(Update 2x) Why, Oh Why, Do Stoopid People Post About Matters of Which They Know Nothing?
By Mona
.
Posting at chez Jeff Goldstein, “Karl” spews an absurd and wholly false statement in the context of SCOTUS having just declined to review a 6th Circuit case involving the illegal electronic surveillance the NSA has conducted on U.S. persons for years, by undertaking it without warrants in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (the problem in this 6th Circuit case is establishing standing to sue, since the plaintiffs did not claim that they had been targets of the spying; see Greenwald today for more on the standing issue). Anyway, here’s the brilliant legal analyst Karl:
The bias here [purportedly located in the AP's citing the case as involving "domestic spying" - ed. Mona] is blatant, insofar as the Terrorist Surveillance Program involves international communications and there is no evidence that US persons have ever been targeted by the program without a warrant.
You idiot, FISA does not now — and never has — prohibited strictly international warrantless communications, and the entire FISA controversy has revolved around the NYT exposing, and the Administration’s admitting, that it has, indeed, violated FISA by intercepting telephone calls and emails of U.S. persons beginning or terminating in the United States, sans warrants. FISA unambiguously requires warrants where one party to an electronic communication is on U.S. soil. Were it otherwise, there would be no FISA scandal. I’m not even going to provide a cite for all that, because it should be as necessary as citing that homicide murder is illegal. [Thanks B Moe.]
.
Stoopid, stoopid authoritarians over at Protein Wisdom. (Who also with no evidence whatever, claim that the majority of Americans approve of Bush’s violating FISA by spying on Americans illegally – i.e., in contravention of FISA which requires warrants for eavesdropping on “U.S. persons,” including when they communicate with those outside of this country.)
*****
Update:
The dunce Karl in an update spouts:
Actually, [Mona's] not going to provide a citation for it because she is wrong. The definition of “electronic surveillance†in the FISA is simply not that broad. She also happens to be wrong that there would be no scandal. If she actually bothered to read FISA she would grasp the potential legal significance of the alleged collection of data on US soil, for example. But maybe not, as she is so clearly out of her depth.
This moron must think the Bush Administration has argued that FISA, by its own terms, does not include eavesdropping on U.S. persons engaged in electronic communications with others outside of the U.S. Nevermind that that has never been among the legal arguments the Bush DoJ has put forward. No, they instead have argued that either (1) the AUMF to go to war with Iraq superseded FISA’s warrant requirements for eavesdropping on U.S. persons engaged in international communications, or (2) that as president, Bush has Article II authority to ignore FISA.
.
I guess the Bush DoJ is also “out its depth,” since Karl’s legal “argument” is not one it has even tried to deploy.
*****
Update II:
Also “out of his depth” per Karl, is Andrew P. Napolitano, a conservative New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, now a judicial analyst at Fox News, who states in the LAT:
In response to the abuses during the Nixon administration, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. The law provides that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
That “leftist” Judge Napolitano ardently believes that “American correspondents” with foreigners have the 4th Amendment protections that FISA codifies, and FISA requires a warrant under such circumstances. What an idjit Napolitano is, eh Karl?
.
( I should point out that I’m not certain I agree with other points Judge Napolitano makes in his editorial. Whether warrants ought to be necessary for strictly foreign-to-foreign communications, that would take some pondering and research I’ve not undertaken, and I might conclude I disagree with him on that.)
Comment by Pablo —
February 19, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Because if you weren’t doing that, you’d have way too much time on your hands, Mona.
Comment by B Moe —
February 19, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Unless it is ruled justifiable, of course.
Comment by Mona —
February 19, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Pablo is a Protein Wisdom regular — and he haunts other 28-percenter blogs as well. His substantive response is typical of these people.
Comment by Mona —
February 19, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Good catch, B Moe. I should have used the term “murder.”
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 19, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Wow. Pablo. Devastating, detailed and well-thought out argument.
Dare I say, Jonah-like.
Comment by Pablo —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
You want substance? Fine, here’s what you’re entitled to:
Mona: I do not believe I could have made it any clearer that my disdain — contemptuous amusement, really — is for your premises, far, far more than for your prose. You operate from assumptions I find politically dangerous and which it is among my goals to render impotent in the national conversation. Debating those premises with you would not be fruitful, any more so than I found it to be useful to engage Gleen(s) and his commenters in attempts at reasoned exchange quite some time ago.
I no longer aspire to “understand†or persuade people who think as Mona does. You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda. I mean that with no animus or snark; B Moe is a nice guy and I see he engaged you at your comments section. I, however, have been down that road and learned it is futile, and have no intention of going down it again.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Slightly off topic, but interesting:
can one be compelled, over Fifth Amendment objections, to reveal a computer password:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ivXyvdarS_IeGHfcdhZn5GDKNZEwD8ULMSJ00
Border searches of laptops more generally:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/eff_alc_sues_homeland_security/
Comment by Mona —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Why Pablo, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. (He is riffing off of my decree to his ilk in some comment I wrote somewhere; might have been at Goldstein’s.)
As an excuse for his lack of ability to counter the points in my post, of course.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Shorter Pablo:
“I got nothin’, so here’s some insults. Have a nice day.”
Your “contemptuous amusement” might have an effect if it was based in some semblance of reality. As it stands, it seems more like Travis Bickle’s “contemptuous amusement” at his own reflection. It only works if you’re the only little boy in the room. Once you have witnesses who don’t share your worldview, you look like a nut. Your arguments never hold up outside conservative blogs, where you have your little pals backing you up. Just go back there. You look a tad less crazy that way.
You operate from assumptions I find politically dangerous and which it is among my goals to render impotent in the national conversation.
You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize;
I have to say, I feel so neutralized. In the national discourse, non sequiturs and insults are the rhetorical equivalent of chopping down a tree with a noodle. Fight on, you brave little soul, fight on! You and your fellow Internet Tough Guys need each other.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Oh, BTW, I notice that you have a ton of time to post on conservative blogs. Do you actually work, or are you so busy “neutralizing” us that financial gain is beneath you? Does fighting the “war of ideas” pay well?
Comment by Mona —
February 19, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Just as a point of info, Pablo is reciting words I declared to his comrades something like a year ago, when I was criticized for failing to engage them in argument after many months of attempting to, and being met with bile and idiotic GOP talking points. After a point, one realizes some most of these people are impervious to all reasoned argument.
When I did continue to comment substantively at these neocon/right-wing sites (which I very seldom any longer do), it had become only for the benefit of lurkers.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 19, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Eh, whatever, I laid a hammering on him a couple months back at Pasty’s place. He’s a lightweight when he doesn’t have his boys backing him up. By the time I was done, he was trying to claim that the Supreme Court didn’t know what it was talking about, and Jeffy was threatening to sue me because I brought up the whole cockslapping thing. Hey, Pabs, if you read this, could you ask Jeffy how that lawsuit is coming along? I suppose I should let him know where to send the subpoena.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Oh oh oh, and get this, the little shit is so dumb, he says that DKos isn’t a blog. No seriously, the pathetic little shit actually said that. I provided him with various conservatives like Shrieky McMalkin calling it a blog, and same as always, he just closed his eyes and started screaming “LALALALALALALALA”. He’s priceless, all right.
Comment by Mona —
February 19, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Yup. And I’m certain he was hoping I wouldn’t recognize my own language, that I’d argue with it, and then he anticipated an orgasmic “gotcha” when he reproduced my own similar comment (in a quite different context).
Comment by IanY77 —
February 19, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Well, I guess he won’t be around again tonight. He has a big, full day of neutralizing us ahead of him tomorrow. Sweet dreams, my precious little Pablo. Don’t let your veritable army of bogeymen bite.
Comment by Pablo —
February 20, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Exactly right, Ian. That was nothing, just as it was when Mona said it here, on this blog. So, you got a link for that smackdown, Ian? Because believe it or not, you are not memorable. Do refresh my memory, won’t you genius?
Actually, I’ll be continuing to mock you. Mona will be neutralizing. Or not.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 20, 2008 @ 8:48 am
So, you got a link for that smackdown, Ian? Because believe it or not, you are not memorable. Do refresh my memory, won’t you genius?
Do your own legwork, shitheel. Not my job to show you what a fool you are. There’s enough clues in the comments above. I know you have a very full day of neutralizing ahead of you, tough guy. I have to, y’know, work and stuff. How much does neutralizing pay? Do you get dental, or is that covered by mommy’s Hooters job? You never answered my earlier question. You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands. Is neutralizing a full time job? Or is there a computer terminal at your gas station?
Actually, I’ll be continuing to mock you. Mona will be neutralizing. Or not.
Gaaaaah!!! Your neutralizing!!! I….want to…respond….but so….neutralized!!!
Jesus, you’re a fucking idiot. Go neutralize yourself.
Comment by Pablo —
February 20, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
You could have just said “No, I have nothing to link regarding my unsupported claim of obvious rhetorical domination. You’ll just have to trust me.”, Ian. That way, you wouldn’t be needing to wipe your chin right now, and I’d get a big ol’ belly laugh out of it.
You’re doing this wrong, Ian.
Comment by IanY77 —
February 20, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Last I’m going to post on this:
1. Dan Collins’ bottom calling me a fag = you’re doing it wrong.
2. Not being able to use the Google or PW’s own search engine for the aforementioned smack down = you’re doing it wrong.
3. Not responding to a single challenge = you’re doing it wrong. (so what exactly do you do for a living that gives you sooooo much free time to neutralize me? I’m not asking for company names or locations, just the general line of work).
4. Not asking Pasty when that lawsuit he threatened me with is coming (I mean, Pasty wouldn’t be full of crap, would he?) = you’re doing it wrong.
Just too easy, my precious little Pablo. As your favorite political pundit would tell you, “Goodnight and good luck”.
Comment by Pablo —
February 20, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
1. Ad Hom, no substance.
2. Your claim, you’re supposed to back it up. You’re doing it wrong. You should be happy to point to your “victory”. You’re not. FAIL. Put up or shut up
3. What challenge? (Oh, and I have a smartphone, but not nearly as much time as you seem to think, though I guess I wish I did.)
4. Huh? You got a problem with someone, take it up with them. I honestly don’t care. And when you pull nonsense like that out, it helps to provide a link. Not that I would care if you did.
5. Oh, there is no five. You only get 4 balls, right?