive Order requires that the Attorney General approve such surveillance. In both instances, generally speaking there must be probable cause 5 that the target is an agent of a foreign power."
American citizen in the USA=FISA Court, not just the AG.

What you don't get,modus pontus,is what powerline has said:

"As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has patiently and repeatedly explained, surveillance CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL (my emphasis) the Attorney General makes a finding that 1) an "emergency situation exists," and 2) "the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." That means that even in an emergency, the same onerous factual showing that is normally made to a judge must be made to the Attorney General--legal opinions, "minimization procedures," and all. In the meantime, as the days tick off the calendar, the al Qaeda henchman overseas can continue calling his American contacts "with impunity...""

Since legal arguments must be prepared and made by the DOJ, it is OBVIOUS that getting a warrant takes time. meanwhile the terrorists are using their one-time throw-away cell phones and their conversations lost while the lawyers, judges and bureaucrats do their thing.

Sorry, but that's not waging war. Anyone who thinks a warrant is mandated in such a situation is "stuck on stupid".

Natty, you are clearly out to lunch: As powerline points out: "At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes."

Didja notice that "foreign intelligence" part? You think that means that the conversations of two AlQaeda terrorists communicating within the United States are NOT "foreign" actors under the statute? If not, then you are offering a distinction without a difference.

And as powerline also points out: "Section 109 of FISA also says that FISA does not apply where surveillance is "authorized by [another] statute." The administration argues, supported by the Hamdi case, that Congress's Authorizaton for the Use of Military Force authorizes intercepting enemy intelligence, which, like detaining enemy combatants, is a "fundamental and accepted incident of war." If the administration is right, FISA does not come into play at all."

You can argue against these positions, but you can't ignore them, nor will any reasonable person glibly ASSERT that the POTUS is ignoring the law w/o dealing with established case law and statutory interpretation.

Next, the president's revelation today that a terrorist attack was prevented in 2002 is going to reduce to rubble all these attempts to handicap and hobble the administration in its war against terrorism. You lefties seem to forget that in times of war, some civil liberties are TEMPORARILY set aside. You couldn't by unlimited amounts of gasoline during WWII, for example. Your right to travel was restricted. Or butter. Or lots of other things needed for the war effort. War ended? Restrictions lifted.

I remind you that GWB will be leaving office in 2009. (Some KING!) If you libs think his policies are turning us into a police state, then impeach him now, or wait and elect someone who will reverse his policies.

Funny, innit: you guys argue police state, when the dictator willingly leaves office. I recall some kooks on the right who worried that Clinton would refuse to give up his office, so I expect the left-kooks to start their hand-wringing any time now.

Finally, I've been thinking about Terry Karney's claim to have been an interrogator in Iraq. I am doubtful: for one thing, no soldier sworn to defend his country would ever be so dense as to regard what happened on 9/11 as anything but a naked Act of War. Nor would any real soldier passively accept the death of a single one of his fellow soldiers. Or does Terry think that the deaths of 2000+ soldiers in Iraq is "trivial"? Finally, it is curious that Terry frets about alleged civil rights infringments occurring in the abstract while goes all cavalier on us over the real deaths of thousands of real people at the hands of foreign enemies. Does this sound like a rational person to you? Just askin', is all.

Of course illegal wiretapping has been perpetrated by members of both major political party establishments. Civil rights activism has never been entirely popular with any U.S. administration.

For a while, though, after the Nixon debacle, our country learned to at least have a little shame when it came to warrantless spying on citizens. The current administration seems to have rejected its predecessors' hard-learned moral and legal restraint on the subject.

We are getting to be less and less different from other countries when it comes to human rights. That is terribly sad.

Great photo montage Eric. Interesting reading all the outraged defenders of poor little old Bush and Laura who had to be insulted by the mean old liberal left. I know we left oriented people need to take some manner lessons from the right wingers. We need to follow their example of decorum and propriety.
Give me a break. You can all dish out bile and venom but can't look truth in its face, especially when it is a black face.

... Give me a break. You can all dish out bile and venom but can't look truth in its face, especially when it is a black face ...

Bingo.

I know some of you Republicans are uncomfortable with your party's racism, but face the facts. There are good reasons for your unpopularity with African-Americans. It's not all just a big misunderstanding on their part.