He was fairly concise. He didn't even clutter up his opinion piece with any facts. This is just another lame attampt by a wingnut to take credit for Bush for the success of british intellegence. British intellegence won't even share intel with us anymore. Bush took care of that personall when he outed Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan.

But lets look at the excerpt aaron posted point by point:
Echelon did get protested by the left. And it didn't even break the FISA laws the way warrantless wiretapping does. And the last time I looked high crimes and misdemeanors, such as breaking a federal statute that has been obeyed by 5 previous US presidents for instance, are grounds for impeachment.
There were also protests against bombing Kosovo.
What renditions? I never heard about the ones in 1994 or 2000, but the correct term is kidnapping and that's against the law, too.
Gee, none of you guys were concerned about capturing Bin laden back in 1998. When Clinton tried to do something about it you all whined "WAG THE DOG!" for 5 minutes and then went back to discussing cigars and blowjobs.
The last I looked, it was the right that was contolling all three branches of government and doing anything, legal or not, honest or not to keep it. This is just one more example of a wingnut bending the truth in order to accuse "the left" of doing what other wingnuts are already guilty of.

Chainutsblac wrote:

"The last I looked, it was the right that was contolling all three branches of government"

You damn right and it's going to stay that way for a long , long time so get used to it and deal with it cry baby. The Republican Party is going to stay in "POWER" because of people like YOU. You really think acting like kindergarten brats , throwing tantrums and telling lies is going to land you back in POWER?

IS THIS JUST ANOTHER , "JUST ANOTHER"?

"This is just another lame attampt by a wingnut to take"

Doesn't this bed wetter sound like a broken record? News Flash , REPUBLICANS are in Control of all Branches precisely because Clinton did "absolutely" nothing. He could never meet in private with the Generals well because his privates were never private. He was constantly "SUCKLING" interns and quite frankly , us tax payers were tired of paying higher taxes just to keep him supplied with Cuban Cigars. Those fuckers are expensive.

"were tired of"?

Wake up, loser. You dipshits are still paying to protect Clinton while he gets more pussy in his back office than you've seen in your life, and your tax dollars also pay the welfare for his fatherless children. Now get back to work and support the Clinton brood, pay your taxes, and remember that his ugly wife is more popular than your wetbrain president.

Okay, Bacchus, I'm calling you out. I'm not going through another point-by-point thing with you, because you don't read them. Just one thing I want from you, and one thing only.

"And it didn't even break the FISA laws the way warrantless wiretapping does."

SHOW ME where this alleged program is covered in the FISA statutes. QUOTE the citation for me.

You can get started here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

It begins: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if..."

Or you can look at this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

Which says when a judge can issue an ex parte order.

Or you can look at this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003121----000-.html
And then this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003123----000-.html

And then, you can go to the dictionary at law.com and learn the difference between a subpoena or other lower court order and a warrant.

And then you can write a letter of apology to the White House for being such an ignorant, psychotic, useless idiot.

I'm confused. What are you asking him to prove, tht the Clinton actions were legl, or that Bush's are not legal? That FISA is constitutional, or not? Or what?

Paul, of course, it would be you.

Do you see the words 'clinton' or 'constitutional' in my post?

I asked him to show me where the alleged Bush program was covered in the FISA statutes, the same FISA statutes that do not always require warrants.

He can't. He and the rest of the ignorant left scream about warrantless wiretapping, but you will notice that the left-wing legal community has not accused the administration of breaking the law.

If you're going to talk about FISA, then actually READ FISA!

Charles don't even know what he asked for.

The IB's "it" referred to Echelon, therefore, so did, logically, your "this program" referred to Clinton. ANd constitutionality is always relevent even if a law facially makes something legal. Got it?

Paul, read what I wrote. It's right there. It's not hard.

He accused the "warrantless wiretapping program" of breaking FISA. I challenged him to do what? To show me how FISA covers the alleged program. He did not say that FISA excused Echelon, he said it condemned the current administration's program. I was not responding to "it," I challenged him to prove his statement about the "warrantless wiretaps."

NOW, What is my challenge? To prove something is covered by a certain law. Therefore, constitutionality is NOT relevant to my challenge. My challenge is whether or not the law adresses the matter to begin with. If it does not, then whether or not the law is constitutional is moot. Got it?

Postscript: I also specifically said "alleged" program in my challenge. The adminsitration's use of a computer program to track and index called numbers has not yet been proven. Echelon has been proven to exist by the EU Parliment. Link here:
http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep.htm

So again, read what I wrote paul. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

It just occurred to me that once again a liberal has changed the course of an argument when it wasn't going their way, and I fell for it.

I don't care how obvious my challenge was at first, it's obvious now. I'm not letting paul distract me. This is a challenge to Bacchus. Back it up, Bacchus. Show me where the program as it is alleged to exist violates FISA statutes.

No Chucky, IB wrote "Echelon did get protested by the left. And it didn't even break the FISA laws the way warrantless wiretapping does." in response to a question about the left letting Clinton getting away with spying and not Bush. So your comment about "this alleged program" referred to a CLinton program, not a Bush program.

You don't even know what president is being discussed, and you think you're qualified to opine on world events? How sad.

paulie, here's a thought. Since I have reminded you to look at my challenge more than once now, how about looking at my words, and not his, to determine what I meant?

And again, this is an attempt to change the subject. You frothing leftists keep pressing the "warrantless wiretapping breaks FISA button" hoping to get somewhere with it. Since Bacchus went all quiet when confronted with the facts, why don't you try to defend it paulie, instead of saying I meant something else than what everyone can see I wrote?

paulie won't because he can't, which is why he's trying to change the subject. paulie has tried to defend this abseless charge by Bacchus before. See http://dndlawschoolandlife.blogspot.com/2006/05/well-well-well.html

in 1082a1B, it says they can't (without warrent, court order, etc.) tap communications where there is substantial liklihood one party is a US person. No one disputes foreign powers aren't protected under the law, but they can't tap US citizens.

I would hope that there is no substantial likelihood that the person on the receiving end of a call from al-Qaeda is a US citizen.

SNICKER

paul still can't read.

Section 1082(a)(1)(B) "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the CONTENTS of any communication to which a United States person is a party" (CAPS by me)

The alleged program captures lists of numbers called, not the content of the call.

Checkmate

PS - paul, it's not like you didn't know that.

http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/002437.php

Checkwhat? Trap and trace isn't the same as content bugging, which is what the issue is. Unless I'm mistaken, that's what you were talkinga bout.

Oh now we're playing the "I thought you meant something else thing."

You tried that earlier, it didn't work. No one ever, EVER accused the administration of having a program that gleaned content.

The USA today story that started it all:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

This is why I don't respect you paul, that and your refusal to read what other people write before commenting on it. You can't admit you're wrong.

SEe, most people don't respect me because I have an excuse for everything. At least you're original. It's hard to admit I'm wrong because it's a skill that I rarely have a need for.

But here I do, evidently. I thought we were talking about Bush tapping phone conversations without getting a FISA court order. My bad.

I work 70 hours a week, so I don't always have time to read everything I analyze.

I don't believe you.

This adminsitration has NEVER been accused of tapping actual conversations without court order. You made that up to cover your tracks.

But thanks for finally admitting that you post opinions without reading what you are responding to first. I'll be careful to link back to that in the future.

We all make mistakes! Paul's half-assed apology is good enough for me...

Charles, we cannot blame paul. He is just going off of what he sees on TV and sees in the headlines.

People run around like experts on TV (when they are just political hacks) talking about the NSA program. They don't know that there is a difference between "tracing" "wiretapping" "pen registers" etc.

It's all domestic spying to them.

(Bows to the host.)

Your blog sir, I will defer to you and drop the matter.