Tim,

Have you heard anyone decrying this program because it looks at bank records? The only thing I've heard (and the only point made in the NY Times article) is that people wanted the president to go through the courts to do so. They feel that Treasury Department oversight alone is not enough when it comes to "searches" of American citizens. They believe the Constitution calls for the courts oversight in these matters.

They may be wrong about the Constitution (laws are slippery buggers), but it seems that your anger at the NY Times would be much better placed if they were simply going around and exposing programs vital to national security. Instead, the NY Times is reporting on the lack of oversight in these programs that are vital to national security.

I agree with you to an extent. I wish this program and the NSA program went unexposed. I think these are good, helpful programs. Where we differ, I think, is that I would have preferred that the president went through the courts first before (or isn't it even okay to do it something like 60 days after?) "wire-tapping" or searching bank records.

I would be completely on your side against the NY Times if they had exposed a good program like this one just because they could. I support the NY Times on this one, however, because the purpose of the report was to expose a program that is improperly (though, I know there is debate) overseen. The story is the improper oversight. You can't report that story without exposing the program.

There is nothing in the NY Times articles (on this and on NSA wiretaps) that make me believe they would have "exposed" these programs if they were overseen by the courts. Also, I have a hard time believing that anyone would leak the information if the programs went through the court system. What about this leaker? Why is he or she doing this? For some reason, these programs look wrong to this person. The reason they are saying that it looks wrong is that they are not being overseen by the courts.

I don't know, man. I'm sad that the program is exposed, but I blame the president for it because it seems to me that no one would have had a problem if he just went through the courts first.

I don't see this as a Democrat or Republican thing. It is about proper oversight (and that's why I think you see people like Specter getting upset as well).

Have you heard anyone decrying this program because it looks at bank records?

Yes: Friends I know on the left had definitely gotten that idea from the news reports they'd heard. They thought people's personal banking records were being examined.

And if you read the article, you can understand why: They deliberately use misleading phrases at the top, and bury statements to the contrary much further down in the article.

They feel that Treasury Department oversight alone is not enough when it comes to "searches" of American citizens. They believe the Constitution calls for the courts oversight in these matters.

Did you even read the article? The transactions in question were international, between large organizations. It was not data on private persons, and there was no evidence that any domestic transactions had been examined.

Swift routes more than 11 million transactions each day, most of them across borders... The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances...

The article itself admitted there was no evidence any domestic transactions had been examined. But people are being spun, I guess, and your question is just more evidence of it.

This kind of thing was exactly my point.

... your anger at the NY Times...

Okay, it's not clear you read the Times article. Now I have to also ask if you read what I wrote:

But what I find really troubling aren't the machinations of the New York Times... No, what I find really troubling is the reaction of my liberal-leaning friends. I find it frightening to see how easily they're controlled and manipulated.

I think the Times is stupid and deceptive, and, as I believe their actions will probably kill people, I am of course unhappy about that.

But -- I guess I have to repeat this -- I'm not as bothered by that as by the reactions of everyday people, who apparently forget everything they know when the media tells them otherwise.

As your previous question demonstrates, people are being spun pretty easily. Don't feel bad: you're certainly not alone. I'm just distressed by the massive deception, that's all.

... would be much better placed if they were simply going around and exposing programs vital to national security.

How are you arguing that a program which catches the large sums money terrorists need for their operations isn't "vital to national security"? For many people, that's the whole point.

A clarification: There were actually TWO recent NSA/telephone stories.

One, broken in December, was that the NSA was intercepting certain outgoing foreign calls. But contrary to the impression people are getting (can't imagine where) that doesn't -- Constitutionally, mind you -- require a warrant. There is no expectation of privacy when you send data or material overseas, and the executive branch has every ability and right to inspect it -- without a court order. This has always been so, and has been used extensively in many previous administrations, and courts have affirmed this even recently.

But the sheep don't know that.

The other was an alleged voluntary program about telecom data -- this was last month. That's the one I mistakenly thought you were referring to, since it's been in the news more lately.

Again, my point is this: people are being deceived -- and very badly at that. People post to argue with me, and only end up confirming the point further.

As I said, it's very troubling.

Tim,

Did you even read the article?

Yes.

I read this:

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

this:

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

this:

"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

this:

But all the programs. . . reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

this:

Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

this:

While many of those transactions have occurred entirely on foreign soil, officials have also been keenly interested in international transfers of money by individuals, businesses, charities and other groups under suspicion inside the United States, officials said.

this:

One person involved in the Swift program estimated that analysts had reviewed international transfers involving "many thousands" of people or groups in the United States. Two other officials placed the figure in the thousands. Mr. Levey said he could not estimate the number.

this:

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had no constitutional right to privacy for their records held by banks or other financial institutions. In response, Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later, restricting government access to Americans' banking records. In considering the Swift program, some government lawyers were particularly concerned about whether the law prohibited officials from gaining access to records without a warrant or subpoena based on some level of suspicion about each target.

this:

For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records.

this:

Among their considerations, American officials saw Swift as a willing partner in the operation. But Swift said its participation was never voluntary. "Swift has made clear that it could provide data only in response to a valid subpoena," according to its written statement.

this:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

this:

But L. Richard Fischer, a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field, said he was troubled that the Treasury Department would use broad subpoenas to demand large volumes of financial records for analysis. Such a program, he said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.

this:

"There has to be some due process," Mr. Fischer said. "At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate."

Several former officials said they had lingering concerns about the legal underpinnings of the Swift operation. The program "arguably complies with the letter of the law, if not the spirit," one official said.

this:

Despite the controls, Swift executives became increasingly worried about their secret involvement with the American government, the officials said. By 2003, the cooperative's officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.

this:

Even some American officials began to question the open-ended arrangement. "I thought there was a limited shelf life and that this was going to go away," the former senior official said.

IN: ... would be much better placed if they were simply going around and exposing programs vital to national security.

Tim: How are you arguing that a program which catches the large sums money terrorists need for their operations isn't "vital to national security"?

How could have possibly read my post and concluded that I didn't think this operation was "vital to national security"? In my first comment, I wrote, "Instead, the NY Times is reporting on the lack of oversight in these programs that are vital to national security." Did you catch that? I said explicitly that these programs are vital to national security.

What you are asking is that the President need a court order before examining any intelligence pertaining to foreign companies, charties, foreign governments, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). If your view prevailed, the CIA would be shut down.

If I understand it correctly, the president can look at any of this information. If an American citizen's name comes up, however, he is supposed to (according to FISA) get a court order within 60 days of finding out this information.

Listen, Tim, I have no problem with the government looking at financial records of American citizens (even mine). If they do so, however, I would like there to be judicial oversight. That's all I'm asking. The FISA court was set up for this. If the president thought that the FISA court was too slow, he could have simply asked Congress to expand FISA so that they were big enough to handle everything.

That's fine if you don't mind waiting for the bomb to go off. But if you already know a specific foreign bank or charity is involved in terrorism, and you need to find out who they're linked with, you're going to have to examine many records to see where the money is going.

According to FISA, the president doesn't have to get a court order first. They can look at the records and then get a court order 60 days later. I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

If you were talking about a program which was either (a) illegal, or very close to being so, or (b) legal, but was being abused, then I would definitely agree.

See all of the quotes from the Times article above. It was exactly a question of whether this program was "very close to being" illegal.

But the Times own justification was not that they felt the program was "improper" nor illegal. Instead, it was -- amazingly -- that it is up to the people to decide what kind of secret programs we should have! That unless everyone knows about a secret program, we can't decide if we should have it or not.

Why don't you paste the sections of the Times article that support your claim that they believe ". . . it is up to the people to decide what kind of secret programs we should have! That unless everyone knows about a secret program, we can't decide if we should have it or not."

I already quoted and highlighted sections that support my claim that the Times concern was the legality of the program in searching American citizens. Now, it's your turn.

You were deceptively selective with your quotation from the editor's letter. Here's what I read:

Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight.

and this:

While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far.

and this:

That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

[This is the section that you quoted above. You'll see that you took this out of context. In context, the editor was explaining that it is not the Times place to decide whether this program is legal or not. It is the place of legislators, courts, and (ultimately) the electorate (presumably by electing officials) to decide if a program is legal.

Contrary to your assertion that the editor is saying that the American people must "decide on each and every secret program," he is actually saying that the question of legality falls to legislators, courts, and the American people (through elections).

I think you are incredibly naieve.

Wow, that makes me look bad.

Second, even if the story were true, once again, it's a moot point: the allegation was, if I understand it correctly, that phone companies were voluntarily sharing information with the government.

I guess you don't "understand it correctly." The issue involved in the "wire-tapping" was that the president did not go through FISA courts before asking the phone companies for their records. It had nothing to do with the government forcefully taking records.

In fact, I can buy your phone records, and find out your address, who you called, how often, when, and for how long. . . but instead, [people] seem to think ONLY the FBI should not be allowed to look at the data.

Talk about Civics 101! Do you know how frightened the Framers of the Constitution were of government looking into the affairs of private citizens?! Do you not see the potential for abuse here?

Look, I'm not one of those George Bush haters that you reference in so many of your posts. Ideologically, you would have a hard time finding anyone as opposed to the president as I. But, I believe the guy truly wants to protect the American public. I don't think that he is misusing any of these records. I think he wants the best for this country.

My problem is with how he is going about it. It sets a bad precedent. I don't want the government to have the power to look into records without judicial oversight. I truly want the president to do exactly what he has done with financial records and wire-taps, but I just want him to do so with judicial oversight. This is not too much to ask.

It would, in fact, be unprecedented to use court orders in such situations.

Sigh.

Do you need me to deconstruct the spin for you? Alright then, I guess I'll have to explain further... (slight changes in highlighting)...

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions...

Again, why are you quoting things I've already addressed? I already pointed out why this was a "significant departure" -- this is international banking data, and it's not the usual investigate-after-the crime situation.

The only way for ANY new program not be be a "significant" departure from what happened before 9/11 is to do *exactly* what we did beforehand.

The same goes for your emphasis on "highly unusual". Of course, it's "highly unusual". Did you ever hear of a classified program that *wasn't*?

Government Official: "Oh yeah: this program is highly classified. But, I tell you, it's just like all the other things we normally do."

Reporter: "So, um, why is it, um, classified?"

Official: "Hmmm... good question."

And of course reporter has already admitted the Swift network itself is "highly unusual" -- so any program involving it's data would be as well. Of course!

The reporter could be employing this word because he thinks it will make the program sound wrong somehow. That is, after all, precisely the effect it seems to have had on you.

And, again, I have already explained that international intel doesn't require a warrant, and have already addressed the problem with requiring a "subpoena to examine [each] specific transaction". Yet you haven't responded to my answers -- you just quote and highlight the text we've both read, again, as though I had said absolutely nothing about it.

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

Again, I've also already answered about "privacy issues" -- I pointed out that this did not involve individual persons's usual banking data, and also pointed out it was foreign traffic, not domestic transactions between individual US citizens.

Again, you not refuting my answer to you by simply quoting the words we've both already read, and that I've already answered.

Please, I really hate to have to do this, but I need you to read the rules for commenting here: if you keep posting the same exact argument over and over, and pretending I haven't even answered it, you WILL be banned.

I don't know why I get so many people who have this problem, but it seems to happen every several days.

"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

Think, man, think! Do I have to explain this to you? Think about the words you've just highlighted.

"The potential for abuse is enormous." Of course: there is enormous potential for abuse in every government operation and role. The NSA has access to every phone line leaving the country. That has even greater potential for abuse. Do you see the NY Times railing against the existence of the NSA? Treasury controls literally billions of dollars -- as do many government agencies. Again tremendous "potential" for abuse. Do you see the NY Times arguing we shoudn't have a central treasury?

Again, I already answered your point here: I argued it was only sensible to expose a program if there was *evidence* of abuse -- not if something COULD be abused someday, hypothetically (that's always true), or if the program was illegal.

Saying or highlighting "potential" yet again doesn't somehow answer that point.

But all the programs... reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

Again, can't you spot spin? The reporter is telling you that this is an attempt to gain private data about "Americans" -- you even highlight that. But then, later in the article, they admit it's mostly about international companies, the network is foreign-based, and they have no evidence any domsetic records were examined. So the facts the reporter cites don't back up his own characterization! Hello!!

Imagine a headline said "four killed in car crash"; and then the article body revealed that they weren't sure if any were killed in the car crash. Wouldn't you understand, then, that the headline was in error, or that there was something funky going on?

Yet you can read this, DEFEND it, and not even *notice* that you're being spun like a top. I already cited the part of the article where this implication is refuted. Please go back and re-read it, I'm not going to write it again.

Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

Further down, you argue each act of foreign intelligence-gathering undertaken by the executive branch should be approved by the courts. As though though history, the CIA always had to get court approvals for everything.

So you seem to think each program must or should be approved by the Judicial branch.

Now, by highlighting this, you also imply you believe each program must be "specifically authorized" and "formally approved" by the Legislative branch.

So you also seem to think, when it comes to foreign intelligence gathering, the executive branch should do NOTHING without getting all three branches of government involved! Wow! The framers would have been *shocked*.

(Of course this view only prevails at the Times during Republican administrations. They typically look the other way during Democratic administrations. Regarding Echelon, for example.)

But I'm amazed you're swallowing it.

While many of those transactions have occurred entirely on foreign soil, officials have also been **keenly interested** in international transfers of money by individuals, businesses, charities and other groups under suspicion inside the United States, officials said.

One person involved in the Swift program estimated that analysts had reviewed international transfers **involving** "many thousands" of people or groups in the United States. Two other officials placed the figure in the thousands. Mr. Levey said he could not estimate the number.

Two things you're missing here:

One, you again missed the key weasel-word: "involving." Think: if a company has people work in the US, and it transfers money somewhere, then those people are "involved" are they not? It didn't say their personal data was examined -- which I'm sure the reporter would LOVED to have said, if he could have -- he could only say they were "involved" in some unspecified manner.

Second, I think you're missing a crucial distinction: If a US entity transfers money overseas, that is NOT a domestic transaction. It is still an "international" transaction, even though part of it happened on US soil. "Many" can indeed be entirely on foreign soil, but apparently "all" were international.

You may be ignorant of this point (and the Times apparently wants to keep it that way, since they don't explain) but the courts are not.

And the other trick is to say: "people or groups", when they admit full later in the story that Swift is made up of "major institutions". It makes you think they're there are definitely individual "people's" data being watched, but that's how "or" works: you can use it deceptively.

Say I tell you all my relatives are either people OR bunny rabits. Is that statement true? Oh yes. But is the implication true -- that I have some relatives who are bunny rabbits? No: it's a deceptive statement. Technically, it's true. But the impression it leaves is a false one.

Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later, restricting government access to Americans' banking records. In considering the Swift program, some government lawyers were particularly concerned about whether the law prohibited officials from gaining access to records without a warrant or subpoena based on some level of suspicion about each target.

What is WITH you? Are you even paying attention here? I JUST pointed out to you that these were *institutional* transactions, and were *international* transactions.

And then you go quoting some paragraph about their being a law against *individual* *domestic* records (not transactions). Are you even paying attention here? Individual is NOT "institution". Domestic is NOT international! (And record is NOT transaction, but I wouldn't blame most people for missing that one since it's more subtle.)

Sheesh! It's as if I'd said the President ate pears, and you quoted me some article saying the Vice President loved grapes! As if that had anything to do with it.

This kind of thing is *precisely* what I'm talking about. The Times' just tosses some unrelated paragraph in front of you, and you get all excited about it, as though it meant something about the question at hand, and blindly quote it, highlighting EXACTLY what they want you to notice.

For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data...

Right for "such" financial data: individual, domestic bank accounts.

Among their considerations, American officials saw Swift as a willing partner in the operation. But Swift said its participation was never voluntary. "Swift has made clear that it could provide data only in response to a valid subpoena," according to its written statement.

Swift issues a statement to reassure it's members that it wasn't just disclosing data willy-nilly to anyone, pointing out it only handed over data "in response to a valid subpoena".

It was the Times' reporter, not Swift who called this "never voluntary". But that characterization is blantantly false: if Swift thought such requests were improper, adminstrative subpoenas CAN be judicially appealed.

So you've got the American officials saying Swift was a "willing partner" and the NY Times reporter -- not Swift, if you read carefully -- telling you his opinion that it was "never voluntary". And you can only highlight only the negative quote giving you the reporter's opinion (as he probably hoped), utterly discounting what the Treasury officials said, and taking the reporter's own statement as though it came from Swift.

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability...

Corporate executives worry about lawsuits? Wow, how many articles could we write each day with such statements in them?

Again, do you remember my complaint? That people suddenly lose their memories and common sense? Everyone knows today you can be sued for anything -- you don't have to be guilty of wrongdoing for a suit to be brought. Everyone knows lawsuits are out of control and commonplace.

And yet suddenly, I have a guy writing to me, quoting a sentence which says corporate executives were worried about lawsuits, as though that was some especially damning piece of evidence that a program itself was illegal!

But if you'd read carefully, you'll see again that you got the wrong impression: As the paragraph says, they were worried about *lawsuits* (obviously for violating their own internal *contractual* agreements with members regarding privacy). Indeed, elsewhere (can't group it too close together). The Times admits their worries were about the "impact on Swift" if people knew they sometimes shared data. Again, this is a concern about losing business and hacking customers off, not Constitutionality.

That you quoted it -- apparently to bolster an implication of illegality -- indicates you were misled on this point.

But L. Richard Fischer, a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field, said he was troubled... Such a program, he said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation... "There has to be some due process," Mr. Fischer said. "At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate."

Several former officials said they had lingering concerns about the legal underpinnings of the Swift operation. The program "arguably complies with the letter of the law, if not the spirit," one official said.

Take a look at what you've highlighted, again. You have highlighted people feeling "troubled", and ignored a statement that the program "arguably complies with the letter of the law".

Didn't that complying-with-the-law thing make a dent with you?

Does the expert chosen by the Times, Fischer, say the program is illegal? No. He says, in so many words, that it avoids breaking banking privacy laws -- not violating them (which the Times article also says elsewhere). He doesn't like it, and feels its not good -- and that's certainly his right. But does he say it breaks the law?

Strangely, that's conspicuously absent.

Despite the controls, Swift executives became increasingly worried about their secret involvement with the American government, the officials said. By 2003, the cooperative's officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks...

And the article goes on to explain that even more controls were added. Again, I've already pointed out the Times is using this vague phrase "legal and financial risks" to make you think the program was illegal, instead of that their concerns were about being sued.

And you are quoting it in the former way suggests you (like many others) were spun and misled quite effectively, and illustrates why I think the Times reporting can be so reprehensible when it has an agenda.

Even some American officials began to question the open-ended arrangement. "I thought there was a limited shelf life and that this was going to go away," the former senior official said.

Note: "began" -- they are still talking about 2003, before the added restrictions and the additional Congressional authorization.

And the only official we know for sure felt this way was -- imagine it -- the anonymous source. Who, of course, could have no political motive whatsoever. We can be sure of this because we don't even know his name, position, or history.

And he's a "former official" -- was he fired, or did he leave? Is he a patriot? Or a disgruntled incompentant with an axe to grind? Or a political partisan? You seem to automatically assume this man's stated "concern" is equivalent to saying laws are being broken (it isn't) without any scepticism about the reliability of these kinds of anonymous accusations.

So that's the end of the quoted sections. Certainly, some people -- including yourself and a privacy lawyer -- wish the administration had to have a judge authorize each and every individual transaction.

But that wasn't what I said -- I didn't say: "Nobody wants a judge to review this stuff." I simply pointed it out it wasn't legally necessary, for a variety of reasons. And I cited Bill Keller's own statement that he printed it simply because he felt the American people needed to decide about secret programs -- not because judicial oversight was *required*.

In short, I'm not seeing where anything you quoted refuted -- or even acknowledged -- my various counterpoints: that it was unwise and not necessary to require a subpoena for every single transaction examined.

If you'd prefer that were true, or think it IS true now, then just say so. You don't have to quote the entire article back at me again.

N: ... would be much better placed if they were simply going around and exposing programs vital to national security.

Tim: How are you arguing that a program which catches the large sums money terrorists need for their operations isn't "vital to national security"?

N: How could have possibly read my post and concluded that I didn't think this operation was "vital to national security"? In my first comment, I wrote, "Instead, the NY Times is reporting on the lack of oversight in these programs that are vital to national security."

You are dead right here, and I was wrong: I read your statement "if they were simply going around and exposing programs vital to national security" as meaning that you didn't the NY Times *was* exposing programs vital to national security. Apologies!

But, upon re-reading, I can't help but notice you say that "instead" the NY Times is reporting on the "lack of oversight". I must object: It's not "instead", it's "also" -- at least from your POV.

And the major concerns all seem to have been in the past: if so, it makes even less sense, exposing the program now that a whole raft of additional safeguards have been added to it.

At present, I see a program which nobody says is violating laws, which operates with Congressional oversight, knowlege, and approval. Which Swift has not objected to by ever pushing back on a subpoena (which they can). Which operates with oversight from their own board and people and even submits to an outside auditing firm.

Certainly, some people might wish a judge had to pre-authorize ever single transaction examined. (Hard to do, before they know what's in it.) That's fine: I understand that's your position. Acknowledged. I simply point that's not what the law requires here.

Listen, Tim, I have no problem with the government looking at financial records of American citizens (even mine). If they do so, however, I would like there to be judicial oversight.

I would like there to be judicial oversight. That's all I'm asking.

Judicial oversight is not required in this case. Yes, of course, some people would like that to be true -- including you. Well, good enough. I acknowlege you feel that way. I understood this previously, also.

But so what? We all have things we don't. I personally would *like* to have school vouchers. I would *like* to have the loser pay in court. I don't *like* to pay income taxes.

But so what? My feelings don't change what's legal. Nor doesn't someone's feelings about wanting to change the laws justify exposing a sensitive, classified intelligence program.

The FISA court was set up for this... FISA... FISA... FISA...

Hmmm: Don't you think it's just a bit odd that *you* think this is a violation of FISA, but neither the NY Times, nor the one outside expert they cited, found it to be so?

Tim,

-Wow, I've never seen someone get so angry at quotes before. I got the impression you were screaming at me after everything I quoted.

-Anyway, the quotes were meant to counter a claim that you made in your first comment. In that comment, you wrote, "The transactions in question were international, between large organizations. It was not data on private persons, and there was no evidence that any domestic transactions had been examined" (emphasis added).

I highlighted every part of the article that seemed to imply that individual Americans were involved.

-Please note that I have not stated opposition to any completely foreign investigations. You brought this up several times and attributed to me. Constitutionally, the government can do anything it deems necessary when dealing with citizens of another country (of course, then international laws apply). The only thing that I have stated opposition to is involvement in searches of American citizens. And my opposition to that is rather weak. I stated that I am glad the "wire-tapping" and the investigation of financial records occurred. I think this was a really good move. I think these programs are excellent and necessary. What I complained about was lack of judicial oversight.

-You wrote, "People don't care that criminals can get the data. They only care that the FBI can see it. To me, this reaction of their seems insane."

I don't think that the US government is tyrannical, but a tyrannical government is to be more feared than any common criminal. We must avoid tyranny by any means possible.

Having an executive branch that searches the phone calls and financial records of American citizens without judicial oversight is closer to tyranny than having an executive branch that searches the phone calls and financial records of American citizens with judicial oversight.

I don't want to stand in the president's way when it comes to protecting the country. I don't see the courts as an obstruction in this case because these actions can be undertaken and then reviewed by the courts after the fact. You've never argued that going through the courts would present an obstruction.

The legal issues that you speak so boldly on are rigorously debated. You may be right. It might not be illegal. The Constitutional scholars who disagree with you may be right. It might be illegal. I don't know. I do know, however, that I would be a lot more comfortable if there were at least two branches of the government involved in searches dealing with US citizens.

-IN: I don't want the government to have the power to look into records without judicial oversight. I truly want the president to do exactly what he has done with financial records and wire-taps, but I just want him to do so with judicial oversight.

Tim: I understand you feel this way, and you and I simply differ.

Really? Mind you, I'm only talking about American citizens, here. I'm not saying anything about purely international/foreign persons or institutions. You really want to have an executive branch that can do these things without oversight? Would you still want this if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy were president?

Do you think it would have been wrong of the president to have gotten judicial oversight of these programs?

All anyone is upset about (at least, the one's I've heard) is that there wasn't the extra precaution taken by the president to get judicial oversight. Americans fear this kind of power. Our government is intentionally ineffecient because of its "checks and balances." These were put into place to protect our freedoms.

Of course, people who already don't trust the president are going to be more upset about this. You trust him and believe the best of him. Others don't trust him or believe the best of him. They are the ones who are afraid of this kind of power.

I don't mean to be presumptuous about you (I don't know you), but I bet you would be more upset about this (and, conversely, I would probably be less upset) if Ted Kennedy were president. That's just the way it is. That's how divided we are.

-In closing, can I point out one more thing? You are probably right that people like me tend to distrust something just because it is coming from the president or the Republican party.

Can I suggest, though, that it seems like you are doing the same thing with "the media"? I know, I know. . . party affiliation, liberal bias, yada yada yada. But let me tell you this as a true left-winger, we think "the mainstream media" are kiss-butt weenies. Trust me on this one. I can't stand CNN. I think they are terrified to ask tough questions. I think they are too conservative! (I know you are wagging your head in disbelief right now, but it's true) I think NPR is too conservative! As a whole, I would say the same thing about The New York Times and The Washington Post (Okay, breathe, don't pass out! ;-). There are certainly writers on staff at these places that I think are better than others, but I believe they have all failed to speak out on some major lapses of judgment the government has had.

So, maybe, just maybe, I am too hard on Republicans. But also, maybe, just maybe, you are a little too skeptical of "the mainstream media."

Just a thought.