One of the still-unanswered mysteries of the NSA scandal is why the Bush Administration needed to bypass a FISA court which has long been notorious for its rubber-stamping and permissive ways. The decision to violate FISA is particularly mystifying in light of that statute's express allowance for a free 72-hour period of warrantless eavesdropping, which obviously negates the Administration’s initial, principal excuse that the need for immediate eavesdropping required it to violate this law.
Many Bush defenders responded to this problem by simply pretending that the 72-hour window did not exist, thus blithely (and dishonestly) arguing that FISA had to be violated because it does not allow for immediate eavesdropping. Unsurprisingly, the Bush cultists at Powerline relied on this blatant deceit for weeks, until a commentator here, Jukeboxgrad, posted compelling documentation of this ongoing dishonesty.
Jukeboxgrad's comment was then linked to by Crooks & Liars, which has a very energetic and substantial readership. That undoubtedly caused an avalanche of not-very-demure emails to Powerline demanding that it finally address itself to this rather glaring hole in its argument.
It didn’t take long for after that for Rocket John to put up a post explaining why the Administration was justified in violating the law notwithstanding the 72-hour exemption (the first time he even acknowledged its existence). To do so, John dredged up the Byron York article in National Review from a month ago where York argued that the Administration had to violate FISA when eavesdropping because the work required by FISA to obtain warrants is too bothersome to perform:
But there's more to the story than that. In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court.
The York article made clear that any claimed delays were not with the FISA court, which signs emergency warrants almost immediately, but with the Administration's own inability to comply with the requirements of the law. Mark Schmitt previously addressed, and obliterated, this excuse quite thoroughly.
It should really go without saying that if there were "widespread, bipartisan frustration" with FISA, it would have been quite easy to change the law, particularly since many FISA-related provisions had just been amended the prior year by the Patriot Act. And it seems that this "widespread, bipartisan frustration" has been forgotten entirely by the people who allegedly experienced it, since no prominent Representatives or Senators has said that FISA was inadequate or should be changed.
And as always, it can’t be pointed out enough that in a society which lives under the rule of law, it is absolutely intolerable for the President to secretly violate laws and then try to explain afterwards why the law that he broke wasn’t a very good law to begin with. That does not excuse illegal conduct at all. It is truly amazing how many times one needs to point that out.
But digging into the deceitful, pompous morass of Powerline is highly unpleasant work. I’ve done a lot of that of late, and I spent this morning working instead on a post about the Alito nomination. The industrious Jukeboxgrad, however, has written two additional superb Comments -- one in response to John’s post on the 72-hour rule, and another on John's updates to his post trying to explain why national security was harmed by the Times' disclosure that the Administration is eavesdropping without judicial oversight rather than with it.
In lieu of having to wade further into the Powerline justifications for law-breaking, I highly recommend these thorough and well-argued responses from Jukeboxgrad.
Jukeboxgrad is awesome! He forced John into an extremely defensive posture and to confront his lies. LOL!
ReplyDeleteThe whole reason why Powerline has no comments section is so they can avoid these sorts of challenges. But when they get humiliated as widely and publicly as you guys humiliated them, they have no choice! Keep after them!
As much as I'd like to say that they are irrelevant, they have influence. The Bush lovers worship them and mouth their arguments. They were fucking Blog of the Year by Time Magazine! The more you expoes them, the more you pop that whole disgusting balloon.
It's dirty work, but you've got to do it!
They are just all-out arguing now that Bush had to violate the law because (a) the law sucks or (b) he had this cool technology to use that the law didn't allow so fuck it, let's violate the law.
ReplyDeleteIt's one excuse after the next as to why the Presdient of the United States has the right to violate the law. Really. Do they not realize this is their argument?
GlennG:
ReplyDelete"One of the still-unanswered mysteries of the NSA scandal is why the Bush Administration needed to bypass a FISA court which has long been notorious for its rubber-stamping and permissive ways."
Have you considered that maybe it wasn't the FISA court that was being bypassed?
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050222-072936-1680r.htm
In a nutshell:
"...in June and July 2002 senior FBI officials acknowledged the truth of a number of Edmonds' allegations, including those against a co-worker, Melek Can Dickerson, who had worked for an organization that was the target of surveillance in a counter-intelligence probe until she joined the bureau in October 2001 -- and did not disclose the work on her application."
This is the FBI's Arabic language translation shop, mind you.
The organization most likely to be tasked with translating intercepted data for review in order to apply for a FISA warrant.
""According to congressional staffers, bureau officials also said that Dickerson had a continuing relationship with at least two individuals who were surveillance targets in the probe. They acknowledged that Dickerson had either mistranslated or incorrectly marked "not pertinent" hundreds of telephone conversations recorded as part of the investigation and had tried to ensure that she was given responsibility for translating all the "take" from surveillance of that group of targets."
Will you concede at least the reasonable possibility that in order to bypass a translation shop with known security risks, and with no other security-vetted translators available at short notice, would have entailed keeping the particulars of the surveillance from the FISA court?
Regards;
I was struck by Powerline's observation that it takes a long time to prepare an emergency warrant application. John Hindrocket cites the statute which lists eleven pieces of information that needs to be submitted to the court.
ReplyDeleteI just had to laugh. While the statute is verbose and full of legalese, the 11 items ranged from the incredibly simple (i.e., the identity of the target of the surveillance), to pure boilerplate (i.e., the legal authority for the requested surveillance).
In other words, the warrant application is shorter and less onerous than the typical college entrance application. Is Powerline seriously suggesting that government lawyers, working together, cannot complete an emergency warrant application in 72 hours?
As I read Powerline's attempts to make its case about how hard it is to complete an emergency warrant application, I recalled the legal battles relating to the 2000 election in Florida. There, teams of lawyers could (and did) generate appellate briefs of considerable length (50+ pages) in a day or two. And that involved legal research. Warrant applications merely involves recitation of allegations and suspicions.
I would love to hear from someone who has has experience completing a warrant application (either for the FISA court, or for another court with similar requirements). Is it as difficult and time-consuming as Powerline suggests?
I just had to laugh. While the statute is verbose and full of legalese, the 11 items ranged from the incredibly simple (i.e., the identity of the target of the surveillance), to pure boilerplate (i.e., the legal authority for the requested surveillance).
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying this for effect, but I honestly think that the reason that John sees the FISA process as being so cumbersome and challenging is because, for him, it would be. But for any basic office clerk, it is an exceptionally quick and easy document to prepare.
And if FISA is too hard to comply with, it should have been amended. The first time any of us heard any complaints about FISA is once George Bush got caught violating it.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThanks to you (and others) for the kind words.
"an avalanche of not-very-demure emails to Powerline demanding that it finally address itself to this rather glaring hole in its argument."
There's a mythology that the right-wing blogs are self-correcting: that they can't get away with blatant lies because their readers will check up on them, and this will lead to corrections being run. This episode proves that this is indeed a myth.
Power Line's readers apparently don't help Power Line to tell the truth; Power Line has to rely on the readers of C&L to help Power Line find its way back to something vaguely resembling integrity.
In the month of December, Power Line had 2.2 million unique visitors (uniquely apathetic regarding honesty, I guess).
Did those readers speak up as Power Line was being deceitful regarding the 72-hour rule? Of course we can't know. But we do know that the deceit continued for weeks (until C&L readers spoke up). Therefore there are only two possibilities: either Power Line readers complained and were ignored, or thousands of Power Line readers do not have enough collective awareness and/or integrity to notice and/or care when they're being tricked. Either way, we find little support for the premise that righty blogs are self-correcting.
By the way, it's important to note that the deceit continues; Power Line's recent post mentioning the 72-hour rule, while being sort of a step in the right direction, still does not embody an acknowledgement and correction of misinformation they had previously posted.
---
Bilgeman,
"with no other security-vetted translators available at short notice"
9/11 was more than four years ago. Is that what you call "short notice?" If our government doesn't have translators they trust, here's an idea about how to address that problem: get some new ones. Also, undoubtedly the FBI is not the only government agency with Arabic translators. I would assume there are such translators in NSA, CIA, DIA, etc.
This is like "the dog ate my homework."
This is like "the dog ate my homework."
ReplyDeleteFunny you should inadvertently mention "the dog," since he was flogging the Powerline "It's too hard to fill out paperwork" whiny baby excuse in the previous comment thread. If he shows up in this thread, I fully expect him to bring up the AUMF argument again. Or possibly that the NYT committed treason by revealing the existence of telephones. Anything other than the point addressed in the current post, even if it was previously debunked.
But at least bilgeman is here to offer reassurance about how effective the Bush administration is at protecting us all. Now, not only can they not fill out forms, they can't get translators either. What would Franklin have said about those who give up essential liberties without getting safety in return?
--mds
jukeboxgrad:
ReplyDelete"9/11 was more than four years ago. Is that what you call "short notice?" "
In fact. yes it is.
At one point, I spoke 2 foreign languages,(have since "lost my ear" from disuse)...and when I say that I spoke them, I don't mean that I knew the words, but that I also "thought" in that language. No "mental translation" required.
Each of those languages took me at least two years of being immersed in a foreign country...reading it, watching it on teevee, hearing it on the radio and spoken in the street...everyday.
Learning it that way, you also pick up slang terminology, local colloquialisms and an ear for accents...f'rinstance, Portuguese as spoken in Rio is not at all the same as Portuguese spoken in Lisbon...and it doesn't sound like the Portuguese spoken in Sao Paulo.
A high-school or college-taught speaker probably wouldn't catch the difference, but a native or long-term resident would. And that is just one facet of cultural competence. To a New Zealander, what significance would:
"Whassssssuuuuuuuup!?"
have?
To an American of the late 90's and early 00's, we know exactly what it means and from whence it came.
That is the kind of mastery necessary to correctly translate verbal intercepts.
You can't just crank that kind of expertise out in 4 years, and even if you could, immersing our people in Afghanistan. Iraq, and Western Pakistan over the period of time in question would have been somewhat problematic.
And let's not even consider how long the security vetting process takes...suffice to say that an FBI Full Field Investigation,(last I heard, it's par for the course for TSC and above), isn't something that gets wrapped up in a workweek.
"If our government doesn't have translators they trust, here's an idea about how to address that problem: get some new ones."
That seems to have been one of the problems with the shop in question, chummie.
I well recall that word went out that Uncle Sammy was paying Arab speakers starting at $40.00 an hour...they got the Sibel Edmonds, but they also apparently got a lot of scoundrels...or worse.
"Also, undoubtedly the FBI is not the only government agency with Arabic translators. I would assume there are such translators in NSA, CIA, DIA, etc."
As you admit, that is only your assumption. I would tend to think that it's wrong.
I mean, quite honestly, were you aware of the size of the job market for Urdu speakers OUTSIDE of CIA or State Department or the "Oil Patch" before 9/11? It wasn't much...if the NSA and NRO and every other Alphabet Soup Spook Shop had had need of corps of Pashto talkers, as well as Uzbek gabbers and Sudanese yakkers,all on hand and ready to spring to action, don't you think that those career paths would have been broader than they were?
Each agency might have a few translators organic to it, but for a job of work the size of what is at issue, their "speakee-staff" would be woefully inadequate.
CIA and DIA speakers would, in all probability, be wearing keffiyehs, burkahs, and chadors, and doing their "thang" overseas...(remember the big tiff over our lack of HumInt?...well,there's your HumInt!).
NSA and NRO are, reportedly, tech-type geeks...that's just the way the big Spook Bizness administrative cookie crumbled.
"This is like "the dog ate my homework." "
Hey, if you're not willing to keep an open mind to any other possibly valid reason, then I've little doubt that you will arrive at the destination that you favored from the git-go... and gin up whatever motivation that's convenient in order to get you there.
Regards;
Hey, if you're not willing to keep an open mind to any other possibly valid reason, then I've little doubt that you will arrive at the destination that you favored from the git-go
ReplyDeleteYou mean, of course, in contrast to the hard evidence you offer for all those virtually insurmountable obstacles in getting trustworthy foreign language translators. Clearly, the President had to break the law and allow the NSA to bypass FISA because the FBI translation wing is riddled with spies. And magically, this evidence-free hypothesis arrives at Bush being the hero, again. So yeah, I think we're still in "the dog ate my homework" territory. Next it will be aliens that only the President can see with his special glasses.
But I'm curious: how has the NSA been translating the wiretaps that ignored FISA? And why was flouting FISA the only way to gain access to reliable translators? I guess I missed that section of FISA that mandates use of security risks for translation. Seems to me that if that were the case, I'd try to get the FISA process changed legally. And I'm not even explicitly required by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
--mds
Anon mds:
ReplyDelete"You mean, of course, in contrast to the hard evidence you offer for all those virtually insurmountable obstacles in getting trustworthy foreign language translators."
Okay, sonny, let's see YOu conjure up 30 native or long-term "in-country" Urdu speakers and get them a TSC.
Let's go, bubba, you only have 72 hours to do so under your precious FISA law...make it happen...chop-chop!
"And magically, this evidence-free hypothesis arrives at Bush being the hero, again."
Sibel Edmonds' allegations, and the DOJ IG's report confirming her concerns can hardly be HONESTLY categorized as "evidence-free".
Likewise, the conviction of Lynne Stewart is now case law. It is a proven fact that Stewart, an officer of the court, and admitted to practice at the Federal Bar, was an agent for Islamist terrorists.
(But claiming "no evidence" makes you look bold, doesn't it?...just so long as you can make Bush the villain, right?).
I still haven't heard from your crew a reasonable conjecture of WHY Bush and the NSA would circumvent FISA.
Do y'all think he woke up one day and said:
"Fuck FISA...Ah'm going to break their stoopid law because Ah'm THE MAN!"?
Hey, maybe he did...but then if that were the case, why did he go and brief the Congressional Intelligence Committees about it?
Do you think that he reckoned his political enemies wouldn't use it against him?
"But I'm curious: how has the NSA been translating the wiretaps that ignored FISA?"
That's a fair question, and frankly, I don't have an answer for it. I can guess that they did come up with another, more trustworthy source, but that's only a guess.
I don't think that the distinguished members of the FISA court were all cramming Berlitz courses...do you?
Keep in mind that this security risk scenario is only a conjecture. Since I'm not Bush NOR the head of the NSA, I don't have all the answers.
And in keeping with the question of Bush's motivation that I asked above, to me there's three ways that I can think of to cause Bush to order warrantless intercepts:
1) He really believes that he was conducting foreign intelligence, which is spcifically exempted from FISA. He briefed the Intel committess, as I pointed before, and no one said "boo!".
and/or:
2) He really believes that the AUMF enabled him to exercise his Constitutional War Powers, and that the domestic targets would be "unlawful enemy combatants" such as found under Ex Parte Quirin. Again, he briefed the Intel committees, and not one shrieked "Watergate!"
and/or:
3) There was a turd, or a few of 'em, in our stewpot, and the raw data was deemed too vital to national security to be passed up, and too sensitive to risk its' exposure.
Presently, I'm exploring the latter angle.
Any one of those reasons above is sure as shootin' a lot more believable than to believe that Bush just deliberately decided to break the law...even less so with the memory of Clinton's impeachment still echoing around town.
Not to mention Nixon...
Can you step up to the plate and cough up a more reasonable motivation?
Y'all have been pretty nebulous when it comes to explaining "why".
Regards;
Anon mds:
ReplyDeleteOne other thing occurs.
If these warrantless intercepts were so egregious and earth-shattering, then I s'pose it's only natural that that unclean nest of rabid neo-cons and hardcore Bush cultists at the New York Times would sit on the story for an entire year, right?
All of the public outrage dates from the publication of the article, none from before.
Hmmmm.
Smells like politics to me.
Regards;
Bilgeman,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you didn't notice that Bush has been trying to break down the "wall" between intelligence agencies (like NSA) and law enforcement (like FBI), so that the FBI could be more involved, not less involved, in chasing terrorists. But now you bring forth a convoluted explanation for why Bush had to violate FISA because the FBI can't be trusted. Sorry, this is making my head spin. Why is Bush trying to break down the "wall" if the FBI can't be trusted?
Wait a minute, I thought it was the CIA that was full of traitors, trying to stab Bush in the back. And now the FBI is riddled with enemies. Are you telling us that Bush has done such a rotten job running things that now the NSA is the only security agency we can trust?
"All of the public outrage dates from the publication of the article, none from before. Hmmmm. Smells like politics to me."
Bush knew about the leak a year ago. If the leak was a big deal, why didn't he ask DOJ to investigate it then? Hmm, sounds like politics to me.
"He really believes that he was conducting foreign intelligence, which is spcifically exempted from FISA"
Einstein, it's called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" because it regulates the collection of "Foreign Intelligence" (inside the US). In other words, foreign intelligence is not "exempted from FISA." Foreign intelligence is what FISA is all about.
"He really believes that the AUMF enabled him to exercise his Constitutional War Powers"
Then I guess his DOJ committed perjury when telling the Senate on 9/10/02 that "we cannot monitor anyone today whom we could not have monitored at this time last year." That sworn statement is at odds with the idea that AUMF gave Bush the authority to push aside FISA. By the way, FISA has specific provisions for what rules should be followed during wartime, which is further proof that Congress did not intend AUMF to supercede FISA.
Jukebox:
ReplyDeleteHuh, you're a "Big Swingin' Dick" 'round this moonbat pasture, and even you ducked the challenge I posed to Anon mds:
"Can you step up to the plate and cough up a more reasonable motivation?
Y'all have been pretty nebulous when it comes to explaining "why"."
Nope, no light from your particular beacon...I guess we keep ringing the bell and just accept that Bush just woke up one day and decided to break FISA law.
From that initial dishonesty, the suspension of disbelief, all the rest flows...
Although you didn't balk at commenting on other parts of my post...and I can hear the cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoon music soundtrack that always seems to accompany a moonbats' "BDS Conniption-Fit":
"But now you bring forth a convoluted explanation for why Bush had to violate FISA because the FBI can't be trusted. Sorry, this is making my head spin."
It's not that convoluted a conjecture,in favt, it's fairly straightforward.
In fact, you nailed the entire point of my conjecture in your very next sentence:
"Why is Bush trying to break down the "wall" if the FBI can't be trusted?"
YES! EXACTLY! The FBI cannot be trusted...and now,(you'd better sit down)...it's BECAUSE the FBI can NOT be trusted that he decided NOT to "break down the 'wall'.
Have you got it yet?
Isolating the FISA court was a necessary outcome of isolating the FBI.
Here wo go...follow along, now, Socrates:
1) Credible allegations, later confirmed, are made concerning security risks in the FBI's Arab translation shop in 2002:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds.htm
And:
2) According to your precious and sacrosanct FISA,which you wilfully misrepresent in the most pathetically laughable manner:("foreign intelligence 'inside the US'? what a hoot!); any foreign intelligence gathered that may be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution MUST be entrusted to the FBI's paws in order to brief the relevant US Attorney prosecuting the case.(thanks for the link you posted, it's the source of this.):
"The FISC accepted in full the Department’s standards governing information-sharing. Under those standards, the FBI must keep prosecutors informed of "all information" that is "necessary to the ability of the United States to investigate or protect against foreign attack, sabotage, terrorism, and clandestine intelligence activities." Thus, absent special limits imposed in particular cases, intelligence officials may share a full range of information with their law enforcement counterparts, including federal prosecutors."
(Aside from opening and closing quotes, all punctuation was copied exactly from your link)
Hmmm, special limits huh? And the wording is "may".
Now why d'you think those caveats were included?
So that Spook Central doesn't have to keep feeding the spies that work in G-Man World Headquarters, perhaps?
But no, you can't see that...it's too "convoluted" for ya, huh?
You'd just rather keep bleating against Bush and never, ever accept the fact that you are effectively insisting that we make of our Constitution a suicide pact.
You could always step up to the plate and try to provide a reasonable guess as to WHY the FISA court would be deliberately dissed by the Administration.
Preferably not by claiming that Bush is Hitler, or Nixon reborn or the usual Lefty crapola.
A simple conjecture about what benefit that they might have thought would accrue from such an action, would be EVER so informative...
Regards;
bilge,
ReplyDelete"Big Swingin' Dick"
It would be better if you could figure out how to express yourself without mentioning parts of my body.
"Can you step up to the plate and cough up a more reasonable motivation"
I prefer to deal with facts, rather then speculation, but since you've asked for speculation, I'll give you some. The following possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Bush likes breaking rules, even when he doesn't have to (this goes back a long way). Bush also thinks it's OK to use the federal government as a tool for political intimidation, in a variety of ways.
The Bushists have essentially been saying for a long time that anyone who opposes Bush is helping terrorists. Therefore, it makes sense that when Bush says he is spying on people who are helping terrorists, that this would include people who simply oppose Bush.
Bush also had good reason to think he could get away with it. After all, the NYT covered for him for a year.
"Y'all have been pretty nebulous when it comes to explaining 'why'. "
It's not our job to explain why he did it. It's up to him to explain why he did it. The explanations he's offered so far only make sense if one pretends the 72-hour rule doesn't exist. That's why his chorus has been working overtime to convince people that the 72-hour rule doesn't exist. Trouble is, it does exist.
"it's BECAUSE the FBI can NOT be trusted that he decided NOT to 'break down the 'wall'. "
You must be saying that Bush is behind the Democratic plot to modify the Patriot Act, since it's been widely accepted the Patriot Act broke down the "wall" (or at least took large steps in that direction). This is what Rich Lowry wrote on 4/20/04: "Bush's alleged election-year gambit is calling for the renewal of roughly a dozen provisions that will expire at the end of 2005, including those that tore down 'the wall.' "
I already knew Lowry was all wet, but it's nice to know that you think so too.
If you can offer anything to back up your bizarre claim that Bush "decided NOT to 'break down the 'wall,' " that would be helpful.
"Have you got it yet?"
No, which is why I'm asking you if you can offer any facts to back up your lurid fantasies.
"any foreign intelligence gathered that may be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution MUST be entrusted to the FBI's paws"
It's pretty clear that for the most part, intelligence Bush is gathering is not being used for "criminal prosecution." By the way, have you noticed that there has hardly been any "criminal prosection?" In other words, Bush is free to chase bad guys and lock them up, and he doesn't have to get the FBI involved if he doesn't want to. Informing the FISA court does not require informing the FBI.
"intelligence officials may share a full range of information with their law enforcement counterparts"
The key word in that sentence is "may." They can, if they want to. They don't have to. In other words, no one is forcing NSA to hand over information to the traitors at the FBI, and there is no need to bypass FISA in order to keep information away from the traitors at the FBI. Your cockamamie theory doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, in other words.
By the way, even if FISA was forcing the president to give critical data to traitors at the FBI (and it wasn't), the proper to solution is not to break the law. The proper solution is to get the traitors out of the FBI. If you're claiming that Bush can't figure out how to do this, then it's hard to imagine why you think he's in a position to keep us safe.
Also, If your claim is that it it takes more than four years to find trustworthy people who speak Arabic, then there's no point snooping on hundreds of people. If you're correct, then we're not in a position to understand what they're saying.
jukeboxgrad;
ReplyDelete"I prefer to deal with facts, rather then speculation, but since you've asked for speculation, I'll give you some. The following possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Bush likes breaking rules, even when he doesn't have to"
That's it? That's the best that you can come up with?
Bush committed a foul in a college rugby game, and that's proof that he rides roughshod over the Constitution, huh?
Did you read your links, btw?
I found these stsements interesting:
"Judging by the similar plight of dozens of other passengers, including children, it would seem that the TSA compilers of the no-fly watch list are equally clueless."-from:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/3571064.html
The Houston Chronicle faults the TSA, not Bush, but YOU see fit that this is "political intimidation" by Bush...of children and of a GOP senator, eh?
You also offered this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802501_pf.html
...which yielded this copy:
"In the 1980s and '90s, when the IRS investigated the ministries of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart, it was accused by conservatives of targeting the Christian right"
I guess it was okey-dokey when it was Clinton's IRS doing it, huh?
But in fact, the article went on to say:
"Under federal law, religious groups and other nonprofit charitable organizations that qualify for tax exemptions under Section 501(c)3 of the tax code may not "intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." If the IRS determines that a charity has intervened in an election, it can remove the group's tax exemption, though it has seldom done so.
Everson said that after the 2004 elections, the IRS received 170 allegations from the public of improper political activity by 501(c)3 organizations. He said a panel of three IRS career civil servants reviewed the complaints and launched inquiries into 132 organizations, including about 60 churches. More than half of the inquiries have been completed, thus far without penalties, he said."
It seems, that the IRS indeed IS being used as a political weapon, but not by President Bush, but rather by us...the citizenry.
I will recommend to you that if the idea of the IRS investigating churches for their alleged political activities offends you, you are pointing your accusatory finger 180 degrees off the mark, chum.
You gave us:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/dailyUpdate.html
The crux of the article being:
"NBC News reported earlier this week that it had obtained a secret US Department of Defense document that shows the department is now monitoring "peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups." "
To which I respond:
So what? When you enter the political arena, either pro or con any given issue, it means that you are "standing up to be counted".
That counting is not the exclusive province of the side of the issue that YOU favor.
Back in the '90's I had a LOT to say about the militia phenomenon. The fact that I posted in favor of not demonizing them, and indeed of benign official engagement and utilization of the groups meant that I prolly was filed in an FBI database somewhere...and I accepted this.
Of this particular issue, I'd opine that the DoD monitoring groups that oppose the war and that oppose the military, this being a time of something like war, is not on;y entirely proper, but also prudent.
But, as I said, that's the best explanation of WHY Bush would break FISA law that you could come up with?
That's so lame that even you tacitly admit it:
"It's not our job to explain why he did it. It's up to him to explain why he did it."
And there goes the "Presumption of Innocence"...
(Where's that concern for the Constitution NOW?)
"It's pretty clear that for the most part, intelligence Bush is gathering is not being used for "criminal prosecution.""
So, what's your problem with it again?
"By the way, have you noticed that there has hardly been any "criminal prosection?""
Yes I had, and I've asked several folks on your side of this tiff if they had noticed that as well...nice to see that at least one of y'all was also aware of this.
So, what's your problem with it, again?
"The key word in that sentence is "may." They can, if they want to. They don't have to."
The key word...yes,I seem to recall that I pointed that out to you in my last post...congratulations on your monumental discovery of the word."
"They can, if they want to. They don't have to."
And you even managed to divine the implication of the language!
Let's replay that statement of yours.
"They can, if they want to. They don't have to."
And apparently, they didn't want to...and it was perfectly LEGAL for them to so decide.
Which means...
NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED HERE.
Thanks, ace.
You're a card!
Regards;