The primary purpose of the cameras is not for detection of crimes. It's to help investigate and prosecute reported crimes. For example, over the last several months there have been three women raped on their walk home from the el stop that my wife and I use. The victim accounts support the position that it's one guy, and the police have some grainy footage of him from a few security cameras, but they can't make out his face or figure out who he is.
Were this system in place, the job of catching the guy is likely to be a lot easier. I know that would make my wife and I feel a lot better about her safety. And personally, I don't see a problem with cameras in public places where you never had a reasonable expectation of privacy anyway. If they were invading my privacy I'd be the first to protest, but you can't claim to have privacy on a street corner.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility. Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.
In any case, you can stop your random flailing for the last word. You've done a great job of reminding me why I'd quit reading Slashdot, so I won't waste time replying after this.
My initial impression of Obama was that he was honest and meant well.
He himself convinced me to the contrary.
You're impugning a man's character and claiming that his actions changed your opinion from positive to negative. If you you can't back that up, then it fits the textbook definition of concern trolling.
McCain, at least, I find to be an honest asshole, who wastes no breath trying to convince me otherwise. I don't like him, but at least I've come to think what we see is what we'll get.
McCain's own record pretty much kills this assertion, but I just wanted to see you take a shot at substantiating it.
Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.
Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise. It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that. If anything, Obama has actually more strongly committed to the 16-month time-line in recent months while McCain has moved in Obama's direction. These are provable facts, and you're either completely uninformed or entirely without scruples to claim anything different.
So, since you're incapable of honestly discussing these topics, I see no point in wasting more time on you. Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.
Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.
What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?
I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.
Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made. I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man. That doesn't make the framing anymore legitimate, it's just that his extending of your support for McCain to a messiah-like worship is more accurately called hyperbole. Sorry if it confused you, I'm just a stickler for accuracy.
You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).
We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words. However, you also seem to miss the point of the original commentor, which I'll address in the following paragraph.
I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.
Again, you are not very good at this.
Here's where we get to the real point. The original commentor, myself, and several others have noticed the same thing. You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record. You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions, is dishonest, has no record, and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq. All of those claims are known falsehoods, which is the real distraction. You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain. All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain. Frankly, it's an abysmally bad way to make an argument for your candidate.
You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate. Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year. McCain was against a withdrawal time-line and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means. Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line." So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?
I am not saying there is something wrong with what McCain did, obviously. I am just saying people who attack McCain as always being wrong are full of it.
That's absurd. McCain is far too inconsistent to be wrong all the time.
Wow. No, THAT is what is wrong with politics, people like you LYING and saying that Bush was ever a deserter.
Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.
Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.
Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing. Please provide some specifics as to what the difference is between a thoughtful change of position and a flipflop.
Wow, this is a big fat lie. McCain's position on Iraq has not changed AT ALL. His position today -- we should leave as soon as we can leave Iraq with a stable government and military that can provide security, that we should increase troops to whatever level necessary to accomplish the job, etc. -- is the exact same position he had five years ago.
I'll give this one to you in part. McCain was always for the invasion of Iraq--to the detriment of everything else. In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq. A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.
After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution--and that position has nearly always been politically motivated. When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.
Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.
You're joking, right? McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.
To be fair, in a recent CNN interview McCain said that 16 months sounded like a "pretty good timetable." Meanwhile, the Iraqi's are now demanding a timetable. So, McCain and Obama's positions have certainly grown closer, but it's because McCain has shifted while Obama hasn't. Of course, it is McCain, and he'll probably say the exact opposite in another few weeks.
Lying to make your own candidate look good is in poor taste. Shrug.
Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence. So please stop it, for the benefit of us all.
It is astonishing to me that you would attack me for pointing out the fact that someone else is not telling the truth. Lunacy.
The problem is that you haven't made any truthful points. You've used vague innuendo and outright lies to mount an ad hominem attack on Senator Obama while providing nothing substantive in support of John McCain. Frankly, it's insulting to everyone and simply lowers the quality of the discourse.
Straw man fallacy.
No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.
Another straw man fallacy.
And a red herring, like the rest of your post.
You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean. Sadly, I think the best you can do is lie and evade. You were challenged to promote your candidate on his own merits, and you dismiss it. That attitude is precisely why you lost this argument. You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that post. I'm no fan of Gore--and actually abstained from voting in 2000--but the man deserves his credit for the critical role he played in the legislation, funding, and expansion of the Internet. The GP's argument just flies in the face of all known facts.
Right off the bat I'd like to state that I'm genuinely happy that you're researching this issue and making an informed decision. That's very different from what I've encountered in similar discussions and it gives me a little hope for the online community. I still don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm glad you're not trying to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Now, accepting the above statements I'd like to make some comments on your interpretation. First, the definition of U.S. persons is in the NSA charter and has been codified in various executive orders and intelligence targeting criteria for a few decades. So, its duplication in FISA doesn't really change anything. Also, it's important to understand that a U.S. person is any citizen of the U.S. or legal resident alien (regardless of location)--with the caveat that either is not a known agent of a foreign or terrorist power. So, several of the scenarios you outlined would actually require warrants under any version of FISA. For example, warrants are necessary when intercepting a communication between non U.S. persons and U.S. persons unless the entire portion of the U.S. persons' communications can be reasonably excluded from the collection through technical controls.
Second, it's important to understand the details of the previous FISA ambiguity and why it had become such a pressing issue. FISA was passed in 1978, before the advent of interconnected global communication networks. In 1978 there was little reason to consider that communications originating and terminating outside the U.S. might actually pass through systems on U.S. soil. These days, however, such a scenario is overwhelmingly commonplace, whether over phone networks, TCP/IP connections, or communication services over the web. So, you have this extremely common situation where some system in the chain happens to be located in the U.S. but the entire content of the communication is between non U.S. persons. That's why NSA has been pressing so hard for a final judgment on this issue, and that's why FISA reform has been a growing concern for NSA over the last two decades.
Third, yes the AG is responsible for creating the targeting criteria with input from NSA and under approval of the FISA court. Keep in mind, however, that the NSA normally determines their own targeting criteria within bounds of their charter, and they haven't been responsible for any significant incidences of abuse since their inception. The problem is that the NSA is provided direction from above and--being a predominantly military organization--isn't exactly known for questioning the details of that direction. So, yes, the Bush administration really did direct them to violate FISA, and the administration justified such direction through various arguments (FISA ambiguity, war powers, etc.).
Fourth, FISA is not intended for use by law enforcement and such use is very restricted. Provisions of the PATRIOT act do loosen some of those restrictions, but there's still effectively a wall between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Personally, I'd much rather see less debate on FISA and more push for the repeal of several provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which I consider a much more pressing threat to our Fourth Amendment rights.
So, circling back to FISA, I guess my big point here is that you'll never develop a system that's entirely immune to abuse from the top. The founding fathers tried their best with the three branches, but we've seen how that is still less than perfect. So, FISA started as a compromise, and the new amendment is another compromise to address something outside the scope of the original bill. I certainly don't think it's perfect, but I see it as reasonable under the circumstances. And, further circling back to the original point, I can see how people might disagree with Obama's position on FISA but the fact is that it's a pretty tough choice and painting it as some sort of nefarious betrayal just seems absurd.
I don't mean to be rude, but you need to actually read the FISA bill and amendments. It's a complex subject, and if you were familiar with it you'd know that the Al-Haramain v. Bush case has nothing to do with the ambiguity in FISA that I referred to. Al-Haramain v. Bush is a straight forward case of a FISA violation because it involves warrantless collection on U.S. persons. That's why the Bush administration's only remaining defense is to claim the war powers exception through the Iraq War Resolution. Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling in the case and also think that the war powers exception should not apply. However, I expect the case to continue being appealed
Also, the article you cited oversimplifies FISA by stating that "FISA requires a warrant for electronic surveillance inside the U.S. for intelligence gathering." FISA requires warrants for targeting U.S. persons, and is the only authority under which such targeting may be performed. As I've explained in numerous posts already, FISA contains no explicit prohibition against targeting non U.S. persons from systems on U.S. soil. However, the NSA is a risk-averse organization and had historically used FISA warrants when collection of non U.S. persons was performed through a third party (the telco) on U.S. soil.
So, in a hypothetical situation where Al-Haramain v. Bush did not target U.S. persons, the administration has a much better defense. They could argue that FISA explicitly requires a warrant only when targeting U.S. persons--regardless how the collection is occurring--and the NSA's charter explicitly grants the authority to target non U.S. persons without restricting the manner of collection. This scenario is precisely what FISA reform was intended to address, and the debate on this subject has actually been going on for about 20 years.
So, please do attempt to lecture me on FISA. My experience with it goes back well before the abuses of the Bush administration and much deeper than some magazine articles on the subject. The new amendment does not expand the scope of surveillance beyond the targeting criteria that have been in place for thirty years. It most certainly does not allow warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. What it does is clarify the process of performing surveillance of non U.S. persons from systems located inside the U.S. I can appreciate if you disagree with details of how that process occurs, how oversight occurs, or the telecom immunity in the amendment. However, I will not sit by and let you insult me while spreading false information about what FISA is and what the amendment does.
Completely unacceptable. If he truly believed in not allowing the telecoms immunity, he wouldn't have voted for the POS bill. His actions show us that his words mean nothing.
You undermine your entire argument when you quote one portion of my comment out of context. I very clearly explained how the IG investigations serve the same purpose as the telecom suits. By cutting that out without attempting explanation or counter-arguments you make your statements both dishonest and false.
If by "valid reasons" you mean he's a politician who does what's most expedient to further his own ends, regardless of how many promises he breaks or if it's even ethically permissible, then yes, I can definitely see that.
Now you're resorting to unsupportable accusations and baseless innuendo. Look, I asked in my first comment for you to provide some genuine argument against Obama's position on FISA. In my second comment I even made it clear I agree that such arguments are valid. However, all you've done is show a clear void of knowledge on the subject and a penchant for childish tantrums.
It's obvious that you're not equipped for a genuine discussion on this topic, so I'll just leave you with some advice. If want to sway someone to your position based on merit, it helps to have more than a passing familiarity with the issue itself.
Your original post consisted almost entirely of lies, so don't even play that game. I will, however, clarify what I said and admit a mistake on one point.
The surge was supposed to be over by November of 2007. The article you you cited opens by stating that we're still at more than 150,000 troops--nearly 20,000 in excess of pre-surge levels. So, I was incorrect in stating that none of the surge troops have come home. I should have more accurately stated that we're still at the original surge troop levels.
So, let's summarize. Of the 20,000 additional troops committed, essentially all currently remain, and at least half will remain indefinitely. So, we're eight months past the original end date, still at the original surge levels, the Iraqis have failed to meet most of their benchmarks, civil war is the norm in the areas outside our control, Afghanistan is deteriorating quickly, and we have no reasonable estimate for when we can withdraw--much less return to pre-surge troop levels. And that's from the article you linked.
So, please tell me how the surge was a success, or how you can claim it's over if the troop levels haven't changed.
I said make an argument with some evidence. Obama voted for the bill after the provisions for oversight were expanded. The whole intent of the civil cases was to force the telecoms to provide evidence that the administration acted illegally. The new amendment requires the IGs of all involved agencies to perform exactly the investigations that would have resulted from the civil cases. While I'd rather that the people still had civil leverage to press the case themselves, criminal liability does exist and the intent of the civil cases is achieved.
Obama also voted for all the amendments to strip the immunity provision. However, he considered the FISA amendment as a whole more important than one provision because it addressed several ambiguities that have complicated intelligence operations and opened the door to the abuses of the Bush administration. If you'd read the legislation you might understand his position on this. You wouldn't necessarily agree with him, but at least you'd see that he has entirely valid reasons for his position.
None of the surge troops are out of Iraq yet. And the surge has, in fact, been a failure. Violence is down, but that's easy to do when you temporarily ramp up the occupying force by almost 50%. The real measure is that they went in with a plan that's now over-budget 180% on troops, 200% on time, and incalculably on funds. Meanwhile, they still haven't hit the vast majority of their benchmarks and our military is crippled while Afghanistan is falling apart because the troops and equipment had to come from somewhere.
The only thing the surge has succeeded in is swaying the media. They keep repeating the reduction in violence while they ignore the disaster in Afghanistan and the long term damage to our military. So, Obamah is holding to his position while changing the framing to better highlight Afghanistan and avoid the Republican talking point that the surge worked. If people like you were a little smarter, that kind of message adjustment wouldn't necessary.
A lot of talk, nothing to back it up. Just look at the damn FISA bill if you want evidence. If that doesn't convince you that Obama is the same breed, just with a different skin tone, nothing will.
Do me a favor, site one specific issue you had with Obama's position on FISA and back up the argument with some evidence. Because from my standpoint, it looks like you're just taking the oh-so-cool-reverse-sheep position where you're still following the crowd and don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps because the Senate just voted explicitly to shield the telecoms from accountability.
The Senate granted civil immunity, not criminal. The amendment also requires an IG investigation into the program, and the current provision gives oversight to all three branches. So, it's a wash from the accountability standpoint. Yes, it could be better, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that the situation is worse than yesterday.
The IG is still a part of the department he or she is investigating. If this were applied to the justice system as a whole, we'd have judges receiving their pay from the police department.
No, the IG emphatically is not part of the same department in the organizational sense. It's part of the agency (DoJ, CIA, DoD, etc.), but they operate independently and report directly to the top. If you'd ever been through an IG inspection or review you'd know that, almost without fail, they take their obligations very seriously and have no compunctions about calling problems out. Because this will be investigated by a joint IG, odds are that the bar will be set even higher than normal. This isn't to say that they're guaranteed beyond reproach, but it certainly is comparable to having the investigation handled by an independent counsel or similar agent.
No ambiguity is created... it's illegal, yes? Just because the NSA can't do your job within the confines of the law, doesn't automatically extend the law to their desired extent. If the NSA is not authorized to conduct "SIGINT" within the US borders, that's really the end of the ambiguity (which never existed). I'm sure you appreciate that the law RESTRICTS what they are allowed to do, and that their charter defines their mission, but nothing in their mission magically overrides the restrictions in the law.
That's where you're wrong. There was never anything making it explicitly legal for NSA to perform such collection, but there was nothing making it explicitly illegal either. In fact, the NSA has ground stations all over U.S. soil performing other types of foreign collection that are considered entirely legal. As such, the argument could genuinely have gone either way. However, because such collection generally involved the cooperation of a third party, the precedent was to treat it as a FISA issue and get a warrant. The Bush administration simply bucked precedent and started collecting without a warrant. In this particular case the administration had a valid argument in support of their actions. As such, the new FISA amendment clarifies the ambiguity and adds additional oversight to prevent abuses.
Also, don't dwell on the notion that this means the administration gets off clean for what they did. They performed entirely unambiguous violations of intelligence reform in other areas and claimed authority under war powers. That's a much weaker claim than this situation.
I'm sorry, but you've made no cogent argument against the content of the bill. While I would certainly agree that Congress could benefit from legislation preventing riders, the fact is that you'd have to address such a requirement procedurally through new laws, not in an ad hoc manner.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary purpose of the cameras is not for detection of crimes. It's to help investigate and prosecute reported crimes. For example, over the last several months there have been three women raped on their walk home from the el stop that my wife and I use. The victim accounts support the position that it's one guy, and the police have some grainy footage of him from a few security cameras, but they can't make out his face or figure out who he is.
Were this system in place, the job of catching the guy is likely to be a lot easier. I know that would make my wife and I feel a lot better about her safety. And personally, I don't see a problem with cameras in public places where you never had a reasonable expectation of privacy anyway. If they were invading my privacy I'd be the first to protest, but you can't claim to have privacy on a street corner.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth isn't my responsibility. Actually, your whole approach is pretty transparent and boring. If you can't be right you just try to yell louder and longer than anyone else.
In any case, you can stop your random flailing for the last word. You've done a great job of reminding me why I'd quit reading Slashdot, so I won't waste time replying after this.
My initial impression of Obama was that he was honest and meant well.
He himself convinced me to the contrary.
You're impugning a man's character and claiming that his actions changed your opinion from positive to negative. If you you can't back that up, then it fits the textbook definition of concern trolling.
McCain, at least, I find to be an honest asshole, who wastes no breath trying to convince me otherwise. I don't like him, but at least I've come to think what we see is what we'll get.
McCain's own record pretty much kills this assertion, but I just wanted to see you take a shot at substantiating it.
If that's the lie you ave to tell yourself to make it all better, then go right ahead.
Keep dreaming. It's all you have.
Your position is so provably false that I'm no longer willing to lend it any sense of credibility with further debate. I'll just let people read earlier in the thread to see how easily your lies are debunked.
Your entire argument collapses into its own false premise. It's a verifiable fact that Obama has spent roughly a year proposing a 16-month time-line contingent to the situation on the ground, and he's been entirely consistent on that. If anything, Obama has actually more strongly committed to the 16-month time-line in recent months while McCain has moved in Obama's direction. These are provable facts, and you're either completely uninformed or entirely without scruples to claim anything different.
So, since you're incapable of honestly discussing these topics, I see no point in wasting more time on you. Please come back when you're ready to be honest and informed.
Considering I have directly identified several lies you've told, you're not one to talk.
What are you talking about? This is my first comment on this topic, and the first time I've ever replied to you. Do you generally initiate discourse by making a false attack?
I never hinted that McCain was "honest and pure." You were making that up. For it to be hyperbole, it would have to be an exaggeration of the truth, but it is not even remotely true, so no, it is not hyperbole. Nice try, though, but you need more work at this.
Once again you are attributing to me statements that I never made. I was simply pointing out that the original comment used hyperbole, not a straw man. That doesn't make the framing anymore legitimate, it's just that his extending of your support for McCain to a messiah-like worship is more accurately called hyperbole. Sorry if it confused you, I'm just a stickler for accuracy.
You said that I am telling you "anybody who supports [Obama] is lying." I never even HINTED at this. At all. In any way. Again, it is a straw man. And since it has nothing to do with the discussion but is purely a diversionary tactic, it's a red herring (technically an ad hominem, which is a form of red herring).
We've already established that your entire premise here is wrong; those weren't my words. However, you also seem to miss the point of the original commentor, which I'll address in the following paragraph.
I've identified several lies you've told. You've not identified a SINGLE lie I've told.
Again, you are not very good at this.
Here's where we get to the real point. The original commentor, myself, and several others have noticed the same thing. You've attacked Obama quite relentlessly, primarily by misrepresenting his positions and record. You falsely claimed that he has changed all his positions, is dishonest, has no record, and is adopting McCain's position on Iraq. All of those claims are known falsehoods, which is the real distraction. You still haven't found one positive thing to say about McCain. All you've done is prop up false arguments against Obama and dodge anytime you're asked why you support McCain. Frankly, it's an abysmally bad way to make an argument for your candidate.
You are so horribly uninformed that it genuinely hurts to read the crap you regurgitate. Obama's position on Iraq has always been a phased withdrawal, and he's proposed a 16-month time-line for over a year. McCain was against a withdrawal time-line and claimed "we'll leave in victory," whatever the hell that means. Now, however, McCain is saying that 16 months sounds like "a pretty good time-line." So how does McCain moving toward Obama's position mean that Obama has shifted?
I am not saying there is something wrong with what McCain did, obviously. I am just saying people who attack McCain as always being wrong are full of it.
That's absurd. McCain is far too inconsistent to be wrong all the time.
Wow. No, THAT is what is wrong with politics, people like you LYING and saying that Bush was ever a deserter.
Bush stopped showing up for the cushy Air National Guard drills that his father bought him into. If I'd done something like that while I was in, I would have landed in the brig. Of course, I wasn't a politician's little boy.
Only in response to actual changes in our situation. Duh.
Sorry, but your guy doesn't get a free pass--particularly if your whole MO is to attack the other side for doing arguably the same thing. Please provide some specifics as to what the difference is between a thoughtful change of position and a flipflop.
Wow, this is a big fat lie. McCain's position on Iraq has not changed AT ALL. His position today -- we should leave as soon as we can leave Iraq with a stable government and military that can provide security, that we should increase troops to whatever level necessary to accomplish the job, etc. -- is the exact same position he had five years ago.
I'll give this one to you in part. McCain was always for the invasion of Iraq--to the detriment of everything else. In the late 90s he regularly complained about Clinton dedicating resources to hunting down al Qaeda when he wanted to ramp up against Iraq. A decade later, McCain still doesn't give a damn about the terrorists actually attacking us; he just wants everyone to focus on Iraq.
After McCain got his war, however, he has constantly changed his position on its prosecution--and that position has nearly always been politically motivated. When the war was popular he agreed with the administration and sang their praises; when it was unpopular he complained about their missteps and and pointed fingers.
Also a lie. McCain has NEVER come out in favor of torture.
You're joking, right? McCain voted against S.1538 specifically because it would have required all interrogations to follow the Army Field Manual (ie. Geneva Convention) restrictions. The only clause he took issue with was the one that explicitly prohibited torture.
I'd really like to see you to back those assertions up, because right now you sound like nothing more than a concern troll.
To be fair, in a recent CNN interview McCain said that 16 months sounded like a "pretty good timetable." Meanwhile, the Iraqi's are now demanding a timetable. So, McCain and Obama's positions have certainly grown closer, but it's because McCain has shifted while Obama hasn't. Of course, it is McCain, and he'll probably say the exact opposite in another few weeks.
Yes, it does; it's also insulting everyone forced to suffer your rabidly uninformed presence. So please stop it, for the benefit of us all.
The problem is that you haven't made any truthful points. You've used vague innuendo and outright lies to mount an ad hominem attack on Senator Obama while providing nothing substantive in support of John McCain. Frankly, it's insulting to everyone and simply lowers the quality of the discourse.
No, although it certainly was hyperbole. Go check a dictionary if you're confused.
You really need to stop using these terms because you obviously don't know what they mean. Sadly, I think the best you can do is lie and evade. You were challenged to promote your candidate on his own merits, and you dismiss it. That attitude is precisely why you lost this argument. You don't have anything of positive substance to say about Senator McCain, and the best you can do is lie about his opponent.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that post. I'm no fan of Gore--and actually abstained from voting in 2000--but the man deserves his credit for the critical role he played in the legislation, funding, and expansion of the Internet. The GP's argument just flies in the face of all known facts.
Right off the bat I'd like to state that I'm genuinely happy that you're researching this issue and making an informed decision. That's very different from what I've encountered in similar discussions and it gives me a little hope for the online community. I still don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm glad you're not trying to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Now, accepting the above statements I'd like to make some comments on your interpretation. First, the definition of U.S. persons is in the NSA charter and has been codified in various executive orders and intelligence targeting criteria for a few decades. So, its duplication in FISA doesn't really change anything. Also, it's important to understand that a U.S. person is any citizen of the U.S. or legal resident alien (regardless of location)--with the caveat that either is not a known agent of a foreign or terrorist power. So, several of the scenarios you outlined would actually require warrants under any version of FISA. For example, warrants are necessary when intercepting a communication between non U.S. persons and U.S. persons unless the entire portion of the U.S. persons' communications can be reasonably excluded from the collection through technical controls.
Second, it's important to understand the details of the previous FISA ambiguity and why it had become such a pressing issue. FISA was passed in 1978, before the advent of interconnected global communication networks. In 1978 there was little reason to consider that communications originating and terminating outside the U.S. might actually pass through systems on U.S. soil. These days, however, such a scenario is overwhelmingly commonplace, whether over phone networks, TCP/IP connections, or communication services over the web. So, you have this extremely common situation where some system in the chain happens to be located in the U.S. but the entire content of the communication is between non U.S. persons. That's why NSA has been pressing so hard for a final judgment on this issue, and that's why FISA reform has been a growing concern for NSA over the last two decades.
Third, yes the AG is responsible for creating the targeting criteria with input from NSA and under approval of the FISA court. Keep in mind, however, that the NSA normally determines their own targeting criteria within bounds of their charter, and they haven't been responsible for any significant incidences of abuse since their inception. The problem is that the NSA is provided direction from above and--being a predominantly military organization--isn't exactly known for questioning the details of that direction. So, yes, the Bush administration really did direct them to violate FISA, and the administration justified such direction through various arguments (FISA ambiguity, war powers, etc.).
Fourth, FISA is not intended for use by law enforcement and such use is very restricted. Provisions of the PATRIOT act do loosen some of those restrictions, but there's still effectively a wall between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Personally, I'd much rather see less debate on FISA and more push for the repeal of several provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which I consider a much more pressing threat to our Fourth Amendment rights.
So, circling back to FISA, I guess my big point here is that you'll never develop a system that's entirely immune to abuse from the top. The founding fathers tried their best with the three branches, but we've seen how that is still less than perfect. So, FISA started as a compromise, and the new amendment is another compromise to address something outside the scope of the original bill. I certainly don't think it's perfect, but I see it as reasonable under the circumstances. And, further circling back to the original point, I can see how people might disagree with Obama's position on FISA but the fact is that it's a pretty tough choice and painting it as some sort of nefarious betrayal just seems absurd.
I don't mean to be rude, but you need to actually read the FISA bill and amendments. It's a complex subject, and if you were familiar with it you'd know that the Al-Haramain v. Bush case has nothing to do with the ambiguity in FISA that I referred to. Al-Haramain v. Bush is a straight forward case of a FISA violation because it involves warrantless collection on U.S. persons. That's why the Bush administration's only remaining defense is to claim the war powers exception through the Iraq War Resolution. Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling in the case and also think that the war powers exception should not apply. However, I expect the case to continue being appealed
Also, the article you cited oversimplifies FISA by stating that "FISA requires a warrant for electronic surveillance inside the U.S. for intelligence gathering." FISA requires warrants for targeting U.S. persons, and is the only authority under which such targeting may be performed. As I've explained in numerous posts already, FISA contains no explicit prohibition against targeting non U.S. persons from systems on U.S. soil. However, the NSA is a risk-averse organization and had historically used FISA warrants when collection of non U.S. persons was performed through a third party (the telco) on U.S. soil.
So, in a hypothetical situation where Al-Haramain v. Bush did not target U.S. persons, the administration has a much better defense. They could argue that FISA explicitly requires a warrant only when targeting U.S. persons--regardless how the collection is occurring--and the NSA's charter explicitly grants the authority to target non U.S. persons without restricting the manner of collection. This scenario is precisely what FISA reform was intended to address, and the debate on this subject has actually been going on for about 20 years.
So, please do attempt to lecture me on FISA. My experience with it goes back well before the abuses of the Bush administration and much deeper than some magazine articles on the subject. The new amendment does not expand the scope of surveillance beyond the targeting criteria that have been in place for thirty years. It most certainly does not allow warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. What it does is clarify the process of performing surveillance of non U.S. persons from systems located inside the U.S. I can appreciate if you disagree with details of how that process occurs, how oversight occurs, or the telecom immunity in the amendment. However, I will not sit by and let you insult me while spreading false information about what FISA is and what the amendment does.
Completely unacceptable. If he truly believed in not allowing the telecoms immunity, he wouldn't have voted for the POS bill. His actions show us that his words mean nothing.
You undermine your entire argument when you quote one portion of my comment out of context. I very clearly explained how the IG investigations serve the same purpose as the telecom suits. By cutting that out without attempting explanation or counter-arguments you make your statements both dishonest and false.
If by "valid reasons" you mean he's a politician who does what's most expedient to further his own ends, regardless of how many promises he breaks or if it's even ethically permissible, then yes, I can definitely see that.
Now you're resorting to unsupportable accusations and baseless innuendo. Look, I asked in my first comment for you to provide some genuine argument against Obama's position on FISA. In my second comment I even made it clear I agree that such arguments are valid. However, all you've done is show a clear void of knowledge on the subject and a penchant for childish tantrums.
It's obvious that you're not equipped for a genuine discussion on this topic, so I'll just leave you with some advice. If want to sway someone to your position based on merit, it helps to have more than a passing familiarity with the issue itself.
Your original post consisted almost entirely of lies, so don't even play that game. I will, however, clarify what I said and admit a mistake on one point.
The surge was supposed to be over by November of 2007. The article you you cited opens by stating that we're still at more than 150,000 troops--nearly 20,000 in excess of pre-surge levels. So, I was incorrect in stating that none of the surge troops have come home. I should have more accurately stated that we're still at the original surge troop levels.
So, let's summarize. Of the 20,000 additional troops committed, essentially all currently remain, and at least half will remain indefinitely. So, we're eight months past the original end date, still at the original surge levels, the Iraqis have failed to meet most of their benchmarks, civil war is the norm in the areas outside our control, Afghanistan is deteriorating quickly, and we have no reasonable estimate for when we can withdraw--much less return to pre-surge troop levels. And that's from the article you linked.
So, please tell me how the surge was a success, or how you can claim it's over if the troop levels haven't changed.
The IG findings are reported to Congress. That's part of the additional oversight in the new amendment.
I said make an argument with some evidence. Obama voted for the bill after the provisions for oversight were expanded. The whole intent of the civil cases was to force the telecoms to provide evidence that the administration acted illegally. The new amendment requires the IGs of all involved agencies to perform exactly the investigations that would have resulted from the civil cases. While I'd rather that the people still had civil leverage to press the case themselves, criminal liability does exist and the intent of the civil cases is achieved.
Obama also voted for all the amendments to strip the immunity provision. However, he considered the FISA amendment as a whole more important than one provision because it addressed several ambiguities that have complicated intelligence operations and opened the door to the abuses of the Bush administration. If you'd read the legislation you might understand his position on this. You wouldn't necessarily agree with him, but at least you'd see that he has entirely valid reasons for his position.
None of the surge troops are out of Iraq yet. And the surge has, in fact, been a failure. Violence is down, but that's easy to do when you temporarily ramp up the occupying force by almost 50%. The real measure is that they went in with a plan that's now over-budget 180% on troops, 200% on time, and incalculably on funds. Meanwhile, they still haven't hit the vast majority of their benchmarks and our military is crippled while Afghanistan is falling apart because the troops and equipment had to come from somewhere.
The only thing the surge has succeeded in is swaying the media. They keep repeating the reduction in violence while they ignore the disaster in Afghanistan and the long term damage to our military. So, Obamah is holding to his position while changing the framing to better highlight Afghanistan and avoid the Republican talking point that the surge worked. If people like you were a little smarter, that kind of message adjustment wouldn't necessary.
A lot of talk, nothing to back it up. Just look at the damn FISA bill if you want evidence. If that doesn't convince you that Obama is the same breed, just with a different skin tone, nothing will.
Do me a favor, site one specific issue you had with Obama's position on FISA and back up the argument with some evidence. Because from my standpoint, it looks like you're just taking the oh-so-cool-reverse-sheep position where you're still following the crowd and don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps because the Senate just voted explicitly to shield the telecoms from accountability.
The Senate granted civil immunity, not criminal. The amendment also requires an IG investigation into the program, and the current provision gives oversight to all three branches. So, it's a wash from the accountability standpoint. Yes, it could be better, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that the situation is worse than yesterday.
The IG is still a part of the department he or she is investigating. If this were applied to the justice system as a whole, we'd have judges receiving their pay from the police department.
No, the IG emphatically is not part of the same department in the organizational sense. It's part of the agency (DoJ, CIA, DoD, etc.), but they operate independently and report directly to the top. If you'd ever been through an IG inspection or review you'd know that, almost without fail, they take their obligations very seriously and have no compunctions about calling problems out. Because this will be investigated by a joint IG, odds are that the bar will be set even higher than normal. This isn't to say that they're guaranteed beyond reproach, but it certainly is comparable to having the investigation handled by an independent counsel or similar agent.
No ambiguity is created... it's illegal, yes? Just because the NSA can't do your job within the confines of the law, doesn't automatically extend the law to their desired extent. If the NSA is not authorized to conduct "SIGINT" within the US borders, that's really the end of the ambiguity (which never existed). I'm sure you appreciate that the law RESTRICTS what they are allowed to do, and that their charter defines their mission, but nothing in their mission magically overrides the restrictions in the law.
That's where you're wrong. There was never anything making it explicitly legal for NSA to perform such collection, but there was nothing making it explicitly illegal either. In fact, the NSA has ground stations all over U.S. soil performing other types of foreign collection that are considered entirely legal. As such, the argument could genuinely have gone either way. However, because such collection generally involved the cooperation of a third party, the precedent was to treat it as a FISA issue and get a warrant. The Bush administration simply bucked precedent and started collecting without a warrant. In this particular case the administration had a valid argument in support of their actions. As such, the new FISA amendment clarifies the ambiguity and adds additional oversight to prevent abuses.
Also, don't dwell on the notion that this means the administration gets off clean for what they did. They performed entirely unambiguous violations of intelligence reform in other areas and claimed authority under war powers. That's a much weaker claim than this situation.
I'm sorry, but you've made no cogent argument against the content of the bill. While I would certainly agree that Congress could benefit from legislation preventing riders, the fact is that you'd have to address such a requirement procedurally through new laws, not in an ad hoc manner.