Joe Klein's article from 1/8/06... NSA and liberal Democrats.

[Moooooo]

How to Stay Out of Power
Why liberal democrats are playing too fast and too loose with issues of war and peace

"For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders...

"At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA. But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations...

"There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another."

"In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.

"But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country."

[Frodo]

National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country."

I couldn't agree more, and it is a point I have been trying to make for some time now, only to be answered with shrill screams and charges that I am a 'DINO' or a 'Republican apologist'.   

So I've quit trying.  The message to shift more to the right and center on cultural issues and foreign policy will only meet with a better reception if some Democrat beloved by the antiwar left like Russ Feingold goes down in humiliating defeat against John McCain in 2008.  As of now, elections have been so close that liberals think that if they only just stand firm with their 'principles' and push just a little harder that the rest of the country might eventually somehow see the light and turn elections their way. 

[TheresNoMoney]

Democrats are not against wiretaps. They are against illegal wiretaps. And what this article conveniently leaves out is that wiretaps of foreigners falls outside the scope of the FISA regulations.

The U.S. can wiretap foreigners w/o judicial approval, so wiretapping suspected foreign terrorists has never been in question. The U.S. can wiretap American citizens as long as they get judicial approval within 72 hours of the wiretap.

The media does a great job of spinning information in a way favorable to Republicans. It's quite a shame.  This article is a joke and an example of lazy and biased reporting at its worst.

[minionofmidas]

As to the part above, yeah, I agree with Scoonie. Crock full of sh!t. On the highlighted part, Joe may be very well right. But he should go back to writing biographies of folk musicians anyways.

[Blue Rectangle]

The media does a great job of spinning information in a way favorable to Republicans. It's quite a shame.  This article is a joke and an example of reporting at its worst.

Don't blame the media for the lack of a coherent message from your party.  The media's job is to report, not to provide a balancing message against the majority party.

The article is dead-on accurate in its assessment of the Democrats' problem.  It is not "reporting"--it is an op-ed piece.  I just hope more Democrats regard it as a joke, rather than constructive criticism.

[TheresNoMoney]

Don't blame the media for the lack of a coherent message from your party.  The media's job is to report, not to provide a balancing message against the majority party.

The problem with the article is that it misrepresents the facts in order to arrive at a biased conclusion.

The writer has the right to offer whatever opinion he wants, but the rest of the article is highly inaccurate.

[J. J.]

I agree somewhat.  The Democrats have to walk a line between, we support wiretaps of threats and "What the @*%$ was Bush thinking."  So far, they have not.

[Blue Rectangle]

[=Don't blame the media for the lack of a coherent message from your party.  The media's job is to report, not to provide a balancing message against the majority party.

The problem with the article is that it misrepresents the facts in order to arrive at a biased conclusion.

The writer has the right to offer whatever opinion he wants, but the rest of the article is highly inaccurate.

The article consists of opinions on news reports.  What facts were misrepresented?

[The Duke]

He's basically right, in terms of politics and policy.

[TheresNoMoney]

The article consists of opinions on news reports.  What facts were misrepresented?

The article paints a picture of Democrats wanting to suspend wiretaps of foreign terrorists when "There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt Al-Queda operations....."

The FISA regulations called into question by the Democrats have nothing to do with the wiretaps of foreigners. These fall outside the scope of the regulations. Democrats have never opposed or called these into question! The executive branch does not need judicial approval to wiretap suspected foreign terrorists.

 What the Democrats called into question was the illegal wiretaps of American citizens. If Democrats ought to support illegal wiretaps of American citizens, why have any laws at all??? Why not just give the executive branch complete and total power to do whatever they damn well want?

The whole premise of the article is intellectually dishonest and little more than a coordinated smear.

[opebo]

What a fraud. 

You know I just watched the film Brazil again last night - very reminiscent of the current fictional 'war on terror'.

[Blue Rectangle]

OK, so Democrats support warrantless wiretaps on foreign terrorists, but not on U.S. citizens?  What if there is an international phone call from one to the other?  Do they support or oppose warrantless monitoring of those communications?

[Moooooo]

OK, so Democrats support warrantless wiretaps on foreign terrorists, but not on U.S. citizens?  What if there is an international phone call from one to the other?  Do they support or oppose warrantless monitoring of those communications?

I guess thats where the emergency 72 hour provision comes into play.  72 hours to gather whatever information you need, but after that you must get a warrant.  Im not 100% sure though, just throwing it out there.

[J. J.]

 What the Democrats called into question was the illegal wiretaps of American citizens. If Democrats ought to support illegal wiretaps of American citizens, why have any laws at all??? Why not just give the executive branch complete and total power to do whatever they damn well want?

The whole premise of the article is intellectually dishonest and little more than a coordinated smear.

Well, first of all, while outside the regulations, it might not be illegal.  There are some extraordinary powers that the President has, in terms of national defense.  This might fall into that area; it might not either.

Second, I'm frankly surprised this has not generated more controversy.  Politically, this isn't as big an issue that I think it should be.  The politics seem to going to the President. 

Third, in terms of policy, there are arguments for checks and balances and there are arguments for national defense; both are very legitimate.  I would like to see the Democrats address both issues; so far, they have not.  This is where the Democrats have failed.

[Blue Rectangle]

OK, so Democrats support warrantless wiretaps on foreign terrorists, but not on U.S. citizens?  What if there is an international phone call from one to the other?  Do they support or oppose warrantless monitoring of those communications?

I guess thats where the emergency 72 hour provision comes into play.  72 hours to gather whatever information you need, but after that you must get a warrant.  Im not 100% sure though, just throwing it out there.

No warrant is required for international communications.

The Democrats have not provided a clear answer to this question: should a warrant be required to monitor an international phone call between a known foreign terrorist and a U.S. citizen who may or may not be suspected of terrorist ties?

[Frodo]

The Democrats have not provided a clear answer to this question: should a warrant be required to monitor an international phone call between a known foreign terrorist and a U.S. citizen who may or may not be suspected of terrorist ties?

No.

[TheresNoMoney]

Well, first of all, while outside the regulations, it might not be illegal.

Wiretaps of foreigners are perfectly legal. I never said they weren't.

Like I said, the issue is the illegal spying on American citizens. 

[TheresNoMoney]

I guess thats where the emergency 72 hour provision comes into play.  72 hours to gather whatever information you need, but after that you must get a warrant.

You're close.

You can wiretap an American citizen without a warrant at first, but you must get one within 72 hours.

[MODU]

The problem is that there are Democrats who believe the President has the power to authorize the program, and there are Democrats who think it is an illegal abuse of power.  When you have to distinct opinions in one party, the genenral public combines both and feel that the party has no common basis in regards to national security, which is in line with what the author was saying.  And with the FISA review court upholding the Presidents order, it just further goes against the credibility of the Democratic claim that they are strong on protecting the nation.

(Now let's just make one thing clear here . . . no Democrat is truly advocating the defeat of the US, nor any devistating attack on our nation.  They just have a different view on what actions should be taken in protecting the US, and to what level of force/power we should go up to.)

[TheresNoMoney]

The problem is that there are Democrats who believe the President has the power to authorize the program, and there are Democrats who think it is an illegal abuse of power.

Spying on American citizens without a warrant is an illegal abuse of power. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[J. J.]

Well, first of all, while outside the regulations, it might not be illegal.

Wiretaps of foreigners are perfectly legal. I never said they weren't.

Like I said, the issue is the illegal spying on American citizens.

Well, the case can be that one party is not an American citizen.  That might change things a great deal.

[MODU]

The problem is that there are Democrats who believe the President has the power to authorize the program, and there are Democrats who think it is an illegal abuse of power.

Spying on American citizens without a warrant is an illegal abuse of power. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Intercepting international communications between the US (there is no distinction between US citizens and US residents) and known terrorist organizations is a lot different than spying on American citizens.  Additionally, with the FISA review court agreeing with the Presidential order, it's not illegal.  You might feel it is, and you are welcomed to your opinion, but opinion and reality are two different things.

[opebo]

Intercepting international communications between the US (there is no distinction between US citizens and US residents) and known terrorist organizations is a lot different than spying on American citizens. 

How is it different?  If any person on either end of the phone is an American citizen, this is spying on American citizens.

[MODU]

Intercepting international communications between the US (there is no distinction between US citizens and US residents) and known terrorist organizations is a lot different than spying on American citizens. 

How is it different?  If any person on either end of the phone is an American citizen, this is spying on American citizens.

Actually, it is different.  Spying, in the typical sense, pertains to tracking an inidividual, collecting data on that person, an using it for criminal prosecution later on.  The intercepting of electronic communication is different, since they are not after the individual, but the information to prevent an attack.  And since there are millions of international electronic communications daily, the time is spent on screening the data from suspected terrorists rather than individual US citizens (again, "citizens" are not the target).  As the FISA review court said, the definition of an agent of a foreign power, if it pertains to a U.S. person, is closely tied to criminal activity.  The term includes any person who "knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities . . . which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States," or "knowingly  engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activites that are in preperation therefor."  So the argument of spying on everyday citizens is bunk, since again, it is the electronic communications between the US and foreign nations by people with criminal intensions.

[Blue Rectangle]

The Democrats have not provided a clear answer to this question: should a warrant be required to monitor an international phone call between a known foreign terrorist and a U.S. citizen who may or may not be suspected of terrorist ties?

No.

You said no, but the Democratic leadership characterizes this as "domestic spying on U.S. citizens" and opposes it (I believe, they have not been clear).

Is there evidence that anything other than this occurred?