Jim Webb: Spy Bill Too Complicated For Some Bloggers

The Seminal:

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs... the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don't even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I'll be honest with you, that's why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.

...

Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?

Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

(laughter)

That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.

Read the whole story: The Seminal

Comments

[tommybones]

Just release comment from co-counsel in the lawsuits against the Telecoms:

"... most important, we believe the provision of the FAA providing the telecoms with immunity violates the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers. Under our system, Congress simply cannot substitute their judgment for an independent federal judge in a matter that is pending before the court. We trust our courts to find facts and apply those facts to the law, carefully and without political posturing or bias. In this instance, Congress did not change the substance of the law; they simply chose to forgive the telecoms for breaking that law, suggesting that there are mitigating circumstances (although those “mitigating” factors surely have been overstated) that must be taken into consideration.

This is not a decision for the Congress. This is the role of the courts, where we look forward to vigorously defending our position."

Yet another challenge to the Constitutionality of the bill.

[bgregs]

bgregs:
"Really???? So why then does the bill allow for there to be warrantless wiretapping (an amazingly accurate and up to date term!) of American citizens???"
Michale32086:
"It doesn't...

THAT's my point...

}}}}wiretapping (an amazingly accurate and up to date term!)

I think you are simply saying the opposite of what I say.. :D

Are you aware of the origins of the word "wiretapping"? You do realize that there are practically NO "wires" involved in surveillance these days, right??

Michale...­.."

bgregs:
"IT DOES!!! I've pointed out to you the EXACT WORDING of the EXACT SECTIONS which allow for the executive to wiretap Americans without a warrant (warrantless wiretappin­g....) and you STILL claim that it does not allow for it!"

Michale32086:
"No, you haven't...

It's really that simple...

Michale...­.."

I'm still waiting for a response to this communication! All that I saw was me asking a question, and being told that there was no question. Then I replied that I had proven my point, and all that I got was a "no you didn't!"

hm.....

[bgregs]

Michale???? {{{{chirp}­}}}{{{{chi­rp}}}} I don't hear you!!

[tommybones]

Michale thinks the following doesn't violate the 4th amendment:

Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Computer analyzes phone call (a.k.a. seizes it, then searches it)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom? With NO OVERSIGHT as to the words to be "flagged")
Government agent listens to that communication (a.k.a SEARCHES the SEIZED communication, establishes it is an American citizen, logs that communication, files it)

At this point, an American citizen has had his PRIVATE communications listened to, logged, recorded and analyzed (a.k.a. searched and seized) WITHOUT A WARRANT ISSUED IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE, BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE.

Then, AFTER the search has already happened, the agent takes his findings (from the SEARCH) and applies for a warrant to perform the search he has ALREADY COMPLETED.

The 4th amendment clearly protects against, "unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no WARRANTS shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by OATH or AFFIRMATION, and particularly DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED."

Care to answer my "illogical and irrational" example, Michale? Thanks. It takes a mere modicum of common sense to see the 4th amendment violation in this example.

[tommybones]

Now, I can already see one of Michale's rebuttals to this, revolving around the idea that federal agents "don't need a warrant to search foreign communicat­ions." If that is the case (it isn't, but I'll play along), why then, does that same agent go to a judge to get a warrant after-the-fact? Strange, huh?

Why get a warrant later, if a warrant is not needed?

[tommybones]

Michale? Care to answer?

[tommybones]

Here's a very simple question, Michale. It's so simple that even you can comprehend it.

Which is more likely:

a) the new powers included in the new FISA bill will be abused and used for political purposes
b) these new powers will make the job much harder for the press to get information from foreign sources, who will worry about reprisals
c) these powers will make whistle-blowers, essential to prevent abuses, think twice about coming forward for fear of being wire-tapped
d) a, b, and c
e) the new powers will actually catch a "terrorist" who is dumb enough to talk openly about his nefarious plans on an unsecured telephone or internet line

In case you may be having trouble with this quiz, I'll give you another one, on a much related topic:

Which choice best describes the results of the "terror watch list":

a) Has led to the harassment of numerous peace activists
b) Has led to the harassment of numerous completely innocent American citizens
c) Has led to foreigners being denied entrance to the country for political reasons, which have nothing to do with terrorism
d) Now contains an estimated one million+ names, rendering it meaningless for its stated purpose
e) a, b, c and d
f) Has led to the arrest and conviction of even a SINGLE terrorist

Take your time...

[tommybones]

Michale? You there?

[tommybones]

Michale,
We can (and do) point out many sections that contain problems. Your red herring argument fails to take into account the issues are found THROUGHOUT THE BILL, in NUMEROUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS. It is rife with ambiguous wording that opens the door, quite easily, to abuse. Additionally, the abuse that can occur, in many cases, would be nearly impossible to trace, due to the restricted nature of the so-called "oversight".

In other words, you'd be LUCKY to find ANY section or subsection which doesn't have something potentially problematic within it.

Get it? Throw a dart at the bill and you're going to find an avenue for abuse.

For example:

Do you trust Alberto Gonzalez's opinion of what is "reasonable"? If the answer is no, then you've made our case for us, as enormous power is given to the AG to determine what is a "reasonable" criteria for a search.

A rational person would look with horror at a scenario where Alberto Gonzalez, Mukasey or Ashcroft has the power to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” search criterion. Oh wait, there's more... those same Attorney Generals are given the power to determine if the searchers complied with the restrictions that THEY had determined is "reasonabl­e." Essentially, the AG provides his own oversight to his own spying. Yeah, that's a great idea. I feel safer, don't you?

Tell me, Michale, yes or no... would you trust Alberto Gonzalez to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” search criterion? Yes or no?

[Michale32086]

What does Alberto Gonzalez have to do with ANYTHING??

This is exactly what I mean.. You pull things COMPLETELY out of thin air to try and prove your imaginary points...

This is EXACTLY why it makes no sense to debate with you..

Congrats on your bringing down Obama... It's working magnificen­tly..

Buu bi...

Michale...­..

[tommybones]

Another non answer. What does Alberto Gonzalez have to do with it? I thought I made it pretty clear in the previous post, but I guess I have to spell it out for you:

In the new FISA Bill, the Attorney General is granted certain powers.

Alberto Gonzalez was once the Attorney General.

Therefore, I based my question on whether you would be comfortable with an Attorney General like Alberto Gonzalez, or Mukasey (the current AG) or Ashcroft having those new powers.

You avoided the question, as any good propagandist is instructed to when they have no answer.

[tommybones]

Funny... once again, Michale runs away from previous posts, without responding to the rebuttal points that destroy his entire argument, only to show up on yet ANOTHER thread, spewing the exact same, completely DEBUNKED arguments!

How predictable.

Ignoring an argument doesn't mean you win that argument..­. it's the opposite. If you have no answer, it's because you HAVE NO ANSWER.

[Michale32086]

The only argument you "debunked" is when you claimed that it IS possible to differentiate between International and Domestic without analyzing the stream..

And the only way you could "debunk" it, is simply denying it..

That's the extent of your "debunking­."

Your claim that HR6304 is completely unsubstantiated. And I am not going to get into another back and forth with you and your hysterical accusations and your childish name-calling.

But I will make a couple predictions.

HR6304 will be confirmed as completely Constituti­onal..

The ACLU's "challenge" (such as it is) will go no where...

All the anti-Obama hysteria as it pertains to HR6304 will fade away, to be replaced by another irrational and hysterical line of attack against Senator Obama in an attempt to derail his presidential campaign..

I have no doubt you will lead that charge also..

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong in this matter.

Michale...­.

[tommybones]

You ignored at least 10 thorough and cogent rebuttal points of mine. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.

[tommybones]

"And I am not going to get into another back and forth with you and your hysterical accusation­s... "

In order for something to be considered a "back and forth," you would actually have to answer my rebuttal points. You haven't. You ignored them, because they destroyed your argument and you had no rebuttal of your own.

Not to mention the idea that my arguments are "hysterical" is laughable, as you previously charged that they were "illogical and irrational­."

I responded by laying out my points one after the other in a clear, concise, logical and rational way, demanding an answer from you in return. Once again, these arguments were ignored and you chose, instead to run away to yet another thread and spew the exact same arguments that I had eviscerated with my as yet UNANSWERED rebuttal points.

Do you think running away constitutes a victory in a debate? Where'd you get that idea? Oh yeah, the Neo-Con propaganda handbook, chapter 3...

[bgregs]

realtalk,

I was just looking through the older posts on this thread, and I came across this gem:

"Do you people not remember that it was the lack of preparation, and the lack of proper surveillance, that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place!"

and I just HAD to answer it (even though I already answered your post....)

Do YOU remember that not only was bush breaking the FISA law and the Constitution BEFORE 9/11 (Qwest turned him down in FEB, 2001!!!) but it was apparently not doing any GOOD!!! The fact of the matter is that this has NOTHING to do with terrorism, since FISA worked just FINE for that (in spite of what Michale has said and will say again about it not working well enough!) The ONLY reason to simply place wiretaps without a warrant, when you've got a court as easygoing as the FISC has been (20,000+ warrants asked for, 5 denied!) is if you don't think that they will approve them, since they are ILLEGAL!!! Therefore it's pretty darn obvious that bush was simply spying on his political enemies, and will CONTINUE to do so under this new law!!!

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

}}}}}}}}}}
Will someone please explain to Michale that when the law does not allow for any OVERSIGHT for those who MIGHT break the law, then the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
}}}}}}}}}}

Prove it..

Show me the part of the Constitution that says if a law doesn't have proper oversight, it's unconstitu­tional...

You have made a statement.­. Now back it up with some facts..

Michale...­..

[bgregs]

Show me where this has the oversight to ENSURE that the Constitution will not be broken!!! Prove to me that there is NO way for what I have said WILL happen to occur! THEN we can talk! This law allows for warrantless wiretapping of WHOMEVER the executive branch decides to tap, and provides NO way to ensure that it WILL NOT happen to Americans! Therefore it is UNCONSTITU­TIONAL!!!!­!

[Michale32086]

Again, I ask you to PROVE it.

PROVE to me that just because a law doesn't have oversight, that makes the law unconstitu­tional...

You say HR6304 doesn't have any oversight. I say it does. It's a difference of opinion, no more..

But to claim that a law is unconstitutional because it doesn't have oversight is ludicrous.­.

You made the claim. Now back it up...

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

}}}}}}}}}}}}Why do you keep IGNORING our proof, and then INSISTING that we provide it?????

Because ya'all haven't provided ANY proof of ANY unconstitu­tionality.­.

You have provided subjective evidence that HR6304 may be bad. You have provided subjective evidence that there may be lack of oversight or consequences.

I don't agree with your opinions on that, but that's neither here nor there.

There has not been ONE SHRED of objective rational evidence that HR6304 is unconstitu­tional..

It's THAT simple....

Michale...­..

[bgregs]

No, every time you ask for proof we show you WHERE in the bill the language is that makes it Unconstitutional, and you simply come back saying, "no, I read that, and I decided that it's Constitutional, so it MUST be!"

So Michale, which one of our esteemed Supreme Court Justices ARE you???

[Michale32086]

The good looking one.. :D

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

Have any of you actually READ the ACLU's filing??

It's not a challenge whatsoever.

It's a filing that requests that FISC proceedings be made public, that any legal opinions rendered by the FISC be made public and that the ACLU be able to address the FISC in the matter.

That's it..

That is the extent of the ACLU's "challenge­"..

You people have been had....

Michale...­..

[Lemeritus]

You misrepresent the Motion for Leave to Participate; it is not a challenge, it is a procedural filing -- as I would assume you'd guess by reading the title. You misrepresent a great many things, and you give us so little in return.

[Michale32086]

Regarding the "challenge" filed by the ACLU...

Do you people know in what venue the ACLU filed the challenge??

It was filed in the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) which is the "appeals" court of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978...

Does ANYONE really think that the ACLU's challenge has a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere???

It's a PR stunt... It's a way for the ACLU to save face in the light of such overwhelming bi-partisan support of HR6304...

It's over.. You people lost....

Michale...­..

[Tommygun264]

You must be so proud. I'll bet you said the same thing when the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square.

[Michale32086]

Do you have a point??

Or are you just going to wallow in self-pity??

Why are you so intent on insuring a McCain presidency???

Michale...­..

[Lemeritus]

If you're referring to the Motion for Leave to Participate in Proceedings Required by Section 702(i) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, I hope you're smart enough to understand that this is a first procedural step in adjudication. Like Cliff Notes, I thought you might find it interesting as a study guide. And please don't mistake ignorance of what this FISA law does with "overwhelming bi-partisan support" -- I haven't talked to anyone yet who supports retroactive immunity and bucket warrants..­.. except you.

[letsgetsmart]

When I look back on the period prior to the vote, one thing jumps out at me. A lot of people like and respect Feingold and Dodd and a lot of comments were made that if these two don't like the bill or are saying that it is bad for our constitution and the rule of law then it must be. None of the dems, these two included made a serious attempt to explain this bill to the American people. Sure we have web access to copies of the bill and these two did write letters advising against it but if people like Webb or Obama want to just claim that we don't know all of the facts then I think they have a job to do.Why did you two vote for it and the other two didn't? We are American citizens and this is our country too and by the way you do work for us and not the other way around. I feel that if you weren't doing something that we would disapprove of you would have come clean with us. All this talk about national security secrets and clearance like the black clearance is just bull. There is nothing that we are doing in Iraq or against the terrorists that the bad guys don't know. It is only the American people who pay you that secrets are kept from.

[Tommygun264]

There is nothing complicated about the 4th Amendment - the new FISA Legislation, as passed, violates that Amendment.

[Michale32086]

Prove it....

Michale...­..

As an aside, 3:10 To Yuma... Great flick...

[bgregs]

Why do you keep IGNORING our proof, and then INSISTING that we provide it?????

[Tommygun264]

I've got a better idea - take a break from FOX-n-Friends and actually read the 4th Amendment. Then tell us all how warrant-less wire tapping of American citizens, meaning no verification as to whether or not there is probable cause, doesn't violate the 4th Amendment protections against searches without probable cause. Just because the person tapping the phones and reading the emails says "we have probable cause" doesn't make it so.

[HumeSkeptic]

Jim Webb: Spy Bill Too Complicated For Some Bloggers
----------
Usually, truth is never complicated. It is spinning that complicates matters.

Retroactive immunity is to protect corporations who violated basic rights of citizens. There is no other reason for it. It is wrong. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

There is nothing complicated about it.

I sent Senator Webb money when he was 20 points behind Macaca in his Senate race. I will never support him again.

.

[Birdman]

As much as I think Senator Webb is a good guy and knows what is good and bad I think he sells the Blogsphere short. He makes claims as if we are all stupid, when in fact most of us are not. He says we oversipmplfy a complex issue, that is due to we do not have access to the proper information so we do quite a bit of guessing. He also acts if it is all our fault, pretty much it is his and the rest of the governments fault, they have not and never will be up front with us. I look at it this way if under the original FISA law that the government was given 72 hours to obtain a warrent to remain legal they choose not too, I have to ask why? What were they doing that they felt that going through the courts would have been ineffective. I can think of several reasons, 1) they were monitoring people without just cause (political opponents come to mind). 2) they were monitoring everyone on a grand scale fishing for key words, and it was impossible to get individual warrents on 200 + million americans. 3) They were worried that their monitoring would not meet the legal requirements and did not want to risk being told no. Any one of the above reasons are in violation of the FISA law and therefore they did not want to risk any legal papertrails.

[GolfingDevil05]

What you've written about FISA is valid, but to some extent I agree with Sen. Webb about the level of understanding that numerous bloggers have when it comes to this law. While It is true that there are many intelligent people here, we can't pretend that there aren't plenty of knucklehea­ds.The behavior of a lot of people in this blog and others often lives down to the standard that Webb is decrying. When retorts on a level similar to "Oh yeah? Well, you're a stupid head" pass for debate on HuffPo and other blogs, it's not hard to believe that there's a paucity of intelligence in some corners.

[HumeSkeptic]

Don't confuse between posters and bloggers. You are not a blogger, and neither are those "Oh yeah? Well, you're a stupid head" folks.