Your entire argument rests on a blatant fallacy. A false dichotomy, to be specific. Even more specifically, you presume our choices are “do what W did” and “do nothing”.

Your doublethink is very impressive, because you even went on to refer to the missing third option: Do what Clinton (and every other administration of the past few decades) did: USE FISA!

It’s such a simple process. FISA hands out warrants like they’re candy. You can even get them retroactively, no problem. BTW, the administration changed its course and has been using FISA for more than 6 months now. Guess what? We’re all still alive.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060321/21oregon.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Your four points were actually taken apart in the opinion and what you have done in your analysis is confirm what Judge Batchelder saw as one of the huge problems with these particular plaintiffs claimed. Read the excerpts from the opinion I provided in the post.

Sorry, I forgot to come back to this one. I’m not sure which words are Batchelder’s, but I’ll assume it’s your second-to-last excerpt.

Again, the ruling comes down to “standing”. Personally, I think the plaintiffs made a mistake by not “alleg[ing] personal fear of our government.” The government has already shown a willingness to declare legal residents to be “enemy combatants”, so if I were the domestic party to such a phone call, I would be very worried that I might be accused of “providing material support” to the other party.

Your four “logical possibilities” have nothing to do with what I was arguing — that the conduct of the PLAINTIFFS, not the NSA, raised reasonable suspicions.

Yes, they do. The actions of the plaintiffs are dependent upon their understanding of the NSA’s actions. You stated that they admitted they are “cozy with some jihadis” by believing “they were good candidates for communication interception”. That could only be true if you believed #1 or #2. #3 and #4 show that a person can be a “good candidate” without actually being “cozy with some jihadis”.

Wow. For someone who prides himself in the use of precise language and holds others to account when they make assumptions not explicit in the text, this certainly is a leap. Where did I say that Jeff? I wrote about these plaintiffs specifically.

I was generalizing for a third-party, but you’re right; I was being uncharacteristically and inappropriately nonspecific. I’ll happily retract and restate.

I just had to refute [your] ridiculous implication these individuals must be ‘cozy with jihadis’ if they fear the government is likely to watch them.

I despise federal government power and intrusion and DO NOT trust the Bush Administration about much any more, but this program (immediately intercepting OVERSEAS communications to/from suspected terrorists into/out of the US) seems so reasonable

I agree with all but two words of your statement: “suspected terrorists”. You’re willing to let the executive be the sole arbiter of who’s a “suspected terrorist”. Since “suspected terrorist” can turn into “illegal enemy combatant, subject to indefinite detainment” with a stroke of the pen, I don’t think I’m being unreasonable by asking for just a little judicial oversight. And it really is just a little judicial oversight. FISA has historically handed out warrants like they’re candy, so I can’t imagine the burden of proof is very high there.

I have to wonder what anyone who didn’t chat with jihadis would be worried about.

I have absolutely no respect for the “If you have nothing to hide…” argument. I don’t remember the last time I called anyone in Canada (I’m only 20 miles from the border), let alone overseas, yet I most definitely care about the principles and precedents related to this program.

we should address why the plaintiffs think it is absolutely vital that they be allowed to speak with terror suspects

I disagree. I think that statement shows a callous disregard for the first ammendment.

This is NOT a ruling about unchecked executive power, but a ruling saying that unaggrieved parties can’t just waltz into court whenever they get a wild hair to dismantle programs that may be a vital element in protecting the American people against easily foiled terror plots.

Your spin aside, I know this ruling was about “standing”, not the merits of the case. In fact, I said so in comment #8, paragraph 4.

The judges had access to classified information on the program and determined it sufficient to invoke “state secrets.” It probably should end here.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Jay. Where do you draw the line on executive power? Describe a “national security” program that you think we be outside of the president’s authority, assuming he hasn’t received an explicit approval from congress. Furthermore, how would you fight such a program assuming that the “state secrets” privilege is sufficient to quash legal arguments?

Your four “logical possibilities” have nothing to do with what I was arguing — that the conduct of the PLAINTIFFS, not the NSA, raised reasonable suspicions.

Your four points were actually taken apart in the opinion and what you have done in your analysis is confirm what Judge Batchelder saw as one of the huge problems with these particular plaintiffs claimed. Read the excerpts from the opinion I provided in the post.

“I just had to refute Glib’s ridiculous implication the government only watches the “bad guys”.

Wow. For someone who prides himself in the use of precise language and holds others to account when they make assumptions not explicit in the text, this certainly is a leap. Where did I say that Jeff? I wrote about these plaintiffs specifically. I despise federal government power and intrusion and DO NOT trust the Bush Administration about much any more, but this program (immediately intercepting OVERSEAS communications to/from suspected terrorists into/out of the US) seems so reasonable that I have to wonder what anyone who didn’t chat with jihadis would be worried about. If this program were expanded beyond that, then we can have a conversation, but before that, we should address why the plaintiffs think it is absolutely vital that they be allowed to speak with terror suspects (From the ACLU’s original complaint: “talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy”) for the conduct of their business.

“It can’t end like this, though. This would create an incredible precedent that the executive branch can do anything it damn well pleases as long as it can paint all relevant evidence as a “state secret.”

This is NOT a ruling about unchecked executive power, but a ruling saying that unaggrieved parties can’t just waltz into court whenever they get a wild hair to dismantle programs that may be a vital element in protecting the American people against easily foiled terror plots. The judges had access to classified information on the program and determined it sufficient to invoke “state secrets.” It probably should end here.

Seriously though, what conservatives object to is the whole notion that this is unchecked executive power. I’m sure you’ll
find this didn’t happen in a void, that it was vetted through a process, in secret, that included members of congress from
both parties.

Ok, let’s examine that.

The constitution outlines just one process for “vetting” government programs. There was no specific legislation authorizing this program, so it’s fair to say that the standard checks and balances didn’t apply.

The administration argues that the AUMF is all the authorization they need. Now, they believe the AUMF also authorizes things like the permanent detention (without due process) of legal residents who were nowhere near anything that could remotely be considered a battlefield, so it’s fair to say they have a pretty broad interpretation that piece of legislation. If they’re correct, that would amount to a lot of “executive power”.

Now let’s examine the checks & balances of the process they used.
1. “Key members of congress” were “briefed”. Mr. Gonzalez specifically avoided saying “members of both parties”, so it’s quite possible that “key members” means nothing more than a couple Republican chairmen. Also, “briefed” is a one-way conversation, not a “vetting process”.
2. They attempted and failed to get authorization from the acting AG (who serves at the pleasure of the president, btw)
3. They attempted and failed to get authorization from a drugged John Ashcroft (who also serves at the pleasure of the president, btw)
4. They replaced Mr. Ashcroft with a man who they knew supported the program

And, oh yeah, they wrapped the whole thing up in the “state secret privilege”.

I see the broad executive power part and I don’t see any meaningful checks, so tell me again why you don’t consider this “unchecked executive power”??

But I’d be willing to bet my liberties are still safely in tact.

If you’re of the mind that your liberties are intact until someone directly abridges them, you’re probably right. That’s a pretty superficial perspective, though. Your liberties lose any and all meaning at the very moment when a precedent is set that those liberties can be unilaterally stripped.