She is a victim of her own stupidity. She should have left well enough alone with her original apology. The apology made no meantion of excessive force. Instead, she threw race into a situation where race is not the issue.

I've heard it said that the best defense is a good offense. She seems to have that well in hand. Would that the officer in question were Jewish. Then she would really rant and rave.

If she illegally assaulted a police officer, what does that make her? Is a criminal someone who violates the law?

Jerry,

She assaulted a police officer. Last time I checked, that is a crime.

Since members are constitutionally immune from prosecution when in pursuit of their official duties, she's as much criminal as Bush is for ordering the NSA warrentlass wiretaps -- even less so since he doesn't have explicit constitutional dispensation members enjoy.

He only has a Constitutional "theory" with slightly more credibility than intelligent design.

Jerry,

Actually, McKinney is famously controversial. Others put it less delicately.

I say it's racism because when your behavior causes a problem and you blame 'the Jews' you have perpetrated racism. Similarly, when your behavior causes a problem and you blame 'the whites' you have perpetrated racism. McKinney refuses to follow the rules designed to protect her. Then, when this causes a problem, she blames the whites. That is racist behavior.

Yours,
Wince

Um, John? The FISA judges you're quoting? Who are they?

Be careful with your answer, because the facts don't back you up.

Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I win.

Ara, the difference between you and me is that I do have the facts on my side. You have BDS, and think that suffices.

In Ara's defense, the NY Times reported that the FISA judges said rather the opposite. Since Ara trusts the NY Times more than me, or you, or Power Line, he may believe the facts are different. He may not trust Judge Kornblum, either.

Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.

I read the definitions in the FISA statute, and it is quite clear to me that as Kornblum says "the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents." I don't know anything about Truong-Humphrey.

Of course, I wouldn't characterize any of these things, including Judge Kornblum's statements, Ara Rubyan's statements or John Irvings statements as facts. They are all actually, and quite clearly opinions.

Yours,
Wince

Mark,

I utterly fail to see the relevance of your comment. It proves nothing and is evidence for nothing, except perhaps that you skimmed too fast. Concentrate, man!

Yours,
Wince

The judges hedged, certainly, but they were quite clear that congress cannot legislate limitations to the Presidents constitutional power to wage war, including intelligence. The short version is, as many of us have stated, as long as the efforts were focused on finding enemy combatants and not in bringing criminal charges, then FISA would not apply.

And as I said, they disagreed with Mark Adams. Ara snarked, pretended to know better, and got cut off at the knees. As usual.


And its still secondary to the main point of the post, as Cynthia McKinney's assault of a police officer is a separate matter.

Have you noticed, Rosemary, that when Republicans or similar conservative types openly and clearly screw up, its us moderate-to-right wingers who condemn them the loudest, but when a leftist racist moonbat commits a clear and distinct crime, the distinguished opposition here falls all over itself trying to avoid calling down their own?

But given Mark Adams characterization of McKinney's actions and the police officer involved, I think we can clearly consider him someone not serious at all about security. I mean, its not like someone has actually ever walked into the U.S. Capitol and started shooting, right?

John:
Grown ups, like the distinguished jurists on the panel, understand that were they to specifically go on record, prejudging a case that had very good potential to come before them, would act to disqualify them from future rulings on the matter.

The ONE thing they knew they could not do was come right out and say that they believe -- before hearing any sworn testimony -- that they had made up their minds Bush was acting illegally and unconstitutionally. However, my reading of their line of thinking is directly at odds with Mr. Hindraker's interpretation. Most telling to me was their support of the idea of an amended FISA, which would be unnecessary if they thought POTUS was acting properly within the current scheme. As Wince says, your milage may vary -- which was what they intended.

God's man. Have you never watched the Kabuki theater of a judicial confirmation hearing? Have you seen Justice Scalia squirm for some of his recent statements that almost went over the line on deciding future enemy combatant cases?

The ONE thing they couldn't do was make an affirmative statement one way or another that passed on the legality of the issue in question. That would be an outright ethical breach of their oath of office to fairly decide cases brought before them. I think the NY Times got it mostly right. The Washington Times has a different view. There's 500 pages of ambiguous testimony which leaves a lot to the imagination.

As for taking security seriously -- I've seen the metal detectors and barricades go up after there was a shooting in the courts building I went to daily nearly caught me in the cross-fire. Some days you get truly conscientious guards, sometimes lazy ones more interested in the crossword puzzle, and some days you get some bureaucratic prick on a power trip looking for a set of nail clippers. And if anyone thinks that this stuff in anyway makes us safer from a criminal, nutcase or terrorist determined to do some harm, you're naive.

In any case, Mark, what you have been claiming and what they stated are at odds. As I said to begin with, the FISA judges do not agree with you.

Wince,
Mark's statement:
she's as much criminal as Bush is for ordering the NSA warrentlass wiretaps -- even less so since he doesn't have explicit constitutional dispensation members enjoy.

He only has a Constitutional "theory" with slightly more credibility than intelligent design.

If this were the case, then the FISA judges, in front of a Congressional panel and being directly asked about such matters, would have stated as such. They did not, and that is a fact.

Whether or not they are correct is another matter. But the fact remains that their statements and Mark's are different, as I said. So it is a fact that their opinion is different than his. But their opinion actually means something, whereas Mark's can be viewed through the lens of his dislike for Bush.

Also, the judges specifically disagreed with Mark concerning explicit constitutional dispensation. It's also not necessary to know what the judges think of "intelligent design," as the phrase was used to represent Mark's opinion, not theirs.

Now, unless Mark thinks Intelligence Design is comparably credible to the Natural Selection Theory of Evolution, which is doubtful (but feel free to prove me wrong on this one, Mark. . .), once more their opinion differs from his. They did not flat out say the President was cool and froody in authorizing this program, but they certainly gave the Constitutionality of the program a lot of credit in relation to the President's war powers and the nature of the program.

Oy, John, I've yet to see you to back up you're supposition that my interpretation of what the judge's believe as to the strength or weakness of Bush's legal justification for the NSA program when it comes to intercepts of NON-foreign communications is at odds with reality -- except your bald assertion that I'm wrong and a Bush hater.

If Bush is acting unilaterally, and when doing so his authority is at it's weakest -- for which I offered quoted text from the hearing transcript in opposition to your unusable link, as well as a reference to the leading Supreme Court case on the domestic limits of unilateral POTUS power during war -- how can my assertion that Bush is walking very in treacherous territory be invalid? That was indeed the judges' arguments and I agree with that analysis. Please tell me you have more than your opinion when I have explained mine and made a proffer of evidence.

Likewise, a bald assertion that I don't understand the liability of legislators when I offered chapter and verse of the constitutional dispensation and a resonable argument how it applied -- without more than accusing me of writing out of ignorance, I am hardly persuaded that I should reconsider my position.

I am able to look at things in new light as I did on the immigration debate. But no, without some divinely inspired evidence to the contrary, ID remains for me a load of agricultural waste. The NSA program has a bit more legitimacy.

Yes, Mark, but you have utterly failed to counter my quote from Kornblum, and it absolutely devastates your argument.

Yours,
Wince

John,

In our dispute, I'm not concerned about Mark's selective quotations, although he is certainly selecting, as am I. I'm concerned about your selective quotations. How do you know that one or more of the judges, somewhere in their testimony, didn't say something in complete agreement with Mark, unless you read the whole thing? How do you know they haven't expressed agreement with Mark in private?

Without a mind reading device, you don't know about whatever private reservations may have led them to agree with him. All you can do is offer evidence from their testimony. That will be fact. Your conclusions from that testimony may also be fact, but none of us will know that, no matter how many times you assert it. Likewise, Mark's statement "You lose" is also an opinion.

Yours,
Wince

Besides, you guys took the bait. I only made the analogy -- a piss poor one at that.

Figures. What I get for reading and posting from work. . .

My point exactly. POTUS is indeed limited and limitable by the other co-equal branches.

Split hairs all you want, but they ARE doing it and eventually you'll have your proof. Quite probably out of this lawsuit against AT&T for directing all their traffic through the NSA.

So that's it then. I'm just supposed to trust POTUS no to use the NSA's capability for personal political gain? Trust the man who Libby testified authorized the release of classified information to spin a one-sided justification for war? Trust the administration that exposed the identity of a CIA operative for political gain?

Trust them that they will not only act properly but also competently, after they did such a bang-up job with post invasion Iraq and did such a remarkable job in the aftermath of Katrina?

You're really serious, aren't you?

Wince wins.

I'm really not interested in a debate over the schizophrenic ethical standards employed by the media. Nice strawman. To borrow from Stalin's analogy, the Times commands fewer mechanized divisions than the Pope.

What I am concerned about is the misuse of real power, information -- private information -- in the hands of unscrupulous and flawed humans -- be they elected officials or appointed bureaucrats who have absolutely no accountability, no check on their perogatives. Without some supervision, which FISA provides, there is nothing to keep either POTUS or a scorned lover working for NSA to used the information they gather for nafereous purposes.

Also, I never tried to infer that POTUS did not have the absolute authority to declassify anything at will. Of course he can -- legally.

Ethically, morally, and politically however, it is unseemly to engage in what Prosecutor Fiztgerald has described as a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. That is not a legitimate use of intelligence. That is an abuse of power. At the very least it has the appearence of impropriety which the executive is required to avoid to retain its credibility.

Moreover, it is irresponsible to so undermine the credibility of the office of the presidency when that credibility is so clearly the sine qua non for conducting the affairs of state -- whether it be in negotiating treaties with allies or in creating a dialogue with nations like Iran or N.Korea to bring them in conformity with the expectations of the rest of the world community.

At home, it is imperitive that the citizenry retain a respect for our institutions born of faith in the integrity of the political and legal process. If we criticize POTUS at our own risk as Lieberman has stated, POTUS invites criticism to the peril of us all.

For someone who argues so effectively against the idea of a living constitution, you really have embraced the idea of the unitary executive.

BTW, I consider a sworn affidavit, which is what the EFF suit is based on, as admissible, material, and until rebutted, persuasive evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but certainly more than the "shred," you claim never to have experienced. Your lack of willingness to acknowledge this illuminates your bias, Mr. Kettle.

Sorry, here's the link to that bastion of rumour and taudry tabloid smears that I "borrowed" the quote about Fitzgerald from.

Oh Bull. I swear you do this cuz you can't resist poking a stick at the liberal.

OK, that's not very persuasive nor diplomatic, but if anything the whole third act of this thing points to the very fact that Wilson was indeed truthful, that the Niger story was not only false but known to be false, that the administration not only cherry-picked intel but held on to the Niger canard in the face of its "baseless" claim, and that high officials in the West Wing made a concerted effort to discredit Wilson as an administration critic despite the facts.

The "leak" or "selective release of classified info" (whatever) to Judy Miller that Libby claims he was too busy to remember accurately pushed the yellowcake info as a "key finding" of the soon to be released NIE. Fitzgerald argues that it's absurd that Libby didn't recall this incident when he asked counsel to clairify this highly unsusual request to declassify and distribute such info in such an informal manner before going through the normal bureaucratic process. The guy that took his job assured him that POTUS can declassify intel at will.

Libby didn't meet Miller for breakfast to "out" Plame, but to spread the tale of Saddam's quest for African Yellowcake. That was a deliberate piece of disinformation meant to discredit the administration's political opposition -- not to confuse the enemy. Saddam had a good idea what he didn't have and no way to prove the negative except to let the inspectors back in -- which he did until Bush told them to get out.

Wilson's story was that the administration was lying about the Niger connection. Wilson's story was the truth. Wilson soon found out what happens to people who call these thugs on their lies.

Whatever history's judgment will be, let's try to keep the facts straight. When Bush told Cheney to "get it out there," the "it" was the lie that they desparately clung to in order to discredit Wilson for busting them on their lie. The Niger story was a red herring debunked in the "leaked" NIE itself, Tenant had warned Bush off the story months before -- but that wasn't explained to their useful idiot who ended up doing three months in jail covering their ass.

All Miller knew was that Libby told her secrets, not that the secret they wanted "out there" was buried on page 24 of the NIE (hardly a "key finding"), not that the suggestion of a Niger/Iraq connection was determined non-credible within the NIE itself, that one of the mines was flooded, that the sites were under international control, that the documents were probably forgeries.

Miller was a convenient patsy. She already diseminated the false aluminum tubes story our experts refused to believe, but uranium was much more sexy, and even more of a reach. They knew however, if it was "out there" the public could get their brains around the whole mushroom cloud fiction and conclude that Wilson was a nut, something only Bush cultists are still selling.

After the Bush's speech to the UN, after the SOTUA, after Powell at the UN, I thought the writing was on the wall. I believed that nobody would purposely exaggerate the threats, that they were real, that we were going to lose our window of opportunity for a spring offensive. I was even satisfied that if we waited a couple of more months the inspectors wouldn't find anything Saddam had buried and still the French and Russians would block us.

By the time Baghdad started looking like the Fourth of July, my last reservation was overcome and I might as well get on board. Hell, it was supposed to be a cake-walk. Cheapm quick and easy with a government in exile just waiting to be received like conquering heros ready to build permanent bases for us and invite us to stay for the millenium.

This was indeed disemination of misinformation, and it started with selling lies to reporters willing to give the White House unofficial cover, but the target of the misinformation was not America's enemies. The target was me, a reasonable, intelligent, informed skeptic -- enemy number one to their imperial ambitions. Their tactic in this battle was to hype the threat and destroy their critics. And it worked.

Valerie Plame, her husband, and her CIA front organization were mere collateral damage to be expected in their war against liberals.

Or is it okay to make up reasons to start a war if POTUS wants a war but his reasons aren't good enough to convince the public or congress of this supposedly transparent democracy that his determination is sound?

If ALL the truth were "out there" instead of merely shared with select members of the Intelligence Committee, Dick Durbin and others who were in the know but legally bound not to speak the whole truth had to remain content with simply voting no when asked to consent to the invasion. There would have (should have) been an open, honest debate -- and I and Dubin and others would have no bitch if we lost the debate.

Trust these guys? Never again. If they'd conspire to deceive on this level when the stakes are literally life and death, of course they'd lie about stuff that makes Nixon's dirty tricks look like fraternity hazing.

Trust them on warrentless wiretapping? Data mining? Lobby reform? Not nuking Iran? Not lining their pockets?

Give. Me. A. Break.

it's not ok to selectively release classified intel in order to win an election either.

Sure it is, when the opponent is running a campaign based on the misinformation people like Wilson were spreading. The objective is to win the war, not play nice-nice.

I must be dense not to understand how telling the truth is spreading "misinformation." The White House stuck to the lie about Niger yellowcake and aluminum tubes, Iraq/al-Queada threat, WMD's, and the Saddam/9-11 connections, not Wilson.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Saddam sought uranium from Niger as stated, Iraq and terrorism have been fairly definitively linked, and alliances with Al Qaeda thoroughly documented, and evidence continues to mount as to Saddam's "disposal" of his WMD's by handing them off to his closest ally, and Wilson is a proven liar.

Mark, you spout material that has been debunked extensively over the last several years. Most of your statements are debatable, but now you sound like a Flat Earther who has been taken to space, shown the world from orbit, land once more, pat the ground and insist "still flat."

As for your "news flash," that may be your personal desire that we "lose the peace," but it's not whats actually happening.

nor did they pose any threat to anybody.

You eliminate your credibility with this one 9-10-2001 statement.

Ta-ta, thanks for playing. You may believe you have America's best interests at heart, but your contempt for the President renders incapable of making an accurate judgement about the matter.