Under FISA, surveillance is generally permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power — not whether criminality is in any way involved. So once the bad guys are identified–which the pattern id program presumable does–they can be tapped by obtaining a FISA “warrant” (and that retroactively if need be) on the basis of the pattern info alone.

pompous

or a

publicity whore

I would characterize him as brilliant, brave, and torn.

He is a socialist at heart, and therefore, heartbroken that socialism doesn’t work, because he hates the alternatives.

He is an atheist at heart, and therefore casts his spears at the enemy he fears – any church. IMHO such fear of this enemy is often rooted in inner desires to believe in God, and the resultant self hatred and confusion

He is libertarian at heart and rejects the invasions of privacy needed to successfully win a war against an enemy who does not fight by the same rules. Libertarians have a lot of the sink the ship to save the anchor syndrome.

He has the confidence of his own intelligence to take on and debate the buffoons and scoundrels of the collectivist left. As unpleasant a task as could be. Perhaps his drink erases caution. Perhaps the task drives him to drink. For a drinker, this is not all bad. But I cheer whenever he slices these people down to the midgets they are.

He is brave. He would hate my faith. But I would welcome him to join my army any day. Really, I love the guy

You get it retroactively, up to 72 hours after the fact, which Dick Morris bloody well knows.

I am surprised no one else said that quicker… but you’re missing the point, these aren’t something that they need to focus on at specific instances.. I already explained this… one of two parties on the phone is overseas and one is here… one of the two is a suspected terrorist or has ties… There is no specific act that warrants a….. warrant… By that time it may be too late. The information obtained via pattern identification in this program will get what the NSA needs to get specific warrants…. I’m delerious right now, needing to go to bed and already lost my train of though… just try to build off of what I began to say, and hopefully you can make sense of it… I was trying to go to bed about 2 hours ago… later

He is a true publicity whore.

re: warrantless wiretapping.. I think Dick Morris put it best recently… how do you get ask for a warrant when you don’t know what you’re looking for? You cast a net out there on calls that have one talker in the US and one outside, where at least one of the two has suspected terror ties… When patterns are seen, a warrant is sought.

RightWinged on August 27, 2006 at 9:49 PM

You get it retroactively, up to 72 hours after the fact, which Dick Morris bloody well knows.

Dick Morris?

Good grief, talk about a bottom feeder.

I don’t understand why Maher was so eager to play the anti-Bush card when he just wrote a Huffpo piece about how Bush is doing the right thing in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict. Even if he generally dislikes/hates Bush, he should know full well that the Iranians are in a nutso league of their own.

Squid Vicious on August 26, 2006 at 6:15 PM

What’s not to understand? That someone isn’t in lockstep: Bush is wonderful or Bush is terrible? God this is depressing.

Channelling someone with severe BDS:

GALLOWAY!!!! I!!! HATE!!! HIM!!!! MICHAEL MOORE!!! LIED!!! ALL THROUGH FAHRENFAKE 451!!!!! BILL MAHER!!!! FACIST!!! WHAT’S NEXT????? CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!! IT’S ON THE WAY!!! WAKE!!! UP!!!! AMERIKKA!!!

By the way, I’m starting a business that will replace the Caps Lock and exclamation point keys. Should make a killing over the next few months.

Gottafang on August 26, 2006 at 5:25 PM

LOL

I’m willing to put some bucks into your campaign to ban excess punctuation.

Look, to compare American to murdering facists some people stand up to be counted, Hitchens, flawed as we all are, did hi part

I cannot stand Bill Maher.

He hand picks his audience for liberals and then uses the audience against any conservative that makes the mistake of appearing on his show.

They all are treated to a patronizing signature Maher diatribe then the audience jumps on the bandwagon on cue, and boos the conservative.

I get so mad that I too flip off short man syndrome Maher.

I applaud Hitchens for having the balls to let the audience have it, only I wish he had told Maher the same thing.

Would you prefer that? I certainly wouldn’t. And if this is such a horrific abuse of rights, I’d love for anyone to please direct us to a victim of this abuse. Show be a violated person, please!

As for Hitchens involvement in the NSA suit, he’s talking out of his ass here in a piece that, oddly enough, also turns up here.

This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.

Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of “national security” however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.

If anyone can look at their side of that argument and not come away with eyes rolling, I’d like to hear about it. Hitchens is certainly bright enough to know better.

That said, Malcontent has more of the Hitchens/Maher vid. It’s great fun to watch. (Via Ace)

As presidents Lincoln, FDR, Truman, IKE, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, CARTER, Reagan, CLINTON used executive powers for “eavesdropping” using the technology of their period I do not see how it is unconstitutional and without precedent. Where was your “concern” then?

I just can’t be happy about one of the plaintiffs trying to take down the NSA wiretapping program.

The warrantless wiretapping program? The one where conversations of Americans were listened to without a court being consulted — even after the fact as is permissible through FISA? The one that blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment? The one that the Bush Administration has admitted is illegal, but contends it can keep running regardless?

If you’re going to support it, at least call it like it is. Libertarians aren’t against wiretapping when it is legal and doesn’t violate the Constitution or the Separation of Powers doctrine. It’s warrantless wiretapping that is the issue… the government listening in to any call they like without judicial accountability. You may trust the Bush administration, but some of us want something more than “it’s okay, we’re violating the law to make you safer… we won’t abuse it, we promise.” It’s not American to trust our elected citizens with unchecked power over us.

RightWinged: Entelechy is right, in my opinion. Once I have introdcued myself to someone and they apply a contraction of my proper name without my permission, I make it quite clear that is not my name and I would appreciate their not assuming the right to call me by any other name.

I agree if the person makes it clear that they prefer to only be called their full name and nothing else. But during a debate Kilmeade was jumping back and forth to the guests and said “Chris let me get your take on that”… He didn’t just say “you know, I’d prefer to be called Christopher” he made some snobby little remark like “first of all my name is not Chris, is Christopher…” You may still think that’s justified, but I think it’s being a whiner. You can search “Chris Hitchens” and get tens of thousands of results because most people in the US named Christopher go by Chris so we naturally call him that… David=Dave, Johnathan = John, Michael = Mike… 99% of the time no one would even care, and most of the other 1% would either ignore it if it wasn’t someone they were going to have to deal with on a daily basis or just politely say “I prefer to be called…”

I guess maybe I just don’t get it. I like to be called Randy, but my name is actually Randall so I’m the opposite… except when people call me Randall I don’t care.

I can’t really describe the way he said it without you seeing it, but I just remember being shocked and thinking “what a prick”, because it came off like he was doing it out of anger over being pressed heavily on his role in knocking the legs out from under the NSA program. The debate got heated and he seemed to throw that in there in a pissy way rather than just make his point. Does anyone think Brian Kilmeade was deliberately calling him “Chris” to offend him? I just think the attitude was uncalled for. I could see if he was a regular guest and had repeatedly asked to be called Christopher, but come on.

RightWinged, no matter how one feels about C. Hitchens, he has forever clarified that he is “Christopher” and not Chris.

Regardless of views, I believe he is, like all the rest of us are, entitled to be called whatever he prefers (in his case his given name). Sincerely,

True entelechy, but if someone calls me by the wrong name, I’m not an a-hole about it. Hitchens was.

As for all this Hitchens is brilliant stuff from everyone else… I’m sorry, but I just can’t be happy about one of the plaintiffs trying to take down the NSA wiretapping program.

Maher is an egotistical, no-talented comedian who I believe once claimed to be a Libertarian.

But he’s just an idiot.

Regardless of views, I believe he is, like all the rest of us are, entitled to be called whatever he prefers (in his case his given name). Sincerely,

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23485res20060116.html