Codswollup. Don't run against the Republicans nationally. Drape Bush around the local incumbant's neck and beat him senseless.

Democrats have been trying to nationalize elections for a decade now, and it's gotten us nothing, mostly because the national party has an incredibly warped and myopic view of what the nation is. GO LOCAL.

It is all well and good to write that Democrats must insist on "good law being passed and demand immediate trials." However, if Kalik Sheikh Mohammed gets off on a technicality and then plans another 9/11, Democrats will almost certainly suffer in elections of the future. Worse... they might not have a jurisdiction left. You must remember that most Americans believe safety and security is more significant than what some lawyers believe to be constitutionally legal.

That is why FDR is still in the minds of most Americans a great president despite revelations regarding his internment of Japanese. Also, do you think FDR went to judges to get warrants to spy on suspected enemy spies in the U.S.? The Democrats need to support policies like the Patriot Act, detention of terrorists, and NSA surveillance of all domestically terminating calls from terrorists abroad... if they want to take the House and the Senate.

That is why FDR is still in the minds of most Americans a great president despite revelations regarding his internment of Japanese. Also, do you think FDR went to judges to get warrants to spy on suspected enemy spies in the U.S.

This is a bogus question. There was no FISA act at the time. The FISA act came into being due to ABUSE of POWER by the executive branch and the FBI.

Billmon, at his blog, does a riff on the news in yesterday's WaPo that the RNC is sending out "half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads."

For the last three years, after every example of what can only be interpreted as GOP treason to furter terrorist goals at the expense of our own, I've asked the same question: "How long are you going to let them dangle their jugular in front of you like that, Dems?"

They've been taunting us, whipping us across the face with it, daring us to bite, and we don't to demonstrate to the public how whimpy and ineffectual we would be against unscrupilous enemies.

You don't just make them bleed, you pour salt in the wounds. Our nation's survival is at stake.

FISA does not impede surveillance. It only requires a paper trail. Can we get this straight?

The argument is not, or should not be, over surveillance. It is over after-the-fact justification. What's wrong with that?

Here's what is right with that. It ensures the power will be used properly. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit searches. It requires them to be reasonable, in the opinion of a disinterested party, a judge.

If being written in the past makes things bogus, the Constitution's conferring of power on the Executive is also bogus. FISA has been updated since 1978 and since 9/11.

Do you have something against a paper trail?

If the dems don't go on the offensive and attack the GOP this time they never will...then they can be happy with minority party status for life.

The dems refuse to take a stand and say that being for separation of church and state is NOT an anti-religion bias, that standing up for the workers of the country is NOT anti-business, and that criticizing Bush and demanding accountability is NOT "hating America".

Just like Kerry sealed his fate in '04 by not responding forcefully to the Swiftboating are the dems gonna just sit back and allowed themselves to be defined by the GOP smear machine...again?

Screw trying not to offend the "mushy middle"...show some goddamn passion.

That argument -- "keep America safe" -- is at odds with the macho posture of America and particularly of the right in America. There's a response anyone with a normal amount of courage would have to give: freedom, on balance, is more precious than security. Anyone who's lived in a dictatorship will affirm that. Anyone who doesn't affirm it is just asking for dictatorship.

But that doesn't let a president off the hook when it comes to security. As a leader, the first duty is to guard our freedoms along with the difficult but essential task of maintaining the highest degree of security without compromising freedom. The Bush administration (sheesh, even its supporters have acknowledged this) has failed on both counts. We still don't have interoperable communications and computer systems; we still have open borders; we still have uninspected cargo containers; we still don't have a fully liveable New Orleans; and we have not been given full information -- which, as free citizens, we should expect -- about the extent to which our freedom has been compromised through wiretaps and other measures.

But it's the wimpishness of the right on these issues which is really odd. With all three branches of government in hand, the Republicans have managed cut freedoms and completely mess up security to the point that, given today's date, the President & Co. should be in hiding, not posturing in Manhattan!

Mike:

I know you'll understand this, just by your use of such a fine word as "codswallop..."

A long time neighbor friend of ours was gonna shoot his dog because it came over and killed a couple of chickens in our yard. I wouldn't let the man do it.

My Grandpappy had taught me to tape one of them dead chickens 'round that dog's neck and by the time that chicken rotted to the bones you couldn't drag that dog within 100 feet of a coop, let alone another chicken or duck... Of course, the owner couldn't let the dog in the house.

But hell -- who'd want half of these present day back-sliding back-stabbing politicians in your house anyway?

And Yes! Local local local local . . .

~OGD~

ps: I've always had a predisposition to the use of the word folderol myself... Commonly precede with another F-word. But that's the sailor-boy in me...

There's a response anyone with a normal amount of courage would have to give: freedom, on balance, is more precious than security. Anyone who's lived in a dictatorship will affirm that. Anyone who doesn't affirm it is just asking for dictatorship.

Without security, you can't have freedom. The situation in Iraq should tell you that...

I have for many years lived in the People's Republic of China. It is an oligarchic state... Some would describe it totalitarian in nature. It's policies and treatment of civil liberties are pretty similar to that of a dictatorship. The warrantless NSA surveillance of suspected terrorists communications to the US is no comparison to how China treats its citizens or the policies of a dictatorship. Not even close... Moreover, there wasn't any FISA during the Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt administrations (FDR even used warrantless wiretaps against suspected German and Japanese agents,) and none of these presidencies were dictatorships. The most liberal democracies in Europe have warrantless wiretaps... yet they are nowhere near being dictatorships. Throughout its history, the U.S. has tightened up some civil liberties during war only to relax them during peace. Most of the presidents who did this were Democrats... The exception is Lincoln during the Civil War.

With all three branches of government in hand, the Republicans have managed cut freedoms and completely mess up security to the point that, given today's date, the President & Co. should be in hiding, not posturing in Manhattan!

Many many Democrats in the House and Senate voted for the Patriot Act for good reason. The American people overwhelmingly support the Patriot Act and the NSA warrantless wiretaps... so give the people what they want!

doclombo wrote:

"Yes.. I am oppposed to it because that's all it is..."a paper trail" and not something of constitutional significance..."

So you think a Warrant has no "Constitutional significance"?

"Adding another paper trail just contributes to a bureaucracy that obstructs our intelligence gathering professionals from doing their job. The NSA deals with tremendous amounts of data in its SINGINT and data mining efforts. We don't need to needlessly make their efforts more difficult while we were at war."

So they've got plenty of time to read our emails and listen in on our conversations, but are just too busy to get a Warrant, is that it? You'd think with all that information-handling efficiency they have, they could handle filling out a form.

Of course, the people who actually request Warrants are Attorneys, not Intelligence Experts, so I don't think following FISA law puts much of a crimp in the intelligence-gathering function.

-Dave Adams-

Let's clear something up. If I assert a search is reasonable, and you disagree, we're stuck, so a disinterested third party, that is, someone without a dog in the fight, is asked. That's the judge.

How do I know NSA surveillance has a proper reason? The surveillers assert such? Nice way to defend yourself in a trial. "I'm not breaking a law." OK, case dismissed. Not.

Where is the record? On NSA hard drives? Big help.

Once again, how does making surveillance legal impede it? If it's an intriguing intercept there won't be any argument, and it will continue and lead to action.

On top of this, the known interceptions of active planning were achieved by means other than NSA sweeping.

Here's a more general way of describing the problem: Generalized sweeping is a very difficult manner of finding actionable intel but if you know your target first it is useful for monitoring. So it is extremely tempting to use it for monitoring political enemies. Such a temptation has to be restricted.

Those have pretty much been decimated as bogus arguments. FISA doesn't hang anything up for three days. In serious cases the president can act and get a warrant afterwards. FISA's partnership in this process simply keeps the executive in line, something which is pretty damn important if you want to maintain a healthy republic.

Paper trail? Who's afraid of a paper trail? Usually those who don't want anyone to know where they've screwed up!

Bush has shown himself repeatedly to be incompetent, over-reaching and untrustworthy. All the more reason for his actions to be documented and subjected to scrutiny. Let's not try to concoct excuses for him. Let's just keep a close eye -- and a taut leash -- on him. And let's not make stuff up -- like Al Qaeda members not loving their children.

The White House will try to get Democrats to vote "for terrorists" or in other words for the Constitution, and trusting Republican Senators to block this effort is far too risky for D's. Democrats need to take the offensive. I argued here months ago that Democrats needed to insist on a good law being passed and demand immediate trials. They didn't and of course are now on the defensive.

I can't agree more with this point. When I read about the bogus "military commissions" the administration is proposing, *and* see that the Dems have completely abandoned the battle, leaving it to just 3 or 4 Republicans, it's heart-breaking.

This is a winnable battle. A coherent position is that you don't abandon your principles against *torture*. Secret evidence belongs only in a police state: we must have solved this problem when prosecuting spies from the USSR.

But something like data mining is not necessarily unreasonable, as long as you have some checks and balances. A paper trail of queries that Congressional committees can look at, for example, may reduce abuse. And a warrant for certain types of searches should be required, on a database that already exists.

The Dems should be proposing ideas in this area, giving a vision of a safer nation that doesn't allow a rogue executive to poke around in your business.