<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Message For The Civil Liberty Hysterics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/</link>
	<description>Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:24:34 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Molby</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59357</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Molby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59357</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials,”&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;your own link would explain that…

“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Of course. I didn&#039;t mean to imply that we should know all the statistics about such a program. I was merely trying to refute that the implication that the number of cases that &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; brought before FISA courts is in any way relevant to the number of cases that &lt;em&gt;aren&#039;t&lt;/em&gt;.

&lt;blockquote&gt;“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials,”

He wasn’t exactly being all inclusive either.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Huh? That phrase is so broad as to include virtually everyone in Washington.

Look, it comes down to this: The press has been using the phrase &quot;warrantless eavesdropping&quot; constantly for over a year now.

Find me one instance of the administration specifically refuting this allegation and I will reconsider the inference that I draw from their frequent vagueness on the subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials,”</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>your own link would explain that…</p>
<p>“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security.</p></blockquote>
<p>Of course. I didn&#8217;t mean to imply that we should know all the statistics about such a program. I was merely trying to refute that the implication that the number of cases that <em>are</em> brought before FISA courts is in any way relevant to the number of cases that <em>aren&#8217;t</em>.</p>
<blockquote><p>“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials,”</p>
<p>He wasn’t exactly being all inclusive either.</p></blockquote>
<p>Huh? That phrase is so broad as to include virtually everyone in Washington.</p>
<p>Look, it comes down to this: The press has been using the phrase &#8220;warrantless eavesdropping&#8221; constantly for over a year now.</p>
<p>Find me one instance of the administration specifically refuting this allegation and I will reconsider the inference that I draw from their frequent vagueness on the subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59356</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59356</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;What hasn’t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.&lt;/i&gt;

your own link would explain that...

&quot;This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. &lt;b&gt;Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.&lt;/b&gt; Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.


&lt;i&gt;Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.&lt;/i&gt;

&quot;The review &lt;b&gt;includes&lt;/b&gt; approval by our nation&#039;s top legal officials,&quot;

He wasn&#039;t exactly being all inclusive either.

The fact is, Bush is the most monitored person in the world. Everything he does and says and everywhere he goes, is recorded.

There are enough liberals, socialists/marxists in government to keep their people informed of all of the above.

There are enough agencies, courts, committees and legal institutions to oversee what needs to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>What hasn’t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.</i></p>
<p>your own link would explain that&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. <b>Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.</b> Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.</p>
<p><i>Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.</i></p>
<p>&#8220;The review <b>includes</b> approval by our nation&#8217;s top legal officials,&#8221;</p>
<p>He wasn&#8217;t exactly being all inclusive either.</p>
<p>The fact is, Bush is the most monitored person in the world. Everything he does and says and everywhere he goes, is recorded.</p>
<p>There are enough liberals, socialists/marxists in government to keep their people informed of all of the above.</p>
<p>There are enough agencies, courts, committees and legal institutions to oversee what needs to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Molby</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59355</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Molby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59355</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;It is not sidestepped at all.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I didn&#039;t say it was being ignored altogether. I am aware that over 2000  warrants were applied for and issued in 2005. 1700+ in 2004. Etc. Etc.

What hasn&#039;t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.

On that off chance that you&#039;re unfamiliar with the program, here is a pretty thorough review of what we do know:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html

You despise the ACLU, so no doubt you&#039;re willing to dismiss everything they say. That&#039;s fine, read the President&#039;s words:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

Of course, he&#039;s not stupid enough to say &quot;heck no, we&#039;re not bothering with warrants.&quot;, but it&#039;s easy to see what he left out. He spends a couple paragraphs at the end talking about all of the people who regularly reviewed the program.  Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>It is not sidestepped at all.<br />
<a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p>I didn&#8217;t say it was being ignored altogether. I am aware that over 2000  warrants were applied for and issued in 2005. 1700+ in 2004. Etc. Etc.</p>
<p>What hasn&#8217;t been released is a count of the warrantless eavesdropping that has occurred since 2002.</p>
<p>On that off chance that you&#8217;re unfamiliar with the program, here is a pretty thorough review of what we do know:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html</a></p>
<p>You despise the ACLU, so no doubt you&#8217;re willing to dismiss everything they say. That&#8217;s fine, read the President&#8217;s words:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html</a></p>
<p>Of course, he&#8217;s not stupid enough to say &#8220;heck no, we&#8217;re not bothering with warrants.&#8221;, but it&#8217;s easy to see what he left out. He spends a couple paragraphs at the end talking about all of the people who regularly reviewed the program.  Most of those people report to him. None of those people are judges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59354</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59354</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The only that qualifies as judiciary is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.&lt;/i&gt;

It is not sidestepped at all.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

What Bush took exception to, were acouple FISA Judges that took it upon themselves to divulge classified and court documents. They have both, since resigned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The only that qualifies as judiciary is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.</i></p>
<p>It is not sidestepped at all.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html</a></p>
<p>What Bush took exception to, were acouple FISA Judges that took it upon themselves to divulge classified and court documents. They have both, since resigned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Molby</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59353</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Molby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59353</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yeah. Their job is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants. If the NSA never requests a warrant from FISC, there&#039;s never a denial for FISCR to review. As I said, if this process was being used, most of my concerns would go away.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Senate Judiciary committee&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yeah, it&#039;s composed of senators. Their job may be to focus on judicial issues, but they&#039;re still just senators and this still only have the power to hold hearings and  recommend legislation.

&lt;blockquote&gt;In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress....The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yeah, he&#039;s a member of the administration. If his report said anything other than the administration&#039;s official position, he would find himself unemployed in short order. Besides, he probably signed off on most or all of the programs.

&lt;blockquote&gt;You asked for “judiciary” I gave you both, and they are working together with the Executive branch.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
The only that qualifies as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answers.com/judiciary&#38;#38;r=67&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;judiciary&lt;/a&gt; is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah. Their job is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants. If the NSA never requests a warrant from FISC, there&#8217;s never a denial for FISCR to review. As I said, if this process was being used, most of my concerns would go away.</p>
<blockquote><p>Senate Judiciary committee</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, it&#8217;s composed of senators. Their job may be to focus on judicial issues, but they&#8217;re still just senators and this still only have the power to hold hearings and  recommend legislation.</p>
<blockquote><p>In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress&#8230;.The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, he&#8217;s a member of the administration. If his report said anything other than the administration&#8217;s official position, he would find himself unemployed in short order. Besides, he probably signed off on most or all of the programs.</p>
<blockquote><p>You asked for “judiciary” I gave you both, and they are working together with the Executive branch.</p></blockquote>
<p>The only that qualifies as <a href="http://www.answers.com/judiciary&#38;#38;#38;r=67" rel="nofollow">judiciary</a> is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and it is being sidestepped.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59352</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59352</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can’t do much more than hold hearings and recommend legislation.&lt;/i&gt;

Let&#039;s try this again...The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance &lt;b&gt;Court of Review&lt;/b&gt;

Senate &lt;b&gt;Judiciary&lt;/b&gt; committee

In April of each year, the &lt;b&gt;Attorney General&lt;/b&gt; transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the &lt;b&gt;United States Court&lt;/b&gt; and to Congress.

The &lt;b&gt;Attorney General&lt;/b&gt; reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.

You asked for &quot;judiciary&quot; I gave you both, and they are working together with the Executive branch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can’t do much more than hold hearings and recommend legislation.</i></p>
<p>Let&#8217;s try this again&#8230;The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance <b>Court of Review</b></p>
<p>Senate <b>Judiciary</b> committee</p>
<p>In April of each year, the <b>Attorney General</b> transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the <b>United States Court</b> and to Congress.</p>
<p>The <b>Attorney General</b> reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.</p>
<p>You asked for &#8220;judiciary&#8221; I gave you both, and they are working together with the Executive branch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Molby</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59351</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Molby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59351</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review&lt;/blockquote&gt;

FISA is a wonderful bit of legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is of the opinion that his programs don&#039;t fall under FISA, so that court doesn&#039;t even get to weigh in. If he changed his position on this, most of my concerns would go away.

The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can&#039;t do much more than hold hearings and  recommend legislation. I suppose congress could pass a bill that says &quot;You don&#039;t have probable cause to eavesdrop on Joe Sixpack. Leave him alone.&quot; but this is so monumentally unlikely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review</p></blockquote>
<p>FISA is a wonderful bit of legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is of the opinion that his programs don&#8217;t fall under FISA, so that court doesn&#8217;t even get to weigh in. If he changed his position on this, most of my concerns would go away.</p>
<p>The committees, on the other hand, are legislative bodies that can&#8217;t do much more than hold hearings and  recommend legislation. I suppose congress could pass a bill that says &#8220;You don&#8217;t have probable cause to eavesdrop on Joe Sixpack. Leave him alone.&#8221; but this is so monumentally unlikely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59350</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59350</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Those would be legislative bodies and, while they do perform some meaningful oversight, I don’t believe the have the authority to satisfy my condition.&lt;/i&gt;

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review

Senate Judiciary committee

In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress.

The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Those would be legislative bodies and, while they do perform some meaningful oversight, I don’t believe the have the authority to satisfy my condition.</i></p>
<p>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review</p>
<p>Senate Judiciary committee</p>
<p>In April of each year, the Attorney General transmits a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress.</p>
<p>The Attorney General reports to the Congressional Committees(the two I mentioned above), Congressional Committees report to congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blue Crab Boulevard</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59349</link>
		<dc:creator>Blue Crab Boulevard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59349</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;About That NSA Program&lt;/strong&gt;


Rick Moran is in full rant mode. For good reason. It appears that the much maligned NSA &#38;#34;warrantless wiretapping&#38;#34; program is nothing - nothing at all - like what the left has painted it. In fact, there are very significant safeguard...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>About That NSA Program</strong></p>
<p>Rick Moran is in full rant mode. For good reason. It appears that the much maligned NSA &#38;#38;#34;warrantless wiretapping&#38;#38;#34; program is nothing &#8211; nothing at all &#8211; like what the left has painted it. In fact, there are very significant safeguard&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Ross @ Journal</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/comment-page-1/#comment-59348</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Ross @ Journal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/29/a-message-for-the-civil-liberty-hysterics/#comment-59348</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Don&#039;t hold your breath&lt;/strong&gt;

Don&#039;t hold your breath waiting for...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Don&#8217;t hold your breath</strong></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t hold your breath waiting for&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
