Brutal blow job.

Z00lunation

zpomykba xqtoqvtrk hcckqwxde

“Rick Ellensburg” posts here at Right Wing Nut House, once again, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear, defending Glenn Greenwald. Right Wing Nut House checked the IP: 201.8.3.146 OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry Org…

Hah.

No, we know what was disclosed by the story. What was disclosed was that the Bush admin was skipping a secret court while using a publicly disclosed program and legal right to wiretap, as long as requests came from a secret court. You’ve thrown up no end of examples of the disclosure of specific, technical, national-security damaging data and they’ve all been shot down. Because it didn’t happen.

Thanks for the legal arguments. We’ll see it in court… unless the Republicans explicitly retroactively legalize it. If that happens, that will be a de facto admission that it was illegal when it was done. And you’ll switch your argument from “this was perfectly legal” to, “screw legal, this was neccesary”.

You’re already preparing to do that now.
But I’ll settle for “it’s a constitutional question”. We’re a long way from “hang those treasonous NSA staffers from the nearest tree.”
They had a point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602161544.asp

We have a deal to on Capital Hill afterall. Then again we have an ACLU like filing with a district court to reveal NSA specifications you claim are already in the public domain (are you for releasing this information?). I submit it is hard to argue when you simply ignore the facts. Pocket your sarcasm for a moment and you’ll likely agree that this is a consitutional question? One by the way that seems to have resolved itself. Presto! I think I stated at the outset that i didn’t have the expertise to make adequate legal arguments so I defered to JH and GG.

We could go back and forth for days on what we think was and wasn’t disclosed by the story. The fact of the matter is, that mere fact that we are talking about it is the problem. All the more so given there are a rigid set of criteria for challenging legality questions within the system. So I ask again: why not go throught the appropriate channels? Why leak to a naked partison organization? Why not call on the leaders of your party to explain why they ignored the program having been briefed multiple times? Save your energy if we are going to get the not enough information routine. That was the same BS we heard after the WMD/IRaq decision.

Read the defbriefing of PP and return when you can shake off the haze. I didn’t say that he was for the war, I said that he confirms what the Senate report found. That is that no undue influence was exerted by the WH or others. The CIA got it wrong and this guy was at the helm in the ME policy div. Not someone I think you want to hinge your argument on - but you will of course (damn the torpedoes right). Also, he mentioned that he was repeatedly asked again and again similiar lines of question: da! That is what people are suppose to do when an Agency claims to be the final authority.

In deference to your underwhelming argument and incapacity for naunce (repeat like the very fact that we are discussing this SECRET program) I am abandoning ship. I will say the reasonable course I set out in previous posts seems to have come to fruition. Your shut down hypothesis is not only logically fallacious - I give you credit for consistency however - but it is now wrong. The program isn’t being shut down - but likely revised in a manner consistent with exactly what the Clinton era Justice offical articulated. Reason prevails

Next…

You’ve amazed me.

“One Paul R. Pillar has just confirmed that no undue influence was exerted.”

The exact opposite of both the specifics and message of his statements. Amazing.

You assume that no credible independent intel expert outside the Bush admin has come out saying this has damaged national security because they didn’t know until Dec. 15? It’s been !two months since then! You think they haven’t heard about this yet? Pathetic.

And I don’t know why you seem to have no idea what I’m talking about in the next two paragraphs. Let’s try this again, god help me:

Sure, if everyone knows we spy with satellites, and the NYT published a 100-page technical report on the exact locations of every reciever and transmitter, their areas and coverage times and locations, geosynchronous orbital latitudes, frequency details, and directions on how to commercially buy the jamming equipment, that could infringe on national security. But that is surreally different from what actually happened.

What happened is:

PreNYTimes: the whole world knew we can tap phone lines by getting secret permission from a secret court.

PostNYTIMES: the whole world knows we have been tapping them without talking to the secret court.

you get it yet? There were NO ‘methods’ leaked. There was NO technical data leaked. There was nothing leaked except the information the the Bush Admin was skipping a secret court. Which was, if I have to use this word again, SECRET. So unless someone in the secret court permitting the wiretaps was passing info to Al-Quieda, then, guess what, nothing has changed.

The NYTimes revealed !nothing! in terms of methods and practices. They simply reported that a publicly known tactic was being used illegally.

Your ludicrious argument that this ‘reminds’ terrorists not to talk on the phone - so what? Showing old mafia movies on Showtime reminds terrorists that we can tap phones, as well. Shall we throw the cable companies in jail? Is this the same as revealing truly new information?

Sure, FISA is a statute. I don’t need the link, thank you. Establishing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is what I was talking about. I think that was contextually obvious. If I have that name wrong in some minor way, you still know exactly what I am talking about.

Lastly, How can I not have a shred of knowledge regarding the NSA’s methods, S? I read the NYTimes story. Oh, wait, I guess the NYTimes story must not have revealed a shred of the NSA’s methods. Thank you for confirming my point.

That was my post. Predictably, you followed lock step:

“I don’t believe anything Porter Goss says. I’ve read any number of articles making it very obvious that he was a 70’s CIA renegade, then a partisan hack in the House of Representatives, then appointed to gut the CIA in favor of thinking in lockstep with anything Dick Cheney suggests. Quite frankly, I accuse him of being appointed to the position not to produce sound intelligence, but to enforce the White House’s political preferences on Intel analysis. Period.”

Ok? We will let others decide on the blind partisanship accusation you raised in your initial post. I would only add that you missed a good opportunity to assassinate Hayden’s character too. As for influencing intelligence - again read the Senate report. Nothing there. One Paul R. Pillar has just confirmed that no undue influence was exerted. Since you bring it up, perhaps a maverick is exactly what the sedentary organization needed since it has a track record of missing practicily every big event includsing the end of the cold war.

you continue….

“I haven’t heard any credible independent Intel who are not Bush-appointed agency heads claim that this leak has damaged national security in any way. If you came up with one, I would give him a fair hearing. But I’d still use my own brain to judge, “what, exactly, new information did I, a U.S. citizen, and therefore Al-Qaeda, learn as a result of this leak? – and how important was it to Intel methods?”

I assume that is because few knew about it until the NYT decided to release the information. And those that did are bound by secrecy agreements and thus I wouldn’t expect - nor would I want - any overt statements about the methodology. Again, I point you back ot the press conference given by Gen. Hayden for a statement on the effect of leaking the information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html).

you ….

“This is wrong. Logically fallacious. The methods are the exact same as the FISA methods. The only difference is the target sample, and the original target sample was known to no one but FISA and the intel agencies. The new target sample, aside from being illegal, was known only to the Intel agencies. And the only thing that was revealed was that FISA was cut out of the loop. And Congress. So unless you think either FISA or Congress was passing intel along to Al-Qaeda on the names of the individuals being secretly wiretapped, this is bullshit.”

As to my logic, consider this: We would both agree that nmost in the world know we (USA) use satellite surveillance? yes? Do you think it damages national security if the NYT were to publish a roadmap to those sensitive satellite orbital paths. Those we put under surveillance now have an even greater incentive (and more information from which to work) - not suggesting they by the way they didn’t have an incentive to begin with - to be clandestine. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to sample size? Another thought, how do we approach IP telephony that transits the WWW? Not as cut and dry as tapping into copper line is it? What about internet communications?

Now, as far as I know, FISA is a statute not a method (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html). A good wrap up here - http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1329
. I am going to ignore your argument - which I can only assume is a rhetorical style meant to confuse and obfuscate. You obviously didn’t read the editorial by the former Clinton Justice official who claims this “power” is one Presidents have claimed for the past three decades. Excuse my remedial legal knowledge; from what I read much of the current debate here is over the 72 procedural requirements. We don’t know anything of the methods so can’t comment on sample size unless you know something the rest of the United States hasn’t been made privy too? As to Congress, Sr. leaders on both sides were briefed on the outlines of the program many times - you casually ignore that point, understandably. But you say not enough information right? But let’s be honest, Pelosi really isn’t equipped to add value anyway.

you go on..
“Gentle reminders that we wiretap phones were available in 1001 public news stories and information sources between 2001 and now. All you’re complaining about is the increased media attention given to a publicly known method – oh, and the fact that GWB was using that publicly known method in a non-publicly known, illegal manner. You know what? That may be in some nebulous manner unhelpful, but it sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me.

Your point here is? I think this is an opaque FISA argument about enumerated powers, which I just spoke to. As for the Google search on wiretaps, search spy satellites and see how many stories you get. Get it?

Finally you say!

“Lastly, I am not arguing that VP was more damaging than the NSA leaks. THAT would be a level of detail I don’t have. I would probably argue that neither one are more than minorly damaging to the US as a whole, although VP may be damaging to several patriotic individuals. If either one broke the law, let them go to jail. (After all, civil disobedience requires that). I doubt the NSA leakers broke the law. I don’t think you can break the law reporting an illegal act. And if you can, the law needs to be changed.”

Again, I am at ease knowing you don’t think any harm was done. Exhale! This after you just get finished telling us that you don’t have all the facts. You do not of course have the first clue about the NSA program and the methods it employs. Nor do you have the constitutional expertise to speak to the FISA law. You make wild assertions and deliver not a shred of supporting fact. All make your conclusion as to the legality of the program unreliable at best if not an outright falsity. At least we can agree that those who leaked the information should go to jail. By the way, why not just follow the whistleblower protocol by going to Congress directly? That would be the course of a true patriot.

Not done yet…you say

“Is the NSA really full of screaming leftists? Why would they leak something if they thought it would jeopardize their fundamental mission in any way?”

What if a partisan FISA judge leaked it? Just a thought. Why was VP husband sent to Niger? Why did the CIA leak prison information and endanger its own personnel? I think we know why - it is called BDS.

The judge reference might explain why nobody at the NSA has come forward, other than your very reliable man who was fired and found wanting.