Tell Senator Cornyn: Wiretap Hearings Before Alito

Because this information was gathered and NO attempt was made at getting a warrant.... because it was authorized by the president. Der.

How do you know? You know that the law was broken, yet you can't specify any cases where it happened? How do you know a law was broken?

Because.... the president admitted it.

Haha, alrighty.

...
The suggestion that terrorism requires warrantless surveillance is dangerous too, because there is no stopping point to the argument that "we're doing everything, regardless of the law, to prevent the loss of life." The argument justifies unprovoked wars, torture, endless invasions of privacy, and the creation of a dictatorship the structure of which might come to resemble that of the very enemies from which the President wishes to protect the people of the United States.

The warrant requirement is a critical component of our democracy. Right now, it ensures that someone outside of the Bush Administration might be in a position to criticize and veto decisions that could be biased, mistaken, and ultimately fatal to the freedom that Bush and his critics alike hold dear.

The argument justifies unprovoked wars, torture, endless invasions of privacy, and the creation of a dictatorship the structure of which might come to resemble that of the very enemies from which the President wishes to protect the people of the United States.

That writer is doing the same things you guys are, making up all kinds of extra information that you don't have.

If you would like to read a good run down of everything we know so far, including many links to articles in all sorts of major news sources, and explanations of why Bush didn't do anything wrong, you can go here:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19595/

At a news conference at the White House on Monday, General Hayden also emphasized that the program’s operations had “intense oversight” by the agency’s general counsel and inspector general as well as the Justice Department. He said decisions on targets were made by agency employees and required two people, including a shift supervisor, to sign off on them, recording “what created the operational imperative.”

Why Require a Warrant? Looking to Incentives

A police officer is engaged in what the Supreme Court has called the "often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." The same, of course, could be said of security agents trying to ferret out terrorism. Therefore, an officer or agent might see probable cause where there is none. For similar reasons, people who visit a surgeon and hear the advice "let's operate" often seek a second opinion from a doctor who does not earn a living cutting people open.

A police officer is understood to have a bias in favor of searching, because her job is to be suspicious and to locate criminals. The same is true of officers conducting foreign surveillance.

A magistrate or judge, by contrast, is more likely to have the ability to look at the facts that an officer presents and to judge, somewhat independently, without the zeal that characterizes an officer on the hunt, whether there is indeed good reason to conduct surveillance. Though purely procedural, the step of requiring an officer to seek a warrant can therefore have a needed disciplinary effect on the process and may in fact save the substance of "probable cause" from being secretly and steadily diluted and ultimately eliminated.

Consider an analogous context. Imagine that a person is accused of a crime but that the arresting officer, rather than a jury, will decide whether the prosecutor has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This procedure would likely seem grossly unfair to most Americans. If the defendant is not guilty, how likely is the arresting officer to detect that fact, given her investment in the apparent guilt of someone that she has personally arrested?

To be sure, bias is not the same thing as dishonesty (although a bias can certainly give rise to dishonesty, such as when a defendant's mother provides a false alibi in an attempt to save her son from the death penalty). To be biased, simply put, is to have a set of loyalties and interests that could interfere with one's ability objectively to process and measure facts. (Most parents, for example, believe that their children are above average, but they cannot all be right).

So, your fiction writer commentator has more credibility than a Rutgers law professor? And, didn't Scott McClellan later clarify that intercepts were on both incoming and outoing communications? If nothing else, Ms. Colb's Looking to Incentives overview about inherent bias and the need for an impartial magistrate would seem to apply to this statement:

Do you honestly think that those who have a stake in the investigation will act without bias (i.e., the shift supervisor)?? Here's Colb's statement:

Bottom line: Why not stay above reproach and request the after-the-fact warrants? Seems like a basic CYA to me.

There is quite a lot more information on the page I linked to. And again, unlike your fancy "Rutgers law professor", there are plenty of links to all sorts of different news sources. It explains why it wasn't necessary for Bush to get warrants on the communications that we're talking about. You have no interest in realizing that, though, so you can just wait it out and realize that you're wrong in a few weeks or whatever, when most everyone else starts to get it.

How 'bout you list a few for us? Don't count on this going away, btw.

List a few what? It's right in the link. Go read and learn, if you dare.

Yea, America is going to come down hard on Bush for his authorizing spying on calls from terrorists in foreign countries and people in the US. This is going to make the Democrats lose even worse in 06. Pelosi has known all about this since 2001. So have many other people in government. You don't want to know about that, though.

Keep it alive. Please.

So what exactly would your reaction be when/if a non-republican wins in 08?

So what exactly would your reaction be when/if a non-republican wins in 08?

Probably just a bunch more irrational "You hate America!" garbage.

Even with if they had an upper 80's percent approval rating, anyone who isn't a republican is bad news for America. Der. Stupid liberals and their lefty religion probably brain washed them all!

Not to say I think all republicans are bad (probably about the same split of A**hats in Democrats as Republicans), I choose to judge my politicians on the person, not the party.

Probably just a bunch more irrational "You hate America!" garbage.

List a few what? It's right in the link. Go read and learn, if you dare.

Yea, America is going to come down hard on Bush for his authorizing spying on calls from terrorists in foreign countries and people in the US. This is going to make the Democrats lose even worse in 06. Pelosi has known all about this since 2001. So have many other people in government. You don't want to know about that, though.

Keep it alive. Please.

I doubt you read every paragraph of my linked article. I'm sure as hell not going to follow every tangental link from Mr. Goldstein's blog in hopes of supporting your argument. Yeah, I'm all about doing that. If you've got a point to make, the debate is here. Cite your rebuttal, or stfu.

I did read that article that you linked to. Actually, I read it when it was linked by someone else here recently. It seems like you guys only have one crappy source that affirms the thing you want to be true.

I knew you wouldn't read what I linked to. I knew you'd dismiss it. You don't want to know the truth. You just want to whine about how evil Bush is. Pathetic.

What, you have that super-duper mind-reading goggles and have divined my inner thoughts and motives? I read the posted blog. About every fifth word or phrase is a link to something -- not to mention the 50-odd links along the right margin. Which one(s), exactly, are you suggesting I should read to support your argument? Why is it so hard for you to post a couple? I'm gonna put on my super-duper mind-reading goggles and predict that you haven't visited too many of his links, either.

Hahhahah, oh man. I like how you're pretending that you don't know that the links along the side have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Brilliant!

Nice how you still haven't provided a single supplemental link to support your argument. I have decided <gasp> that Ulrika was right about you. Have fun in your neo-Con frenzy while it lasts. You remind me a lot of a certain Mr. Yellowknife, who eventually got himself banned from these forums.

I have decided <gasp> that Ulrika was right about you.