Comments on: Finally! Top Federal Court Vindicates Bush On FISA-NSA

By: Today’s FISA ruling: a case study in 8 years of lying and ignorance

Today’s FISA ruling: a case study in 8 years of lying and ignorance — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:24:44 +0000

[...] A.J. Strata, “The Strata-Sphere”: [...]

By: Snapple

Snapple — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:41:25 +0000

I will really miss Mr. Bush. He really cared about us and kept us safe.

By: Dc

Dc — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:42:29 +0000

The purpose of the law is for gathering foreign intelligence. In so much as someone acts as the agent for a foreign power, or supports terrorist acts or threats…yes, they can have a case brought against them, be arrested, etc. There were multiple terrorist attack/plots against this country (and others) that were interrupted before they could be carried out because of such methods. Cases here against such persons in the US follow criminal/civil court procedures.

Overseas, the actions are different. Actionable intelligence for an AlQueda operative over seas would result in different levels of operations (mostly clandestine). I’ll just put it this way….we aren’t taking many AlQueda type prisoners anymore.

That’s not what this case was about howeverâ€”it more concerned those who assist the gov in such surveillance.

By: Snapple

Snapple — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:09:07 +0000

AJ-

Again, can people be prosecuted if they are caught under this law, or is this law just for spying on people in order to counter what they are doing?

By: The Strata-Sphere » Farewell To One Of America’s Greatest Presidents

The Strata-Sphere » Farewell To One Of America’s Greatest Presidents — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:28:11 +0000

[...] noteworthy victory for Bush wasÂ the changes he put into the FISA statutes that tore down the walls between anti-terrorism and law enforcement. President Bush was recently [...]

By: Snapple

Snapple — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:58:24 +0000

Can people be arrested and can the evidence be used to convict American collaborators, or is the information only used to watch what the bad guys are doing and deter it?

Since they are telling the rules now, maybe they are going to arrest some people.

By: Dc

Dc — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:03:27 +0000

Part of the decision referenced “special circumstances” exception under FISA for warrantless surveillance and whether that applied in this case (which liberals have long argued didn’t exist…..ie., why Bush was guilty of warrantless/illegal searches). It also explicitly acknowledge the Presidents role in “authorizing” such surveillance (as well as the AG and the NSA) under the special circumstances clause of FISA. That was part of petitioners argument as well, that such warrantless surveillance was not legal, nor authorized in this case and that complying with such an order without warrant, and other requirements being met, would violate the 4th amendment and subject companies to liability. This liability was what gave them “standing” to bring this case for review on behalf of a 3rd party.

By: GuyFawkes

GuyFawkes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:30:07 +0000

Snapple:

Thank you for adding so much to the conversation. Four consecutive comments, and not one single point that actually related to the ongoing topic. Very impressive.

Please go look up the phrase “ad hominem”.

By: Snapple

Snapple — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:44:59 +0000

So confusing! Conman is supposedly the lawyer. GuyF is supposedly an authority on the law because he is a paralegal’s husband. I guess she told you the lawyers who employed her had poor writing skills, but she never succeeded in correcting your writing. That must have really gotten on her nerves.

By: Snapple

Snapple — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:35:03 +0000

Conman also makes the identical errors in agreement.

He writes:

“Do you know how to tell when someone is clueless but they want [he wants] everyone else to think they are [he is] knowledgable?”

“Someone” is an indefinite pronoun. It is third person singular. This means it “someone is like the words “he” or “Bill.”

“Someone” is a “he,” not a “they.”

Lawyers don’t make agreement errors even if they are writing quickly. Assocates learn to correct this bad habit the first time they get yelled at for it, and they never do it again.

By: Snapple

Snapple — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:27:38 +0000

GuyF can’t make his pronouns agree with his antecedents. A lawyer can make his pronouns agree with his antecedents even if he is writing quickly.

GuyF writes:

“…is it okay to make assumptions about a person without hearing a single word from them?”

Guy should have written “him” because the antecedent of the pronoun is the singular “person.”

A lawyer–even one who is writing quickly–simply doesn’t make this sort of error in his writing.

By: Snapple

Snapple — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:16:47 +0000

Both GuyF and Conman incorrectly spell the word grammar as “grammer” and have strange opinions about lawyers.

My husband is a Washington lawyer. He graduated from Harvard. He can spell, and he personally proofs the briefs of young attorneys. Young associates don’t last long if they can’t master grammar.

Proofing a brief is not left up to secretaries.

People who are so obviously careless/ignorant aren’t qualified to speak as legal experts on complicated legal issues.

All lawyers can spell grammar because they spend a lot of time yelling at associates about their grammar.

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:37:16 +0000

Russell,

Sorry man – I accidentally deleted your first comment. You’ve bin in ‘comment moderation’ hell. You should be free and clear to post now.

Cheers, AJStrata

By: russellshih

russellshih — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:52:13 +0000

You guy sound like street conner attorneys complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous.

By: russellshih

russellshih — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:44:42 +0000

Sounds like a bunch of attorneys on a street conner agruing over who will go out and see the guy lying in the middle of the street first all attorneys and would be attorneys do is “complicate the obvious and trivialize the momentous.