Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: The USA Today's NSA Story

I believe the Stored Communications Act is Title I...

2006-05-12T23:36:00.000-05:00

I believe the Stored Communications Act is Title II of the ECPA. I discussed the SCA briefly in the more recent post above. There's a link to a Think Progress post which has a good rundown of the relevant sections of the SCA.

A.L.I know that there are multiple constitutional ...

2006-05-12T22:31:00.000-05:00

A.L.

I know that there are multiple constitutional and statutory issues here, but there is one that I don't see receiving much attention: Doesn't the ECPA likewise forbid this type of information passing by the telco's?
I am not an attorney (yet), but it seems to me that in complying with such requests from the Executive, they are acting as an agent of the government. Isn't that, by definition, government action and in direct violation of ECPA?

One more thing...Constitutional Law scholar Jonath...

2006-05-11T22:14:00.000-05:00

One more thing...

Constitutional Law scholar Jonathan Turley explained Bush's executive excesses. The story is on my blog at http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com

Great link. Professor Kerr roughly concludes that ...

2006-05-11T21:30:00.000-05:00

Great link. Professor Kerr roughly concludes that the statutes probably don't allow for this type of government data-mining. He rightly suggests that the President will cite his executive power under Article II as allowing him to do so.

As with the prior NSA wiretapping revelation, and seemingly much of what the President does (see his 750 signing statements), there is a 'unitary executive' theory behind this. A theory which, in my opinion, has been manufactured in the post 9/11 era to justify the eradication of traditional notions of liberty and expand the executive power in a way unprecedented in our history.

Nice site. I'm adding a link to your blog on my page.

I noticed in the article that Quest has been fight...

2006-05-11T15:17:00.000-05:00

I noticed in the article that Quest has been fighting this for 3 years. Their attorneys' request for a letter from the AG was denied and when the attorneys proposed running this by the FISA court they were told that the FISA court would probably not agree with the program. Interesting.

Tent-folding seems about what most Democrats are u...

2006-05-11T12:52:00.000-05:00

Tent-folding seems about what most Democrats are up for...

Now try to be more understanding. After all, George W Bush towers over them will the full backing and support of nearly 1 out of 3 Americas! With the midterm elections coming up, there is no need to be argumentative or pessimistic. Three out of 10 Americans believe this country is on the right track. Since both republicans and democrats have been promoting the values of “free markets” and global trade, we need to fully support the U.S. military industrial complex. War is a growing segment of our economy and one that Americans from lower socio-economic classes can excel in.

We need to support our troops here at home so we don’t outsource that labor overseas. While Dubai has purchased many important military manufacturers and suppliers, they have not yet offered to replace our troops on the ground. We need to keep our soldiers mobilized. Launching another “shock and awe” campaign will send a message that no one can compete with the productivity of American labor.

Perhaps even more important, the ongoing privatization of and use of military subcontractors is what provides the capital that is needed to run the U.S. political system. As Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, has stated, "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?"

Aggressive military action is actually what funds our election system. And this is a good thing too; campaigns are expensive. If the private sector was not willing to “step up to the plate” and give back a percentage of no-bid, exclusive government contracts; the U.S. taxpayer would have to foot that bill.

Most of all, America is going to need to exercise and practice all the military options that are possible. Ultimately, the administration’s objective is to launch war on Russia and China. Think of these wars in the Middle East as “tune-ups” that will allow us to move towards a more economically efficient, fully privatized military contracting system that will provide logistic support for an army that has years of fighting experience. This will also prepare the U.S. population to “support our troops” when we take on the vast nations of Russia and China.

Americans will need to get used to sacrifices. When the war in Iran is launched, expect crude to shoot up to $200 per barrel. WHAT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSERVATION! This should shut-up the environmentalists that scream about “global warming.” When most of America can no longer afford transportation, we can finally make some meaningful changes in energy policies.

As an added benefit, when Americans are forced to travel less, perhaps they will spend more time at home, time in front of the TV, time watching Fox News. Perhaps this is the real reason democrats will not challenge this administration; they will look bad doing so on Fox. It is much better to wave the flag and create war now than to try and explain to the America public that you “support our troops” later.

The said, after 9/11, that "they hate us for our f...

2006-05-11T12:50:00.000-05:00

The said, after 9/11, that "they hate us for our freedoms."

The "enemy" has won -- the chimperor's response has been to take away their freedoms.

If chimpy and gang were right about the "hate thing," they must have made our "enemies" very happy folks indeed.

I am so glad hillary chose to give our great "Decider" some warm uzzies yesterday!

Is Leahy making a backhanded call for the dissolut...

2006-05-11T12:31:00.000-05:00

Is Leahy making a backhanded call for the dissolution of Congress?

Tent-folding seems about what most Democrats are up for, with so few willing to fight or stand up with those willing to fight. Welcome to the United Sheep of America.

This is all new to me, and I'm not even a lawyer, ...

2006-05-11T11:28:00.000-05:00

This is all new to me, and I'm not even a lawyer, but I think someone said that there was enough information in these records to figure out exactly who was calling whom--meaning that if the "individual customer identities have been removed" at all, they were only partially removed.

Expect a showdown over whether the law requires ALL the identifying information to be removed or just that they remove some of it.