The claim by President Bush that he needs to ignore the FISA process in order to nab terrorists shows that he either does not understand that this law has been used to actually capture a terrorist based on a phone call from a foreign country or he is hiding something.

And this fiary tale brought to you by the same people who were responsible for the fable that there would be a mushroom cloud over America we didn't attack Saddam...

I think the issue involves one of potential perjury.  If you go before a Federal judge and don't tell the truth one could get in trouble.  True?

and then there is the carnivore program.

in place. functioning.

why would the state need to go beyond echelon, carnivore, fisa?

and why does no one mention those programs?

neither the bushits nor the anti-bushits.

why?

Are you saying the leak about the wiretaps is intentional by the Bush Administration? That just doesn't fit with their usual modus operandi. Usually they use leaks to discredit an opponent.

What he is saying is that to get a FISA warrant the Bushies would have had to acknowledge the source of information that caused them to want the warrant, and that was probably a tortured prisoner in violation of the Geneva Conventions. If they had made up a source of intelligence, that would be perjury, and they might have been caught. So, they just ignored FISA. The reason for bypassing FISA has to be something like that, because getting those warrants has been an almost certainty, and they don't even need to be obtained before the wiretaps are installed. Or, as my Mom used to tell me, "once you practice to deceive.....blah blah".

Larry,

I'd be curious to know what you think about the theory that this was in order to spy on journalists, those who many in the administration know 'have ties to Al Quaida', in the form of interviews. No judge would allow those forms of wiretaps, but the administration might deem them necessary.

Interesting comment by AlbertChampion regarding Echelon.

I agree that it is very strange that Echelon, as well as "Able Danger" and the supposedly failed Poindexter Total Information Awareness project at DARPA, have not been mentioned in media accounts so far.

My father is a diehard wingnut, and today he sent me an article from Newsmax.com claiming that this is all just Democratic hypocrisy because Clinton (who gets blamed for everything) did the same thing with the Echelon program. So I've been reading again about Echelon today.

I assume there is no evidence that Clinton himself ever bypassed the FISA court. But of course, even if there was such evidence, it would be irrelevant in the face of the extreme and consistent claims by the Bushies that the president is absolutely above all law. (There was a fascinating discussion on that today on the Diane Rehm show on public radio, in which three Republicans, Bruce Fine, Republican counsel in the Iran-Contra hearings; Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute; and David Keene of the American Conservative Union--all basically agreed that Bush was dangerously overreaching and claiming powers above the law unlike any other American president.)

I'd appreciate seeing some solid analysis on that here by smart people like Larry Johnson.

--Arminius

Isn't the real issue here the weakness of liberal Democrats to articulate a national security stance that has credibility with the American people?  I think President Bush would have been derelict in his duties had he NOT authorized the wiretaps. Why is it that liberals never mention that they only wiretapped persons suspected of having terrorists connections and telephone overseas?  They didn't wiretap grandma calling her bridge club, for crying out loud!

I also think the New York Slimes, that temple of ultra-liberalism and anti-Americanism, should be SHUT DOWN for printing this story on the same day that a vote was scheduled on the Patriot Act. That newspaper is a propaganda tool, used by the Democratic Party and the hard left in this country, to stab our military in the back, subvert the sovereignty of the United States of America, and and cripple the President of the United States.  The truth of the matter is that if it were President Bill
"BJ " Clinton, liberals would have LIONIZED him, and the Nobel Peace prize would have been awarded to him. 

President Clinton did NOTHING about the terrorist threat for 8 years, much as you want to deny that. The most important statement the president made last night in his speech, was that when 9/11 was planned, and when it happen ed, we were not in Afghanistan, we were not in Iraq, and as a matter of fact, isn't it a fact that liberals complained and accused President Bush of "doing nothing" about the terrorist threat in his first 9 months in office??  Yes, that is a fact.

Pinchy Sulzberger belongs in a jail cell in Guantanamo Bay, right next to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. He should be forced to read "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, " by Dr. Michael Savage,  followed by "Bias" by Bernie Goldeberg . 

Now that would be a real exercise in one of liberalism's cherished acts of "tolerance."

Here's more.

Just to be clear the only "fairy tale" I am talking about is the Bush claim that he needs to ignore the FISA court process to catch terrorists...

I disagree with the entire thrust of your post. However, in spite of our disagreement I'm assuming you do not think it was OK for Bush to ignore FISA when it gives him 72 hours in which he could act and then retroactively seek permission from the special court. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Re the blowjob/  Oh really, tough guy?? Well, you know what? The next time I hear about a girl in high school getting suspended for giving a blowjob to a guy in the boys room, I'll say a prayer it's your kid, since you don't think it's a big deal, and we should "get over it."  OK??

I absolutely believe that Bush after 9/11 felt he had to  monitor phone conversations between the enemy within and without.  If that causes liberal hand wringing, as most efforts to fight the enemy seem to, so be it. When we get Alito installed on the Supreme Court, you won't be able to do anything about it, except alert the New York Times.

 You totally ignored the point:  what solution do Democrats offer?  You are against EVERYTHING that Bush does. But at least he offers leadership, though you disagree with it, and that is fine.  But I don't see anything from the Democrats that would convince the majority of us to vote Democratic next time around. No solutions. On ly criticisms, and treasonous criticisms, at that.