Slashdot Mirror


Rep. Jane Harman Focus In Yet Another Warrantless Wiretap Scandal

Many different sources are talking about the latest scandal surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program. Incriminating evidence against California rep. Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap. However, Attorney General Gonzales supposedly intervened to drop the case against her because (and this is where the irony meter explodes) Bush officials wanted her to be able to publicly defend the warrantless wiretap program. "Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as 'the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee' to repeatedly praise the NSA program as 'essential to US national security' and 'both necessary and legal.'"

85 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Stop communicating by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should boycott all forms of communications!

    1. Re:Stop communicating by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Twitter is not a form of communication.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    2. Re:Stop communicating by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a good random number generator.

  2. Treason by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rep. Harman should be investigated for treason. AIPAC should be investigated for treason.

    1. Re:Treason by Darundal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So should those who knowingly let them get away with it.

    2. Re:Treason by Darundal · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Picard.

    3. Re:Treason by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How exactly does this qualify as treason under the US Constitution?
      From the US Constitution Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    4. Re:Treason by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're spot on target. This wasn't treason, it was standard political quid pro quo. Admittedly, it's sometimes hard to tell the two apart....

      Dems may call it treason because she turned her back on the party line. But that's personal. IANAL, but to me, this looks like obstruction, maybe tampering with evidence. Not treason.

    5. Re:Treason by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Jane Harman was caught sheltering spys. That is treason.

    6. Re:Treason by rpillala · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't remember very many prominent Democrats opposing the NSA's illegal spying program. In fact many prominent Democrats were in favor. I remember a lengthy and uncompromising campaign against these kind of things by Chris Dodd (D-CT), but I also remember that Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to ignore the hold that Dodd placed on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Ignoring holds placed by Senators is not generally done. And then a lot of Democrats voted to end debate on the amendments to the act. I think you're giving the Democratic party too much credit for opposing the lawlessness of the Bush administration. They don't oppose lawlessness per se.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    7. Re:Treason by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's an excellent in-depth article on who did who..er..who did what.

      http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html

    8. Re:Treason by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're spot on target. This wasn't treason, it was standard political quid pro quo. Admittedly, it's sometimes hard to tell the two apart....

      Dems may call it treason because she turned her back on the party line. But that's personal. IANAL, but to me, this looks like obstruction, maybe tampering with evidence. Not treason.

      Are you sure about that? Doing AIPAC's bidding directly puts the US in conflict with the people we get a large portion of our oil from. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the US is supposed to be the welfare provider for the entire world. I find it curious that we'll have conservatives who rail against welfare to American citizens but are more than happy to send the money overseas. I know that this is a liberal who just got caught here but the liberal platform isn't anti-welfare which is what makes the conservative stance hypocritical. What part of giving handouts to Israel serves America's interests? This does nothing to enhance America's security. If we are talking about humanitarian concerns, giving no-strings-attached aid to Israel just makes it more certain the Palestinians will take it in the shorts.

      This scandal is going to get the neo-nazis out in droves hooting and hollering about the evil joo's controlling the gubmint. Ignore them. I'm pissed about AIPAC but I'd be just as pissed if we had the Irish PAC leading the government around by the nose and demanding concessions to Ireland and asking us to take sides in the Troubles.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:Treason by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait a second... are you saying that the Democratic Party controlling congress supported the evil Bush plan for dominance? Why didn't I ever read about that in the news??!!

      Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years. CNN isnt going to report that though, its not favorable to their agenda.

    10. Re:Treason by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what exactly *would* you call someone who knowingly aids those who are looking to subvert the 4th Amendment to the Constitution? I'd call them an enemy.....seems to me that the definition totally fits...

    11. Re:Treason by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years.

      If by "several" you mean two. The Republican party took control of Congress in the 1994 election (I think, maybe it was 1996), and kept it until the 2006 election. The Republican-controlled Congress started the vast majority of the actions that we've been complaining about. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.

    12. Re:Treason by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years. CNN isnt going to report that though, its not favorable to their agenda.

      It's not favorable to CNN's agenda, but not for the reason you imply. CNN may lean more left than Fox (though that's not saying much), but what makes news has almost nothing to do with political slant. It's all about ratings, eyeballs, "buzz", and ultimately, advertising dollars.

      Reporting the truth, that the Democrats and Republicans acted together to get us into this mess (name your mess, they worked together on it), isn't flashy. It doesn't grab headlines like the Pirates of the Carribean, I mean Somalia. It doesn't turn on the tears like the latest suburban child-killing mom. It doesn't generate tempest-in-a-teapot "controversy" like Lou Dobbs' latest proclamations on border security.

      Neither CNN, Fox, nor any of the rest of the corporate media shills will report on what's going on, because they think we're too dumb. And in fact, they have a vested interest in keeping us dumb -- smart people make poor consumers of advertising.

      And we're getting screwed by both major parties. It's better now than it was for the previous eight years, but putting on a condom doesn't make it any less a rape. That's why I still couldn't bring myself to vote for a D or an R -- I voted for Cynthia McKinney (even though in Texas, I had to write in her name).

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    13. Re:Treason by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A technicality of the law. It is still treason by definition. Harman picked another countries interest over he own. AIPAC picked another countries interest over the US. So they prosecute her under a difference criminal law, but I still have no problem calling her actions and AIPAC's actions what they are, treason.

    14. Re:Treason by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jonathan Jay Pollard
      Ben-Ami Kadish
      Long list of incidents here.

    15. Re:Treason by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A technicality of the law. It is still treason by definition.

      No, actually it's not. The Constitution very carefully defines treason. Giving aid and comfort to our ENEMIES is treason. Doing so to our allies isn't.

      Is it sufficient reason to kick her out of the House? Yep. Send her to prison? Yep.

      But you won't send her to prison on treason charges. Any shyster can get you off on those charges, with just a copy of the Constitution....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Treason by deKernel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it curious that we'll have conservatives who rail against welfare to American citizens but are more than happy to send the money overseas.

      I am sorry, but I really take offense to this comment. I am a conservative and all of my family and friends are conservative, and none of us are against welfare. We all believe that safety nets are needed because sometimes bad things do happen to people. If I had to guess, you are taking a few quotes from some fringe conservatives and sweeping the rest under the same brush.

      What we don't like is the current welfare system that does not encourage people to get off the welfare system. The current system is broken and broken badly.

    17. Re:Treason by ZFox · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I mean, who increased spending the most and the second most in the history of the United States?"
      Obama and then Bush II.

      "Who signed the bank bailout bill?"
      Bush II after first meeting with President Elect Obama to ensure agreement, so as to not waste time by making a lameduck move that would immediately be reversed.

      "So apparently it means 'liberal, but we don't like certain minorities.'"
      I could act like a bigot and stereotype you, too.

      "People who are constitutional conservatives are few and far between."
      Or possibly they don't run in your political circles.

    18. Re:Treason by Ardeaem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress

      Sorry, but most of the things Bush is blamed for Bush started and Congress later enabled. For instance, consider warrantless wiretapping, which the major issue Bush wanted Harman to help with. Bush was breaking the FISA law for years, when the news broke, Congress first did nothing, and then passed a law retroactively making it 1) legal and 2) impossible to prosecute.

      Also, consider the Iraq war. Bush used manufactured intelligence to justify the war, but Congress did nothing; they even cheerleaded for it.

      All this is not to say that Congress has no culpability, because they do. But Congress was Republican for most of the Bush years. To say, in the context of this conversation that many of the things blamed on Bush should be blamed on Democrats, who have only been in power for two years? That's way off. You are the one with the obvious agenda.

      That said, none of them deserve to keep their jobs. I can't believe people still identify with Republicans or Democrats these days.

  3. Is this even remotely suprising? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, they lost a few years of emails. Getting rid of some inconvenient wiretap can't be far harder.

    1. Re:Is this even remotely suprising? by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      And who double-taps the wiretap-tapper's double-tapper?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  4. A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If nothing else, this Jane Harmon scandal is going to continue to undermine the USA's credibility as an "impartial" mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regardless of what Jane Harmon may have done, it's rather shocking that AIPAC has enough pull in congress to be able to hold out committee chairmanships as bribes.

    1. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's rather shocking that AIPAC has enough pull in congress to be able to hold out committee chairmanships as bribes.

      Only to those of you recently clued in on Israel's stranglehold over US politics.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, she didn't get the chairmanship. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php But yes, this doesn't look good at all. It looks from the circumstances like Bush and Gonzales more or less bought her support by promising not to prosecute. It really says something about how appalling Gonzalez was that he not only made Ashcroft look sane but now even out of office he is continuing to make Ashcroft look better just by comparison.

    3. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't "hold out" seats as bribes. They just offered to lobby Pelosi to give her the seat. With her experience she might have gotten it anyway - she was probably best qualified.

      She can't very well hope to explain the entire conversation away, though. Any time you end a phone call with "this conversation never happened" it's hard to play innocent after the fact.

    4. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They just offered to lobby Pelosi to give her the seat.

      For definitions of "lobby" that include large "campaign contributions".

      It would be a substantial understatement to say that an offer from some random guy on the street to "lobby" on Jane Harman's behalf would be enough to convince Jan Harman to intervene in a federal investigation. Clearly, AIPAC (and probably Jane Harman) thought that an offer to "lobby" was a major incentive. That is, either AIPAC was under the delusion that they have major pull in congress or AIPAC actually does have major pull in congress.

    5. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Tiger4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only one I can think of off the top of my head is "Cold Cash" Jefferson from New Orleans.

      I object to this scurrilous and unfounded attack on the good name of a fine representative from a great city and a great state. They called him William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    6. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Toonol · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't understand the situation if you think Israel's support in the US is composed solely of Jews. I think they're probably a minority of pro-Israel faction. A huge subset of American Christians are dedicated to helping Israel.

    7. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Didn't you guys reelect him after they found $10,000 in his freezer. Jeez.

    8. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      She just said she'd do her job to help a particular person, in exchange for someone helping her.

      ...by interfering in an investigation, which is, of course, illegal.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Savantissimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bush was, in general, very reluctant to prosecute Democratic politicians because he was afraid people would assume the prosecutions were partisan in nature.

      I don't think he gave a shit whether people thought he was being partisan - his administration's conduct certainly shows that they did pretty much whatever they wanted. Anyway, only Democrats can be called partisan, didn't you get the memo?

      No, as I have said for several years, the only reasonable explanation for the total surrender of the Democrats in Congress to Bush's policies is that they were and are being blackmailed. Turning reality around and asking why Bush was "reluctant to prosecute Democratic politicians" is the kind of mindfuck that would make Karl Rove proud. The Democrats weren't being set up for selective prosecution only because they were being sufficiently grovelingly servile to their spying, blackmailing controllers.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Largely in an effort to force God's hand and induce the Rapture, so all the Jews can be converted or die horrible deaths. Not that this invalidates your point, you are quite accurate, but the background helps to explain why this is true.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    11. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Tiger4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was a one time aberration and should not reflect on his character as a whole. The money was in the freezer only because the cupboard was already stuffed full, and there was no time to get to the storage container or make a flight to Grand Cayman.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    12. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by amilo100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people (like me) who support the Israeli state do it for several other reasons. The main reason is that Israel is the only first world developed country in the Middle East. You would think that all the surrounding countries would be more developed with their abundance of natural resources - yet they are all Sharia law 3rd world shitholes.

      I wonder how that countries would look like without their oil.

    13. Re:A Setback for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts by Ozlanthos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's actually bs. Iraq was more "western" than even the US before we installed Saddam. Pre-Saddam, Iraq was cranking out more female engineers than the US does today. Hence why we had to install Saddam. Without doing so, Iraq's oil would still be nationalized, as such, it would most likely be the richest country on the planet had we not intervened. -Oz

  5. Couldn't prosecute. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course this sort of thing goes on all the time.

    But there's a less sinister explanation for why Gonzalez didn't prosecute - the wiretap capturing Harman's conversation was illegal. Can't prosecute someone with an illegal wiretap.

    Irony alert on many levels.

    1. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      The point is that this was NOT illegal. Agents were investigating foreign operatives using warrentless wiretapping. They caught the foreign operatives bribing a congresswoman. The Bush administration declined to press charges because said congresswoman supported warrantless wiretapping.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by sweatyboatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFS ...

      evidence against California rep Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap

      LEGAL, as in, they used the existing FISA law passed by Congress in 1978. Not the Bush administration's made-up law.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    3. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who says it was illegal? We may WISH it were illegal, we may get it declared illegal, it may in fact be unconstitutional, but the fact is, the agents performed what was at the time a LEGAL warrantless wiretap against foreign agents and happened to catch them bribing a congresswoman. They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by sweatyboatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article mentions attaining a FISA application

      Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Departmentâ(TM)s FISA application ...

      I believe that makes this a legal wiretap under the 1978 FISA law.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    5. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by colinnwn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aside from the fact the source says the Harman tap was from the FISA law, and not Bush's non-law.

      There have been many reasonable accusations for why the Bush warrantless wiretapping was illegal (for gathering any amount of intelligence against American citizens). You can't make a bare assertion (or implication) that it was legal because a determination of supposed legality was made by a branch of the government. The Executive branch likely wasn't duly authorized to endorse such activities by fiat.

      If a law isn't from a primal document like the Constitution or Declaration, since the Federal government as constituted has absolute restrictions on its legal activities (even if we frequently ignore those restrictions), laws can be, and frequently are found to be illegal. Nothing stops law makers from cooking up ridiculous, incoherent, inconsistent, poorly thought out laws. It may seem mutually exclusive, but nothing makes a law "legal" on its own.

    6. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by dyfet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically it is potentially a government sanctioned blackmail scenario. A kind of quid-pro-quo, "you support our legislation and we will not release what we know about you"...please explain how it is not illegal?

    7. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by Savantissimo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The argument is that while the wiretap may have been legal, using it to subvert the independence of Congress was not - they can prosecute or not, but they can't legally blackmail. This argument calls into question all sorts of things prosecutors do every day, but there is additional reason for questioning the methods in this case since they either effect the control of a Congresswoman by the Executive or allow her control by a foreign power or both.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    8. Re:Couldn't prosecute. by Stray7Xi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a moot point whether it was a legal or illegal wiretap. Either way corruption abounds.

      If it was a legal wiretap, burying the evidence is corrupt.
      If it was an illegal wiretap, using the illegitimate evidence to blackmail the representative is wrong.
      So either way Gonzalez is wrong.

      Luckily there's enough corruption all around to make it a non-issue.

      Really the only thing that needs fixing is the person that reported this story. But I'm sure that's an issue that will be resolved quickly.

  6. Good idea! by Aurisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll tell everyone I know!

  7. THIS is the problem by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why the warrantless wiretap program should be done away with. When you operate in secret the things found will be used to blackmail. Instead of being used to further the goals of justice it's used to further the goals of those in power.

    1. Re:THIS is the problem by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the first thing that hit me when I saw this article: BLACKMAIL in bold letters. I always suspected that at least a handfull of neocons (Chenney, Wolfowitz, Gonzales and that ilk) were using the warrantless wiretap program from political ends (to get dirt on Democracts and other opposition leaders). This seems to be pretty strong evidence that it went on in at least one case. Which leads, of course, to the next question, how many MORE Jane Harman's are there out there (that the Bush-era NSA spied on and/or attempted to blackmail with any of the dirt they found)? And what, if anything, is Obama planning to do to stop this in the future?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. The spirit of bipartisanship by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both parties working together to do shitty stuff. Yay.

  9. "Irony" is so overused by RobertB-DC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "irony-makes-head-asplode dept." is funny, but inaccurate.

    Irony is when something is the opposite of what you would expect.

    Hypocrisy, lies, and hardball intimidation tactics are *exactly* what we would expect from proponents of warrantless wiretapping.

    This situation contains no irony. Just corruption. We might say, though, that "Ironically, the new administration was elected in hopes of restoring honor to the Justice Department."

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:"Irony" is so overused by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually she was caught on a legal wiretap and should have been prosecuted but was instead blackmailed into supporting illegal wiretapping. If this wiretap had been illegal we'd most likely never have heard about it.

    2. Re:"Irony" is so overused by berbo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, according to the Greenwald column, the Harman/AIPAC wiretap wasn't illegal - it was a court-approved wiretap on a foreigner.

      This makes it even more ironic - the Bush administration declined to prosecute what was likely a serious crime, based on a legal wiretap - so that they could more effectively pursue illegal wiretaps.

  10. Long, Proud Tradition by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Using illegally gathered information to effectively blackmail politicians? Ah, that takes me back to the good 'ol days -- J Edgar would be proud.

    I wonder how well Robert Mueller pulls off a sun dress...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  11. Re:So what's the crime here? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    no, in fact TFA says that's not the implication at all. Harman has been a long-time supporter of the warrantless wiretapping program.

    The (newly revealed) crime is Antonio Gonzalez using his authority to halt a criminal investigation into a key political ally of the Bush administration.

    The original crime is Harman offering a quid-pro-quo with a foreign agent. Which, by the way, was captured on a legally requested wiretap.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  12. Not warrantless. by wiredog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DoJ had a warrant, apparently it was part of the AIPAC investigation.

    No, the fishy part is that the Bush admin apparently blackmailed her into supporting the warrantless program.

    Also, you have the Executive branch doing that ot a member of the Legislative.

    This could get really interesting...

    1. Re:Not warrantless. by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the fishy part is that the Bush admin apparently blackmailed her into supporting the warrantless program.

      No, the fishy part is that the Bush administration blocked the prosecution of one of their allies. Her comment to the foreign agent, "this conversation never happened," was fishy too.

  13. And the surrounding context is great by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    The TPM piece on this http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php mentions incidentally that the position in question had almost gone to Alcee Hastings but didn't because Hastings had earlier been removed "from a federal judgeship over bribery allegations." So Harman only had a chance at the position because the other major contender was corrupt. You've got to love the politicians.

  14. retroactive FISA by kmahan · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I understand it they went to FISA to get a retroactive warrant. A nice little provision of the law.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  15. If Harman was a republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can bet it would have been pointed out in the title of the summary and 10 more times in the summary.

  16. Jane Harman (D - CA) by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How hard is it to put the D after her name? We're not all from California, you know. I had to spend 40 seconds googling it, and another couple minutes typing this. That's time I'll never get back. I might see my potential future children for a few less minutes now (or even worse, they might never be born!). Won't someone PLEASE think of the children and add party affiliation tags after politician names so I'll know ahead of time whether I should hate them or love them!?!

    There, somebody posted the usual rant, now the serious ones can be legitimately modded redundant without making the mods feel guilty.

    1. Re:Jane Harman (D - CA) by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How hard is it to put the D after her name?

      Why would you want to do that? You'll just perpetuate the myth that it actually matters.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Jane Harman (D - CA) by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

      "40 seconds"

      your google-fu is weak old man it too me 20 and I'm on a 28.8 modem.

    3. Re:Jane Harman (D - CA) by grassy_knoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the press makes party affiliation very clear... perhaps in a way they don't mean to.

      When an (R) does something wrong as you note you cant(R) see(R) their(R) name(R) in(R) print(R) without(R) that(R) (R) right after their name.

      On the other hand, when a politician has done something wrong and no party affiliation is mentioned they're a (D), never an (R) or an (I).

  17. beat me to it by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:beat me to it by Compholio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....

      Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies... Seems reasonable to me.

    2. Re:beat me to it by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the terrorists wish to disrupt our society, do something nasty towards that end, and the politicians then disrupt things far more than the terrorists in response, they have in that sense given aid to an enemy of the United States.

      Given that the Constitution is the law of the land and the foundation of the federal government's right to exist at all, someone who deliberately attempts to subvert it becomes an enemy of the United States. Note that that in no way would apply to someone who attempts to follow the appropriate and well defined procedures to alter the Constitution.

    3. Re:beat me to it by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies...

      So... most federal and many state agencies are treasonous?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:beat me to it by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe some people consider those that threaten our liberties to be our enemies...

      In which case the American people themselves are guilty of "treason." Seriously, could the government have gotten away with things like warrantless wiretapping without the public's silence and implicit consent?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    5. Re:beat me to it by Haley's+Comet · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Support our troops" doesn't mean "agree with the war". "Support our troops" means respect that they signed up to do a patriotic duty to fight (sometimes to the death) the position and desires of our government, and stand in defense of our borders and people. You can "Support our troops" without being so gullible as to believe our government sent them to fight for the right cause. It also means RESPECT THEM WHEN THEY GET HOME!!! Keep in mind that the point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his.

      --
      The Illuminati would kill me, but I'm not rich enough to take notice of.
  18. The wiretap was COURT APPROVED by sampson7 · · Score: 4, Informative
    There is nothing wrong with wiretapping so long as the wiretap is approved by the judicial branch of government. In this case, the NSA sought and received a warrant from the US Foreign Intelligence Survailence Court ("FISA"). Once the executive branch (the NSA in this case) has a warrant, they are legally entitled to record the conversations.

    In this case, the underlying article reports that: "What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington." Key words are "court-approved."

    The Fourth Amendment states that:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Once the executive branch has convinced a judge that probably cause exists, and the judge has issued the warrant, there is nothing preventing the executive branch from using that information in court.

    Now there is a real question as to whether wire tapping a member of congress (who herself was not under investigation) is a good idea, but that's not really the issue. I'm actually somewhat sad to hear about this as Jane Harmon is/was a very competent and thoughtful member of congress -- particularly on port security issues.

    1. Re:The wiretap was COURT APPROVED by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is nothing legally wrong with wiretapping so long as the wiretap is approved by the judicial branch of government.

      Fixed that for you. A seal of approval by the government doesn't change whether something is morally wrong or right.

    2. Re:The wiretap was COURT APPROVED by stubob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Morality is orthogonal to law.

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
  19. not quite right by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.

    The article doesn't say very clearly where the wiretapped subjects were, but there's this:

    Finally, the CQ story says that Harman's conversation was recorded as part of "a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington."

    From that it sounds like the tapping was entirely domestic, in terms of where the phone lines were located.

    1. Re:not quite right by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were investigating the foreign operatives. They caught them bribing a congresswoman. That can not possibly fall outside the scope of their investigation.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:not quite right by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact, that literally is the scope of their investigation.

      That is pretty much the sole reason to counter-spy on 'friendly' spies. I mean, they're not running around blowing up our nuclear power plants or assassinating people.

      No, 'friendly' spies are running around collecting influence by doing favors, and creating people in powerful positions beholden to them. That's all they do, have a network of people.

      Of course, people seem resistant to make the next logical connection here: Was the fact they happened to have dirt on someone supporting the administration's lawbreaking a coincidence, or did they deliberately get it just in case she decided to stop supporting it?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. corruption and blackmail, not irony by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason we don't want to have warrantless wiretapping is not for people like you and me; it's for this: if the government can listen in on the opposition, it can blackmail them to fall in line politically. So, this case isn't "ironic", it's what you expect to happen when warrantless wiretaps are tolerated, and it's a really bad sign.

  21. Re:Parent is NOT trolling..... by SkinnyKid63 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Star Trek references are only trolling when they mention Enterprise in a positive manner.

  22. Re:Parent is NOT trolling..... by SkinnyKid63 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, Voyager only qualifies for flamebait.

  23. They are not allies in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when has false flag specialist Israel really been the US ally, as opposed to treating the US as her bitch, because of traitors like this cretin in the article and other traitors in big business, big media, and big finance and big government? They sure as hell ARE traitors. Just because they claim they aren't doesn't make it so once you look at the real data.

        Why the hell should we be supporting a racist apartheid nation? I never supported racist south africa, and nor do I support Israel, they have been a plague and have put the world at peril for nuclear confrontation for decades now, all so that some European settlers can claim land that isn't theirs. If they had a beef with Germany over their particular holocaust, which is just ONE OF MANY that happened during the war, why the hell didn't we demand Germany give up some territory for some new zionist nation? The Germans are the biggest hypocrites out there now about this. Their old biblical claim to "greater zion" is pure hogwash, freaking fantasy land and I can't believe anyone on this forum falls for it.

      Here's just a few references to get you started on some sorely neglected education that you need about those false "allies" who are really the biggest threat to the security of the US, USS Liberty attack-this is called levying war, get it? and don't believe the official dual nation coverup story, listen to the actual survivors and dudes who lived through it. And go ahead and google "9-11, dancing Israelis"-for more levying war, and "khazars" for a little more in depth historical background of what lying toads they are. Shrewd yes, technologically capable, yes, smart yes, but also lying sneaky deceitful skunks and jerks.

    People who put the interests of some other nation over their own ARE traitors, fullstop. If they claim to be US citizens but work for another nation-traitors. That includes Israel-firsters, including those loony brainwashed flat earth snake handling Xians who are dreaming of Armageddon and some huge conflagration to bring about the Rapture, and just the normal economic traitors, then those jerk off big businessmen who are China-firsters, and so on.

    Traitors. You can't have it both ways, either loyal to your own nation first, or you are a traitor and a liar and a hypocrite.

    Israel, history of false flag operations

  24. Wiretap Legal, Extortion Not by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I've never agreed with the legal theories that allow most wiretapping, the courts have, and this wiretap was approved by a court.

    However, dropping prosecution in return for the Congresscritter actively supporting their political agenda strikes me as somewhere on the spectrum between extortion and at least partisan favoritism.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  25. Why is this modded up? by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the linked article, it says "Democrat" or "Democratic" no less than seven times. But it never identifies Gonzales or anyone else as a Republican.

  26. Ouch by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Politicians blow, they lie for career, power, money and we let them get away with it. But calling Israelis 'lying sneaky deceitful skunks and jerks' is kind of general. There are probably some people there that arent.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  27. Hey, I called it by HongPong · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am rather pleased with myself for correctly parsing this story in 2006. It was clear to some at the time what was really going on.

    "In sum total: The FBI has the evidence already. The shape of spy scandals to get exposed depends on who runs the Intelligence committees, and Reyes seems like the only good choice" etc.