Disgraceful Coverage by MSM of Saturday's DC Tea Party

[Philip Coates]

> Funny that you should bring up FISA. First of all, the FISA courts would routinely rubber stamp requests for warrants. Out of hundreds of requests, they only turned down about five [Martin]

Have you considered the possibility that the warrant requests were legitimate and well-reasoned and that is why only a few were rejected?

"Rubber stamping" is language which implies not reading, not fully considering. They didn't even try to objectively consider the matter.....do you have proof that this was the case? Were you in the room?

[Chris Grieb]

Phil; I look at OL at least twice a day.

I know I need to get a life.

[Martin Radwin]

> Funny that you should bring up FISA. First of all, the FISA courts would routinely rubber stamp requests for warrants. Out of hundreds of requests, they only turned down about five [Martin]

Have you considered the possibility that the warrant requests were legitimate and well-reasoned and that is why only a few were rejected?

"Rubber stamping" is language which implies not reading, not fully considering. They didn't even try to objectively consider the matter.....do you have proof that this was the case? Were you in the room?

It was pretty well documented that the FISA courts were rubber stamping requests for warrants. This is not particularly hard to figure out, given that about 99% of all warrant requests were granted. The idea that 99% of the federal government's requests for warrants were justified, given the government's tendency to want to collect all kinds of irrelevant information and to go on "fishing expeditions" not against actual terrorist threats but against all kinds of groups and people perceived as being in any way a threat to governmental authority (see the history of the FBI and its spying against anti-war groups, civil rights groups, Martin Luther King, etc.), is patently ridiculous.

So, no, I haven't seriously considered the possibility that 99% of the warrant requests were legitimate, given the incredible improbability of such a thing. Have you considered the much more likely possibility that many of the requests were not at all legitimate, and that the government was just going along on its usual business of spying on innocent people and groups? I presume that you weren't in the room either. You are placing the complete burden of proof on me, in contradiction to the long history of prior government behavior.

In any case, as I indicated above in post #43, the Bush administration violated the FISA laws. From post $43, "The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest_Communications

"In May 2006, USA Today reported that millions of telephone calling records had been handed over to the United States National Security Agency by AT&T Corp., Verizon, and BellSouth since September 11, 2001. This data has been used to create a database of all international and domestic calls. Qwest was allegedly the lone holdout, despite threats from the NSA that their refusal to cooperate may jeopardize future government contracts,[6] a decision which has earned them praise from those who oppose the NSA program.[7]

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on August 17, 2006 ruled that the government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. The Bush Administration has filed an appeal in the case which has yet to be heard in court.[8]

Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading in April 2007, alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program."

I wonder if it was a mere coincidence that the one company that refused to go along with the government's illegal demand that it turn over data to the NSA, ended up having its CEO indicted and subsequently convicted of insider trading, a "crime" that any objectivist should know is a bogus crime to begin with.

In 2007, the Bush administration got the "Protect America Act" passed. This act basically nullified FISA, giving the federal government basically the right to conduct unlimited wiretaps against anyone without bothering to get a warrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007

"Domestic wiretapping

The bill allowed the monitoring of all electronic communications of people in the United States without a court's order or oversight, so long as it is not targeted at one particular person "reasonably believed to be" inside the country. [1] [10] [11]

Foreign wiretapping

The Act removed the requirement for a FISA warrant for any communication which was foreign-related, even if the communication involved a U.S. location on the receiving or sending end of communication; all foreign-foreign communications were removed from warrant requirements, as well. [10]

Experts claimed that this deceptively opened the door to domestic spying, given that many domestic U.S. communications passed via non-US locations, by virtue of old telephony network configurations.

Data monitoring

In the bill, the monitoring of data related to Americans communicating with persons (U.S citizens and non-citizens) outside the United States who are the targets of a U.S. government intelligence information gathering efforts was addressed. The Protect America Act differed from the FISA in that no discussion of actions or character judgment of the target was required for application of the statute (i.e. to receive a FISA surveillance warrant, a FISC foreign agent definition was required). This data could be monitored only if intelligence officials acted in the context of intelligence information gathering.

Foreign Agent Declaration Not Required

No mention of foreign agent status is made in the Protect America Act of 2007. Under prior FISA rules, persons targeted for surveillance must have been declared as foreign agents before a FISA warrant would be accorded by the FISC court."

"4. Removal of FISA Strictures and FISA-court (FISC) from warrant authorization; warrants not required

But the most striking aspect of the Protect America Act was the notation that any information gathering did not comprise comprise electronic surveillance. This wording had the effect of removing FISA-related strictures from Protect America Act 2007-related Directives, serving to remove a number of protections for persons targeted, and requirements for persons working for U.S. intelligence agencies.

The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance

The removal of the term electronic surveillance from any Protect America Act Directive implied that the FISC court approval was no longer required, as FISA warrants were no longer required. In the place of a warrant was a certification, made by U.S. intelligence officers, which was copied to the Court. In effect, the FISC became less of a court than a registry of pre-approved certifications.

Certifications (in place of FISA warrants) were able to be levied ex post facto, in writing to the Court no more than 72 hours after it was made. The Attorney General was to transmit as soon as possible to the Court a sealed copy of the certification that would remain sealed unless the certification was needed to determine the legality of the acquisition.[9]"

"Controversy

The Protect America Act generated a great deal of controversy. Constitutional lawyers and civil liberties experts expressed concerns that the Act authorized massive, wide-ranging information gathering with no oversight. Whereas much focus was placed on communications, the Act allowed for information gathering of all shapes and forms. The ACLU called it the "Police America Act" - "authorized a massive surveillance dragnet", calling the blank-check oversight provisions "meaningless," calling them a "phony court review of secret procedures."[11]"

Phil, I really don't know what to say beyond this. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy that advocates laissez-faire capitalism and correspodingly limited government. If you think that laws which grant the government the basically unlimited right to spy on any American for the flimsiest of justifications, in total contradiction to 4th amendment protections against search and seizure without cause and without warrant, are consistent with the individual rights and limited government beliefs of objectivism, then you must inhabit some alternate universe of which I am definitely not a resident.

Martin

[Philip Coates]

> laws which grant the government the basically unlimited right to spy on any American for the flimsiest of justifications

It's not unlimited when they have to go thru the FISA court.

That is not a court made of all Republicans, is it?

[Philip Coates]

> The idea that 99% of the federal government's requests for warrants were justified, given the government's tendency to want to collect all kinds of irrelevant information and to go on "fishing expeditions" not against actual terrorist threats but against all kinds of groups and people perceived as being in any way a threat to governmental authority

Fallacy of begging the question: You say 'given' about the very point at issue...that these warrants (today,not under Lyndon Johnson or under Hoover's FBI) were bogus.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove!!!

Edited September 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Martin Radwin]

> The idea that 99% of the federal government's requests for warrants were justified, given the government's tendency to want to collect all kinds of irrelevant information and to go on "fishing expeditions" not against actual terrorist threats but against all kinds of groups and people perceived as being in any way a threat to governmental authority

Fallacy of begging the question: You say 'given' about the very point at issue...that these warrants (today,not under Lyndon Johnson or under Hoover's FBI) were bogus.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove!!!

Did you even bother to read a word I said? My argument was that, given the government's past behavior, including its behavior in the very recent past, it was absurdly unlikely that 99% of its requests for warrants to the FISA court were justified. The government's past behavior is an empirical fact which has been extensively documented. It is not an assumption. James Bovard wrote an entire book, Terrorism and Tyranny, documenting this behavior. There are multiple other sources as well. I was not in any way assuming what I was attempting to prove, which is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

I have so far presented extensive documentation of the government's behavior and legislation that it has passed giving it essentially unlimited power to spy on anyone. So far, you have not chosen to address any of the substantive points I have made but have instead resorted to rationalistic arguments without any reference to any of the historical data.

Martin

[jriggenbach]

Did you even bother to read a word I said?

Of course not. He was too busy playing "Gotcha" - a game he bitterly dislikes when anyone else plays it.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

A Federal prosecutor can destroy almost anyone he sets his eyes on. A billionaire out to protect himself might stand up to one. Even Presdident Clinton had to fire every one of them to cover his political and personal ass. I think Phil is safe, howver.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I have so far presented extensive documentation

What you've done is neither extensive, nor is it "documentation" not open to debate. You've not been willing to read the other side. And you haven't answered my logical questions.

Worst of all, when I poked a hole in one of your wikipedia sources, you ignored that.

> My argument was that, given the government's past behavior, including its behavior in the very recent past, it was absurdly unlikely that 99% of its requests for warrants to the FISA court were justified.

But you don't know that, do you? Nor do you have proof that FISA is a bunch of 'rubber stamps', do you?

Nor did you address the point about after the fact validation in 72.

What you are doing is IGNORING any point or question of mine, which probes deeper.

[Philip Coates]

Here is the point: You can't simply say government has done something bad or violated rights in X, Y, or Z. Therefore I -know- they have acted improperly in -thizs- new area.

I -know- the courts are rubber stamps. I -know- the phone taps were unnecessary to protect us from terrorists. I -know- they are trying to move us to a police state.

Instead of trying to protect us against people who crash airplanes into buildings.

That's what's known as libertarian paranoia.

[Selene]

Here is the point: You can't simply say government has done something bad or violated rights in X, Y, or Z. Therefore I -know- they have acted improperly in -thizs- new area.

I -know- the courts are rubber stamps. I -know- the phone taps were unnecessary to protect us from terrorists. I -know- they are trying to move us to a police state.

Instead of trying to protect us against people who crash airplanes into buildings.

That's what's known as libertarian paranoia.

"I -know- the phone taps were unnecessary to protect us from terrorists." < this is not something that any of us can "know" unless we were part of the operation that effected the policy application in the law.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Here is the point: You can't simply say government has done something bad or violated rights in X, Y, or Z. Therefore I -know- they have acted improperly in -thizs- new area.

I -know- the courts are rubber stamps. I -know- the phone taps were unnecessary to protect us from terrorists. I -know- they are trying to move us to a police state.

Instead of trying to protect us against people who crash airplanes into buildings.

That's what's known as libertarian paranoia.

Phil--

The libertarian contention is not that we don't need to be protected from people who crash airplanes into buildings, but that we don't need to violate people's rights to do so: and that the definite harm involved in such violations is far greater than the risk of not catching the terrorists in time.

There's also what the law calls "propensity". If you find a man acting suspiciously late at night near the back door of a jewelry store, and know from previous experience or information supplied to you on the spot that he's been arrested for burglary, robbery, and similar crimes in the past, then you have the right to think that he probably intends to burgle the jewelry store because he's exhibited such a propensity before.

Same applies to government. We know government has a propensity to violate rights (indeed, more than a propensity); therefore we are justified in suspecting any governmental action to be something that violates rights.

And finally, although I don't have any statistics handy, you might want to check out how often warrants are "rubber stamped" by judges on behalf of regular police investigating drug related or other everyday crimes. Once you understand how often search warrants are rubber stamped in every day matters, it makes it much more reasonable to view the FISA rate of approval as an indication of rubber stamping.

[Philip Coates]

> The libertarian contention is not that we don't need to be protected from people who crash airplanes into buildings, but that we don't need to violate people's rights to do so [Jeffrey]

Now we come right down to it! The wiretapping needed to track down terrorists who melt into the scenery otherwise is the -only- way to detect some of these plots is NOT a violation of rights.

Nor is searching a suspicious person, getting warrants or 'just cause', or other surveillance that is needed in order to prevent crime.

There are limits of course and warrants when there is time to get them are one and 72 hour time limits after the fact are another and court supervision and punishment for violations are others.

But I guarantee you, without being able to do electronic surveillance, massive terrorist attacks will occur.

,,,,,

Your own example, Jeffrey, is a case of probable cause to stop, interrogate, search -- not just to examine whether government is doing something wrong, but -literally- in this case of an actual criminal: "If you find a man acting suspiciously late at night near the back door of a jewelry store, and know from previous experience or information supplied to you on the spot that he's been arrested for burglary, robbery, and similar crimes in the past, then you have the right to think that he probably intends to burgle the jewelry store because he's exhibited such a propensity before."

Edited September 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

> The libertarian contention is not that we don't need to be protected from people who crash airplanes into buildings, but that we don't need to violate people's rights to do so [Jeffrey]

Now we come right down to it! The wiretapping needed to track down terrorists who melt into the scenery otherwise is the -only- way to detect some of these plots is NOT a violation of rights.

Nor is searching a suspicious person, getting warrants or 'just cause', or other surveillance that is needed in order to prevent crime.

There are limits of course and warrants when there is time to get them are one and 72 hour time limits after the fact are another and court supervision and punishment for violations are others.

But I guarantee you, without being able to do electronic surveillance, massive terrorist attacks will occur.

,,,,,

Your own example, Jeffrey, is a case of probable cause to stop, interrogate, search -- not just to examine whether government is doing something wrong, but -literally- in this case of an actual criminal: "If you find a man acting suspiciously late at night near the back door of a jewelry store, and know from previous experience or information supplied to you on the spot that he's been arrested for burglary, robbery, and similar crimes in the past, then you have the right to think that he probably intends to burgle the jewelry store because he's exhibited such a propensity before."

Perhaps I wasn't being clear before.

There is no objection to wiretapping done within the constitutional limits.

The problem is that the investigative regime currently pushes things beyond the constitutional limits.

We've come full circle. One of the early issues which brought the Thirteen colonies into conflict with the British crown was the issue of general writs of assistance: and eventually that sort of search warrant was rejected in the Bill of Rights. But now we have them again....

[Selene]

Jeff:

Now that is an astute point:

"We've come full circle. One of the early issues which brought the Thirteen colonies into conflict with the British crown was the issue of general writs of assistance: and eventually that sort of search warrant was rejected in the Bill of Rights. But now we have them again...."

Adam

[Reidy]

The tour is goind to roll again: http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/campaigns/stopobamatour.html.

As I write, the dates and days are in conflict on this schedule (e.g. October 15 is a Thursday, not a Wednesday).

[Philip Coates]

> One of the early issues which brought the Thirteen colonies into conflict with the British crown was the issue of general writs of assistance: and eventually that sort of search warrant was rejected in the Bill of Rights. But now we have them again.... [Jeffrey]

The difference is that in the 18th century, no one was trying to come over and destroy cities or cause massive destruction. No one had that intent, driven by religious fury. And no one had weapons of horrendous mass destruction. Nor could those who were trying to kill ordinary citizens on as large a scale as possible have easily blended into the population the way the 9-11 terrorists did.

So there was no objective need for spying or electronic surveillance in 'sweep' or 'scan' mode, looking for code words or patterns used by the terrorists.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

> One of the early issues which brought the Thirteen colonies into conflict with the British crown was the issue of general writs of assistance: and eventually that sort of search warrant was rejected in the Bill of Rights. But now we have them again.... [Jeffrey]

The difference is that in the 18th century, no one was trying to come over and destroy cities or cause massive destruction. No one had that intent, driven by religious fury. And no one had weapons of horrendous mass destruction. Nor could those who were trying to kill ordinary citizens on as large a scale as possible have easily blended into the population the way the 9-11 terrorists did.

So there was no objective need for spying or electronic surveillance in 'sweep' or 'scan' mode, looking for code words or patterns used by the terrorists.

Correct Phil.

The question is where do we establish a line that can't be crossed, or, as being charged with defending this country which is the first responsibility charged in the Constitution, there is no line than cannot and should not be crossed to save American lives.

This is not a simple or easy issue to walk through without a lot of emotion.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

> One of the early issues which brought the Thirteen colonies into conflict with the British crown was the issue of general writs of assistance: and eventually that sort of search warrant was rejected in the Bill of Rights. But now we have them again.... [Jeffrey]

The difference is that in the 18th century, no one was trying to come over and destroy cities or cause massive destruction. No one had that intent, driven by religious fury. And no one had weapons of horrendous mass destruction. Nor could those who were trying to kill ordinary citizens on as large a scale as possible have easily blended into the population the way the 9-11 terrorists did.

So there was no objective need for spying or electronic surveillance in 'sweep' or 'scan' mode, looking for code words or patterns used by the terrorists.

Correct Phil.

The question is where do we establish a line that can't be crossed, or, as being charged with defending this country which is the first responsibility charged in the Constitution, there is no line than cannot and should not be crossed to save American lives.

This is not a simple or easy issue to walk through without a lot of emotion.

Adam

If there is no line that can not be crossed, then the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. May I remind you that the Constitution of the Soviet Union contained sections very similar to our own Bill of Rights?

Also bear in mind that the parallels to the 18th century run not only to the War on Terror but also the War on Drugs and all the crusades that have sprung from it or taken it as precedent?

[Philip Coates]

I'm waiting for your suggestion how to hunt down terrorist cells who want to blow up New York or the Super Bowl or gas the subways without electronic surveillance of the kind in question.

[jeffrey smith]

I'm waiting for your suggestion how to hunt down terrorist cells who want to blow up New York or the Super Bowl or gas the subways without electronic surveillance of the kind in question.

The same way we hunt down the current day versions of John Gotti and Pablo Escobar (whoever they may be--I have no information on that score)which apparently is done without broadly drawn warrants and invasions of privacy of everyone in sight. Is the Mafia less technosavvy than your average mosque goer?

And if the technology has gotten too much for the standard procedures, then admit it and find a new scheme that doesn't give the executive branch a blank check.

[Selene]

I'm waiting for your suggestion how to hunt down terrorist cells who want to blow up New York or the Super Bowl or gas the subways without electronic surveillance of the kind in question.

The same way we hunt down the current day versions of John Gotti and Pablo Escobar (whoever they may be--I have no information on that score)which apparently is done without broadly drawn warrants and invasions of privacy of everyone in sight. Is the Mafia less technosavvy than your average mosque goer?

And if the technology has gotten too much for the standard procedures, then admit it and find a new scheme that doesn't give the executive branch a blank check.

Thank you Jeffrey that was part of the discussion about crossing a line.

And I might add, we are under a serious alert here in NY City area and I will be going into a few places on Thursday or Friday that are prime targets under this new plot.

I will be quite alert and will be more prone to overreact to a "peculiar" pattern of movement. Let me tell you, if my city gets hit again, and I have several Muslim clients, what happened to the Japanese is going to look like a seven course dinner at the Leopard in Manhattan compared to the way the citizens will react.

Adam

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> I'm waiting for your suggestion how to hunt down terrorist cells who want to blow up New York or the Super Bowl or gas the subways without electronic surveillance of the kind in question.

>>The same way we hunt down the current day versions of John Gotti and Pablo Escobar (whoever they may be--I have no information on that score)which apparently is done without broadly drawn warrants and invasions of privacy of everyone in sight. Is the Mafia less technosavvy than your average mosque goer?

We're not all that good about preventing drugs from being smuggled into the country, so I wouldn't use that as an example of success. In the case of a dirty bomb surrounding by radioactive material or a nuclear weapon that could destroy the city you live in and render it uninhabitable, they only have to succeed in smuggling it in -once-.

Unlike drug interdiction where we accept a certain degree of failure.

>>And if the technology has gotten too much for the standard procedures, then admit it and find a new scheme that doesn't give the executive branch a blank check.

The executive branch does not have a blank check. There are warrants when there is time to get them, there is FISA. There is 72 hour reporting period. There is a hostile and skeptical press on matters of spying. And a left-leaning Congress which tends to view the CIA and NSA with a great deal of suspicion and hostility.

Hardly a 'rubber stamp' political atmosphere.

I don't know how closely you have been following the last few years, but in some cases the decision may be made *not to surveil* when it is vitally necessary because of the possible risk to your career or institution.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Reidy]

The feds are doing a pretty good job of this hunting-down already. We just saw a major arrest here in Denver. That's part of the reason why we haven't seen a terrorist incident in the US in 8 years.

[jriggenbach]

The feds are doing a pretty good job of this hunting-down already. We just saw a major arrest here in Denver. That's part of the reason why we haven't seen a terrorist incident in the US in 8 years.

The late Alexander King had a friend who ended every visit to King’s house by stopping in the doorway, lowering his eyes, folding his hands and saying, “May this house be safe from tigers.”

King finally asked him what was the meaning of “this idiot prayer?”

His friend responded with a hurt look and a question.

“How long have I been saying it?”

About three years, King replied.

“Three years,” the friend said. “Well — been bothered by any tigers lately?”

JR