But I think it is important that you guys see this. It basically illustrates what I have been saying about the FISA issue all along.

It also points out quite nicely exactly why you guys are wrong about the issue.

As an aside, I realize that many of you will attack the messenger (in this case Fox News & Heritage Foundation) rather than try to attack the message. If at all possible, please refrain.

=============================================
FISA Foes Fudge the Facts
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,342851,00.html

Friday , March 28, 2008
By Andrew M. Grossman

It seems pretty simple: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the law that U.S. intelligence experts use to sniff out foreign terrorists. Considering that it became law in 1978 — and that technology has evolved quite a bit in the ensuing three decades — modernizing this essential security tool to fit today’s communications networks should be relatively simple.

It’s not. Opponents of modernization have dragged out debate on what should be a no-brainer with wild-eyed "Big Brother" scenarios. They have poisoned the debate by using misleading terms such as "warrantless wiretapping" and raising a stink over proposals to give immunity to communications providers that cooperated with the government’s electronic surveillance program.

Under FISA and other laws, domestic wiretapping — that is, listening in on phone calls — requires a warrant or order from a judge. Modernization doesn’t change that.

Modernization is really about electronic surveillance — looking at the e-mails, instant messages and other Internet activities of terrorists outside of the U.S.

The problem is that, unlike with wiretapping, there’s no way to capture all of the Internet traffic of just one individual or group. A terrorist cell might keep e-mails on one server, run a Web message board on another and store bomb-making manuals on a third. These could be in different countries, and they could be accessed from anywhere in the world.

Because of the way the Internet works, many of these communications, even if they begin and end outside the country, still pass through the U.S. And all that traffic passes through the same pipe as everyone else’s Internet communications. So the only way to get at foreign terrorists’ communications is to tap the entire stream of traffic.

For modernization opponents, that’s where the story ends. But for our intelligence agencies, that’s just where it begins.

The often-ignored next step — and the crucial one for Americans’ privacy and the effectiveness of intelligence operations — is "minimization." This is the process of filtering the stream of traffic to remove domestic communications and communications that don’t have any intelligence value.

Minimization is imperfect — on the Internet, it’s hard to tell where a communication originates or winds up — but it’s the only way to get the job done, given the quantity of Internet traffic. And it protects privacy: Sophisticated algorithms can do a good job of automatically filtering out domestic communications.

The main issue in modernization is whether FISA, created to oversee domestic surveillance, should apply to this kind of surveillance of foreign communications, many of which just happen to pass through the U.S.

In a decision last summer, the court that administers FISA ruled that the law does apply. Congress subsequently passed a law overturning that decision. But then that law expired in February, throwing intelligence operations into uncertainty.

If FISA applies, our intelligence experts will have to obtain approval for foreign electronic surveillance requests to the FISA court, a cumbersome process that can take hundreds of hours per application. Under modernization proposals, intelligence agencies would just have to submit their minimization procedures to the court to make sure that they comply with the law and are tailored to minimize away domestic communications.

Acknowledging that modernization isn’t really about wiretapping makes clear why immunity is so important. There’s no way for our intelligence experts to capture foreign terrorists’ Internet communications without the cooperation and the expertise of network providers, which are now facing nearly 40 lawsuits for working with the government. Legal liability will chill future cooperation.

Worse, these companies have no good way to prove their innocence, because doing so would require the disclosure of specific details about how the surveillance system works — details that the government rightly claims are state secrets and won’t allow the communications companies to make public.

If this debate were really about domestic wiretapping, modernization opponents might have a point about immunity. But it isn’t. It’s just about scoring political points.

Opponents should look at the facts and acknowledge that modernization is really about foreign electronic communications, not domestic wiretapping. That would be a quick way to break the stalemate in Congress and restore the intelligence authorities the U.S. needs to identify and monitor foreign terrorists.

Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

Yea, dunno how long it will last.. I am going to try and stay just with your commentary over there. But I couldn't resist a dig at TM for being the irrational and illogical Hillary supporter she is. :D

I'll pop on over there and see what kind of trouble I can scare up.. :D

Michale.....

Since I see they're letting unsavory characters such as yourself (heh) back on HuffPost, I've answered you over there.

Thatcher -

I mention the money thing because I think Clinton is vulnerable on this front. She's been more reliant on big donors, and big donors know when to cut their losses. I reallly think that it's her major donors (and not the delegates, superdelegates, or party leaders) who are going to have "The Talk" with her at some point, to let her know it's over.

But then I've been wrong before this campaign season, so we'll see...

-CW

But I agree, money is going to be an issue - soon. It is interesting to note that Obama isn't "pushing" raising funds as much this month, yet my junk email account gets at least 1 per day from the Clinton campaign "pleading" for cash.

As for Edwards - his endorsement after NC is only because the writing is on the wall - not because he will be making a real decision.

So, my prediction is that Obama will have a Cinderella moment in PA and do a LOT better than expected. This will be mostly because of an "October Surprise" (somewhere around 15-20 April) that will nearly devastate Clinton. My guess is that it will have something to do with her tax returns. Anyways, this will allow Obama to almost break even with Clinton in PA. I don't think he will actually beat Clinton in PA, but he could. Within a few days of this dismal showing in PA, Clinton will fold.

10,000 quatloos on Clinton being forced out between 25-30 April. If I am wrong, I will shave my head, don a black robe and change my name to Galt. I would have my wife die her hair silver and get into that nifty glittery jumpsuit, but I don't think she would go for that.. :D

but George Bush doesn't want anything to spoil his fun at the Olympics?

Just can't resist the Bush jab, eh? :D Just remember, it was Pelosi who stated that the US should NOT boycott the olympics...

Actually, while your choice for Pelosi as MIDOTW is the correct one, I think it should be for telling your MDDOTW winners to take their letter and stuff it..

1. I was going to make some snide comment. :D But then I actually read the Bill Of Rights you mention and they do not seem out of line. As long as safety isn't compromised, I don't see a problem with it.

2. This one is just begging to be smacked out of the park by the GOP..
"Apparently the Democrats are whining and crying about all the companies moving their operations overseas. The obviously have selective memory because it was Bill Clinton's NAFTA that induced the companies to do it.."
Having said that, I agree that it's crazy to have any part of our passports done overseas.. BUT...
But, when you consider that all of the computers and technology in the Pentagon have components that are also made overseas, is it really such a big deal?? I believe this is an MOOAMH moment...

3. To be fair to Bush, the "normalcy" comment came before the recent upsurge in violence.

4.Non starter.. Only US warplanes are being used and then sparingly..

5. Can't argue with this one. :D

6. Yer right.. Cheap shot. :D

7. Yea, and then we can have an Auschwitz style setup for FDR's Presidential Library or a Jail Cell labeled AMERICANS ONLY for Lincoln's Presidential Library.
This was a very cheap shot by the mag and the guy in Texas... Very cheap...

Michale.....

Man, I just love you guys who take the time and effort to cross-post here as well as Huffington Post. Both audiences get to read your comments this way, and I appreciate it! My audience is a bit smaller, but the posts stay visible on the main page a lot longer here, I have to say....

Your last paragraph was interesting. After checking the calendar, I see your point. But there could be one thing that may force Hillary out in May -- money. If she runs out, she may be forced to pull out before she had intended. But I think you may be right. I've seen a lot of the official punditocracy saying NC and IN will be the true test, with some even going as far as saying if Hillary doesn't win ALL THREE she's going to drop out. I don't know about that, she may stay in if she manages to eke out NC or IN. But if Obama gets them both, the pressure on her to exit is going to become fierce from inside the party.

But (from your HuffPost followup), I don't really see the point of Edwards endorsing AFTER North Carolina (where he would assumably have the most influence), unless it is to join the bandwagon in order to convince Clinton to drop out.

The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that almost everyone's prediction will turn out to be wrong.

Interesting that even over at HuffPost, nobody has taken the "she's going all the way to the convention" bet yet. I still see this as a strong possibility, myself, and I can't believe nobody's ready to put up some major quatloos to back this stance up.

Anyway, thanks as always for your informed commentary.

-CW

Chris - you included the supers in your post for the upcoming races ... I'll give elected delegate counts:

*** March 29 Texas county conventions give Obama 5 more delegates ( by moving 5 from Clinton) in the estimate than he has now ***

Pennsylvania delegates (158)
*Clinton 84
Obama 74

*** April 26 - Iowa district conventions give Obama 5 more delegates than now - to 30 (3 from Clinton and 2 from Edwards) ****

Guam delegates (4)
Clinton 2
Obama 2

North Carolina delegates (115)
Clinton 49
*Obama 66

Indiana delegates (72)
Clinton 33
Obama 39

**** Edwards endorses Obama ****
**** Superdelegate counts will now favor Obama ****

West Virginia delegates (28)
Clinton 29
Obama 23

Kentucky delegates (51)
Clinton 28
Obama 23

Oregon delegates (52)
Clinton 21
Obama 31

Puerto Rico delegates (55)
Clinton 31
Obama 24

Montana delegates (16)
Clinton 7
Obama 9

South Dakota delegates (15)
Clinton 6
Obama 9

**** June 4 - Pelosi, Reid and other high level Dems call for Clinton to drop out ****

**** June 11 - Obama passes 2025 with supers ****

**** June 14 - Iowa state convention ends with 35 Obama and 10 Clinton ****

**** June 16 - Clinton drops out ****

2,025 quatloos

Something I didn't post over on HuffPo is that once we get into May, there is a primary pretty much every week and if Hillary doesn't drop out by May 7 ... there is no reason for her to do so until after it is all done on June 3. And even then she will wait it out ...

Wow, it's like deja vu all over again...

C'mon, pick a day!

Heh heh.

-CW