« Separated at Birth | Main | Funny How That Works »
August 17, 2006
Silly Judge
US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has declared Bush's wiretapping program illegal and unconstitutional, a clear violation of FISA. What "Judge Diggs" clearly forgets is that FISA was an unconstitutional abrogation of President Bush's right to do whatever the fuck he wants. Can't argue with that reasoning, Judge. It's science.
August 17, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83460afc669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Silly Judge:
Comments
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 4:44:30 PM
Tu Quoque Toke forgets two things:
1) Answering a charge of unlawful action with "tu quoque" is not an argument. It's the equivalent of saing "va fanculo" to rule of law.
2) Toke has pimped this BS talking point before, and he damn well knows, because I pointed it out to him at the time, that at the times that he's citing, there was in fact no controlling legal authority for searches for foreign intelligence purposes. The problem for the Bush administration is that there is no proof offered that their actions are purely for foreign intelligence purposes.
3) Had the searches that Tu Quoque Toke is trying to use as an "argument" been ruled unconstitutional and liberals (I won't even limit it to the same exact people) had argued it was wrong, THEN he would now have an argument that the current liberal position on the Bush Administration's wiretapping is hypocritical.
Seriously, Tu Quoque Toke is precisely like every creationist -- spewing the same talking points in response to everything, no matter how often HE PERSONALLY has been debunked. In that respect, he's a true Republican media personality -- a Dick Cheney of denial.
Ezra, I continue to wonder why you put up with a known liar like Tu Quoque in your comment section.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 4:58:39 PM
What will she think of this decision?
Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self
Posted by: Allen K. | Aug 17, 2006 5:10:26 PM
1) No, my argument is that it was alright THEN, under a Democratic president, but liberals have a problem with it NOW under Bush. I think it was alright THEN and NOW.
2)"there was in fact no controlling legal authority for searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
What!? From my understanding FISA was started in the seventies, so how do you explain Clinton's warrantless searches?
3)"Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
When Democrats argue Clinton "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." then, but now say Bush doesn't have the same authority, that is hypocritical!
Ezra, I don't know why you continue to let these weak-minded people argue on behalf of the liberal cause, it makes liberals look foolish (or moreso).
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 5:13:33 PM
What!? From my understanding FISA was started in the seventies, so how do you explain Clinton's warrantless searches?
Clinton's searches weren't covered by FISA at the time, disphit. They were physical searches, not wiretaps. The law was then amended to cover physical searches, after which time the Clinton administration didn't question the law's legality. In fact, it was amended with Clinton's support.
Most of the time I'd figure dipshits like Toke were lying, but I genuinely believe he's just plain stupid.
Posted by: Vladi G | Aug 17, 2006 5:29:05 PM
From the ACLU:
For example, some have claimed that "President Clinton exercised the same authority" as President Bush, based on the testimony of Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick back in 1994, but what she actually said was that FISA at that time restricted only electronic surveillance and not physical searches in intelligence investigations, which was correct. In the wake of the Aldrich Ames spying investigation, Gorelick testified that "the administration and the attorney general support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes... the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation." In October 1994, Congress amended FISA to require court oversight of requests to conduct physical searches in intelligence cases."
Oh and just because Bill clinton does something does not mean we agree, you did not see liberals complaining that Congress was overstepping its bounds by legislating in this way.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Aug 17, 2006 5:31:01 PM
Toke's cultivation of his own ignorance, when he has been referred to the facts, can only mean that Toke is a liar, with no principles whatsoever.
He has apparently refused to read any of the text at any of the links provided to him in January, which debunk the precise language he is trying to use for his talking points, back when he first tried to tell these lies.
Apparently Toke refuses to read them now, preferring instead to lie and smear.
I will once more post the links for the edification of everyone else, but I fully expect Toke continue to lie about what the law was, in order to pretend that the law doesn't matter, just as he did in January.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220007
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006455.php#1
http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/
The Left Coaster piece in particular is heavily linked and cited, and pretty much unwinds the lies that Toke is telling, and hoping he can get away with.
Last, Tu Quoque Toke continues to confuse political charges of "hypocrisy" (which he has yet to show in this case, despite his best efforts) with legal arguments about what is and is not legal. Just like the rest of the Republican media hacks, he seems unable to distinguish between "that's illegal", and "that's politically feasible". I suspect that he, like his party, has lost his moral compass, and simply can't tell the difference.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 5:32:21 PM
"The problem for the Bush administration is that there is no proof offered that their actions are purely for foreign intelligence purposes."
Do you have any proof that shows the administration's actions weren't purely for foreign intelligence purposes?
Hey vladi, you dumbfuck, are you saying Clinton conducted an illegal search then supported changing the law?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 5:32:52 PM
Vladi, ellenbrenna, it's useless to try to argue about this with Toke. If you click through the link in my first comment, you'll see that he did the EXACT same thing in January -- dredged up the same lies, then stuck to them no matter what.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 5:34:32 PM
"The Left Coaster piece in particular is heavily linked and cited, and pretty much unwinds the lies that Toke is telling, and hoping he can get away with."
I am citing executive orders authored by Clinton and Carter, you are citing left-wing websites. You guys won't even acknowledge FoxNews as a credible source, yet you expect a normal person acknowledge mediamatters or thinkprogress as credible?!?!?
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 5:39:55 PM
Hey vladi, you dumbfuck, are you saying Clinton conducted an illegal search then supported changing the law?
No, dipshit. I'm claiming he conducted a legal search. Then later, the law changed, making such searches illegal, after the law changed. We have this concept in the Constitution (perhaps you've heard of that, but you are, remember, a total dipshit) called "ex-post facto", as in, if you do something that isn't against the law, and then later the law changes, what you did was not illegal.
Would it be more helpful if I got some crayons and drew you a picture?
Ezra, I'm all for free speech, but why do you allow fucking morons like this idiot to pollute your threads?
Posted by: Vladi G | Aug 17, 2006 5:49:08 PM
Is it Toke or Dipshit now? I like Dipshit so let's stick with that.
Ask and you shall receive. Here is a partial transcript from Fox News Sunday since you don't click links. Here is the rest of the transcript
By the way, that is Senator Dick Durbin (R-IL).
WALLACE: Senator, when the Clinton administration authorized the search of Aldrich Ames, the Soviet spy's home and office back in the 1990s, they said the president has the inherent constitutional authority to do so. No Democratic leaders that we could find squawked at that point about what President Clinton was doing.
DURBIN: Well, remember, at that moment in time, the FISA law did not cover physical searches. It only dealt with wiretaps. So what the president did was not violating the FISA law.
WALLACE: No, but he was violating other laws, wasn't he? I mean, here he was authorizing a search without -- a physical search of somebody's home without any court order.
DURBIN: Let me finish, if I might. President Clinton then came to Congress and asked to amend FISA to cover physical searches. In other words, the president was willing to step forward and say let's create a legal standard that will apply to me and every other president so that our administration will follow a law and have court approval even before physical searches.
So the intent and the actions of the Clinton administration are in sharp contrast to what we face with this administration. If the president came forward and said there's a real threat, we need to change the law so that I have the power to deal with it, you can bet Congress would work overtime to get that done.
Posted by: evilchemistry | Aug 17, 2006 5:58:06 PM
Ah, so all Toke has left is the "appeal to authority fallacy".
Toke cites decades-old executive orders that comply with the law and cite specific code sections as authority for his allegations that searches carried out under those EOs were illegal, or in the alternative, that illegal searches carried out today were legal because of those EOs, or in the alternative, there are no rules except the rules of political power. (I think that last one is the real one, because Toke is nothing if not a servile groveler to Republican in power.)
Toke then refuses to even read any of the arguments that say that the law changed between then and now, because it makes it easier for him to tell the same lies over and over again.
Note that even in this thread, Vladi G has made the precise arguments made in the thread on the same topic back in January, when Toke told the same lies, and Toke refuses to engage with those arguments, preferring to stick with his lies, trying to force people to do the work to debunk those lies yet again, in this venue rather than the already-linked venue.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 5:58:46 PM
Learn to read.
Before the Ames investigation physical searches were not illegal for foreign intelligence investigations, after the Ames investigation because of objections to consolidation of executive power, they were made illegal and the Clinton administration did not object to them being brought under FISA's jurisdiction.
That is the biggest difference between the two situations, Bush argues for less oversight Clinton did not object to more oversight.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Aug 17, 2006 6:00:43 PM
Learn to read.
Clinton's executive order allowing warrantless searches was written in 1995, yet he conducted a warrantless search of Ames home and office in 1993.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 6:06:31 PM
I conccur that dipshit works out well.
Some of us on the "left," as it were, didn't agree with it when Clinton did it either. Some of us strongly dissaproved of Clinton being the worse president this country has had for civil liberties - up until bush stole office. Your argument that it's ok because Clinton did it just doesn't hold water - for a myriad of reasons. But it is quite clear that you hate America and all she stands for so I don't expect you to understand that some of us wish to preserve the freedoms that millions of Americans, patriots have died for.
Dipshit indeed.
Posted by: DuWayne | Aug 17, 2006 6:20:30 PM
Dipshit,
DURBIN: Well, remember, at that moment in time, the FISA law did not cover physical searches. It only dealt with wiretaps. So what the president did was not violating the FISA law.
WALLACE: No, but he was violating other laws, wasn't he? I mean, here he was authorizing a search without -- a physical search of somebody's home without any court order.
DURBIN: Let me finish, if I might. President Clinton then came to Congress and asked to amend FISA to cover physical searches. In other words, the president was willing to step forward and say let's create a legal standard that will apply to me and every other president so that our administration will follow a law and have court approval even before physical searches.
Why did Clinton put the not addressed in FISA physical search into writing in 1995 after the warrantless physical search in 1993? I know I'm asking you to think. If you can read the above, you'll have the answer.
Posted by: evilchemistry | Aug 17, 2006 6:23:12 PM
Clinton's executive order allowing warrantless searches was written in 1995, yet he conducted a warrantless search of Ames home and office in 1993.
Good lord, you really are just about the stupidest person on the face of the earth, aren't you. It's amazing that you can even operate a typewriter. Let's see what you're executive order authorizes. Now, read slow, dipshit, because you probably won't understand it the first 15 or 20 times you read it. Here goes:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Hmm, and what would be contained in the certifications required by section 302(a)(1) of the act? Probably didn't look for that, did you, dipshit? Let's see what that says:
the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);
ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person
Let me translate that into dipshitese for you, Toke. It says that the President can authorize a warrantless physical search of a non-citizen or non legal resident, and the property searched is used exlusive by or is under the exclusive control of a foreign power. In other words, he can't do to it to a US Citizen, and he can't do in the United States.
Now, take an hour to read that about 50 times, and see if starts to sink in. I doubt it will, of course, because you're a dipshit, but that's a chance I'm willing to take.
Posted by: Vladi G | Aug 17, 2006 6:25:13 PM
But, since Toke is a pathological liar, and he's using Ezra's bandwith for his lies, here we go:
Here is the text of the Clinton EO he's trying to cite. The specific text on warrantless physical searches is here:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act [Public Law 103-359, passed in 1994], the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Note the clever use of an actual code cite right there in the EO, suggesting that there was a law which authorized this explicitly and directing compliance? Toke didn't.
Here's that code section: (codified at 50 USC 1821(a)(1)):
(a) Presidential authorization (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if - (A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that - (i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title); (ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and (iii) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) (!1) of section 1821(4) of this title; and(B) the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures
and any changes thereto to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate at least 30 days before
their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines that
immediate action is required and notifies the committees
immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for
their becoming effective immediately.
The cut & paste is messy, but I'm lazy. If people want to see it prettier, they can (unlike Toke) click through. Hey, lookit that, it turns out that Clinton's EO authorizing warrantless searches is a new EO directing the AG to comply with a new law, passed in 1994, which limits the warrantless search to non-US Persons.
The long and short of all of that is "Toke is a liar."
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 6:30:26 PM
That judge sounds like an uppity bitch. Clearly she is not familiar with the Executive Order of November 2004 (aka "I Won, Bitches!") and the earlier precedent established by Bill Clinton, to whit, because Bill Clinton was once the president and got it on with someone he wasn't married to, George Bush is now allowed to do whatever he wants. Because that's how it works. If an earlier president did something wrong, that allows subsequent presidents to do other wrong things too, and it's all good in the hood. In a way, by lying about his sex life, Clinton did posterity a huge favor by making everything OK. We all get to judge our personal conduct by the low standard Clinton set. I'm thinking of knocking over a liquor store after work tonight, just cuz, and when the judge asks me what made me think I could do such a thing, I'll just say that Clinton set such a low standard, anything goes now. Then I'll tell the judge he's/she's being an activist by insisting I abide by the rule of law. I'm sure he/she will see things my way. And if he/she insists on making me follow the law anyway, in clear violation of my right to do whatever the hell I want, I'll just scribble a signing statement on the bottom of the paperwork and go home. Cuz that's how I roll.
Posted by: LL | Aug 17, 2006 6:31:30 PM
The long and short of all of that is "Toke is a liar."
I don't know, I think he's just stupid. I'm willing to believe both, though.
Posted by: Vladi G | Aug 17, 2006 6:33:06 PM
I don't know, I think he's just stupid. I'm willing to believe both, though.
I'd believe stupid if this was the first time. But Toke is a professional Republican Talking Point troll as a general matter, and he's told these exact lies before and been smacked down in almost the exact same way.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 6:34:46 PM
P.S. Vladi, if I'd known you were going to do that, I would have saved my time -- of course, that's the problem with liars like Toke -- they tell enough lies that it takes forever just to force the truth through their bullshit.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 6:35:57 PM
evil,
Clinton broke the law, then went to congress, according to you.
"In other words, he can't do to it to a US Citizen, and he can't do in the United States."
Was Ames a citizen? Was his home and office in the United States?
Dumbfuck
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 17, 2006 6:37:06 PM
See what I mean, Vladi? Toke will stick to his talking points, which are generally either lies or "tu quoque", or a nice blend.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 17, 2006 6:38:56 PM
