right.
and these averted attacks are kept secret because our government has always been shy about anouncing its “successes”
Ok, then with whom are you disagreeing in this thread? I think the dissenters are complaining about extra-legal or quasi-constitutional tools like torture, infiltrating peaceful activist groups, detaining US citizens without habeus corpus, etc.
The NSA has two primary roles: Foreign Signals Intelligence and Information Assurance. Hence your description of them as “seek[ing] out foreign enemies who have infiltrated our open borders” is inappropriate.
If anything, this makes it worse. Now, it’s no longer “we felt it was legal”, it’s “we were deliberately going around the FISA court becuase they were mean to us!”
I don’t see anybody saying the taps are new. What’s new is that they’re being done without a warrant.
Here is the membership of the court. You want to make the case that they’re partisan, knock yourself out. All but one post-date the beginning of Bush’s presidency, which is really neither here nor there since they’re appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. Either way, have fun with the partisan argument.
It has already been noted that this represents a higher per annum rate than his predecessors. It should also be noted that by his own admission the 5,800 is not the total number of taps, just the ones he went to FISA for. The unwarranted taps are not included in that number.
Your arguement against “it could happent to me or you” is stymied by the fact that you believe it is “probably” already happening to thousands of people in America who are completely innocent of any crime except fitting a certain demographic, and you are completely fine with that. Charming.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6939617&postcount=41
What BB said.
(in case posters in this thread missed the excellent review set forth therein touching on issues recently bruited about above.)
Godammit, what the fuck are they supposed to be waiting gfor? The borders ARE open, yes they surely are.
So where the fuck are the sleepers you morons?
Do you think some anglo boder guard at Tijuana can sort a turk from an arab from a mexican?
Please tell me that was written tongue-in-cheek.
To use your own analogy -
You’re standing next to a pile of tiger shit, with tracks all over the place. And you’re claiming there are no tigers. I really wonder what will be said when one bites you in the ass.
Or, “We deliberately went around the FISA court because they are stuck in a pre-911 mindset and are rejecting wiretaps crucial to national security”
I’m not saying they ARE partisan. I have no idea. I’m saying that whether or not the rejection/modification rate under Bush is damning depends on why they were rejected. It could be that the court is doing this because the Bush administration is out of line and asking for wiretaps willy-nilly and without any cause at all, or it could be that FISA is using a set of standards more appropriate to organized crime/long term surveillance, and that’s not the new reality.
And if it wasn’t, I’d be worried. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you expect the number of wiretaps to skyrocket after a war breaks out? I’d be absolutely shocked if the Bush administration didn’t radically increase the number of wiretaps after 9/11, and you guys would be using that fact as evidence that the administration isn’t doing its job.
Yet that’s the only way you can offer to rationalize a Bush-requested warrant being rejected unless it really was so overreaching that even a rubber-stamp operation wouldn’t allow it. There is only one real-world possibility, and your attempt to demonize anyone who says so, including judges you can’t even name, is as transparent as it is sad.
Typical.
I’m stunned that anyone could imagine a maximum rejection rate of 4 out of 1727 (0.23%) could ever be damning.
I’m stunned that you still retain the ability to be stunned at Sam’s eagerness to smear anyone who dares question a conservative Republican’s actions, or his eagerness to wriggle away when called upon it, as with this typical “I didn’t *accuse * anybody, I was just wondering” approach. Great googly moogly.
???Where did I smear anyone???
You guys have to cut back on the caffeine or something.
And yes, I’m aware that only 4 were rejected. But hundreds were modified or sent back for changes. That kind of belies the, “It’s quick, easy, and fun!” spin that we’re getting about the FISA court.
According to the footnotes to the table I supplied:
Where are you getting this ‘hundreds’ figure? Where are you getting the information that the modifications were ‘substantive’, rather than say ‘clerical’? I don’t think you’d get 200 court requested modifications through the entire run of the program 79-04.
Or, “Forget the damn Constitution and Law, this is important stuff and only we can handle it.”
Let’s stop mixing terms here. A very small number were rejected. The larger number were modified and approved. Since FISA has never handled organized crime warrants, I somehow doubt that is the standard being used.
Let’s take a look at some facts and see where they lead us.
Fact: The FISA Court has been place for 27 years.
Fact: Judges are limited to a maximum 7 year term.
Conclusion: There have been, at a minimum, 3 full sets of judges prior to “this” one. All of whom routinely approved warrants with little or no modification.
Fact: The judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States.
Fact: There is no review by the Congress/President of these appointments.
Conclusion: To the extent possible, partisan politics have been removed from the process.(see Note)
Fact: FISA warrants have historically been approved without any modification.
Fact: Since 2002, while the number of requests has gone up substantially (as one would expect), the number modified has gone up by a much larger percentage.
Fact: Between 2002 and 2003, 4 new judges were added to the court (per the Patriot Act).
Fact: 8 of the 11 judges were appointed after 9/11.
Conclusion: Pick one of the following…
- Partisan politics.
- The Court is “stuck in a pre-911 mindset and [is] rejecting wiretaps crucial to national security.”
- After 27 years of business as usual, the 4 new judges appointed by Rehnquist were all from the New York/New Jersey criminal justice system and have decided to apply “organized crime/long term surveillance” standards that don’t apply in this Brave New World.
- The Bush Administration is asking for warrants without a reasonable probable cause argument.
Note: Unless someone wants to make the argument that CJ Rehnquist was a well-known partisan hack with an axe to grind against a Republican President.
I’d like to modestly propose that the Bush apologists who are defending these warrantless wiretaps step forward to volunteer themselves for constant monitoring by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and whatever other three-letter agencies want to watch. Only by the example of their rosy-faced willigness to demonstrate that putting themselves under George and Dick’s microscope will the rest of us skeptics, nay-sayers, and dead-enders be convinced that Big Brother loves us and has nothing but our best interests at heart.
Volunteers? Hello? Hello? Bueller?..
Let me put it this way:
there are no fucking tigers who are afraid of salt circles on the ground.
And if a police department has 1/10 of 1% of their search warrant requests rejected by judges, that excuses them bashing down doors without a warrant?
Considering that the infallible Bushies kidnapped innocent people, maybe the rejected requests were rejected for cause?
Why does the rule of law mean nothing to you people?
Sam Stone is Canadian, IIRC. Maybe he’s secretly working to hasten the collapse of the United States… 
Ummm . . . No. When WWII broke out, for instance, there might have been a slight uptick in FBI wiretapping in the U.S., in efforts to catch Axis spies, but I very much doubt it would have “skyrocketed.”