This is the Archive site for Firedoglake. To go to the main site please click on the following link

Saturday, January 07, 2006

"Stoopit Laws"

Still waiting for an adequate rejoinder to the Atrios challenge for an explanation as to how exactly the NYT revelation of warrentless NSA wiretapping endangered national security.

The chief tit on the GOP udder that is Powerline devotes the full force of his intellectual prowess to the task and both sadly and predictably comes up wanting.

Glenn Greenwald:
Anyone who has paid even the most minimal attention to this matter --– let alone someone who holds themselves out as some sort of legal scholar qualified to accuse people of treason -- has known for quite some time that FISA expressly allows immediate eavesdropping without a warrant under Section 1805. Thus, unless a terrorist were as confused and uninformed about the law as John still is, a terrorist who thought we were complying FISA (rather than violating it) would have already known that we could eavesdrop immediately and without a warrant. That's because FISA says in clear and unambiguous language that we can. The Times story reporting on Bush's illegal program didn't reveal that we could eavesdrop immediately because the Government has that power even if it complies with FISA.

Shouldn'’t this be extremely embarrassing to John? FISA is not really that long of a law, and it'’s pretty straightforward. It'’s been three weeks since this scandal began. He obviously has no idea what FISA even says. John could have made the argument he just made only if he was completely unaware of the fact that FISA itself allows immediate eavesdropping -- a fact which not only is readily apparent from the law, but also has been mentioned by pretty much everyone who has discussed this matter since it first arose.

This really is the level of argument which is coming from Bush followers on this issue. It is wildly incoherent and uninformed. That'’s because they begin with the premise that anyone who says anything that is harmful to George Bush, particularly with regard to his terrorism policies, is a subversive and a traitor, and only thereafter, in each individual case, do they go out in search of rationale to justify the accusation. The fact that none exists doesn'’t stop them, or even give them pause, in insisting that those who criticize or impede George Bush should be imprisoned.
Tough break for the Rocketman. I guess this still reigns unchallenged as the most articulate expression of the wingnut position I've seen.

(photo & headline via Dependable Renegade)