Maybe, just maybe, news of this is what caused all those Dems to cave last month about FISA.
=======================================

Ooh, and thanks for the link to the usual suspects.
==================

Another inconvenient truth for the "jims" of the world.

This is found only in der Speigel.

Likely that's where it will remain.

God forbid the public learns of the truth.

babble, I even bolded it for you

Operation Alberich began last October, when the US National Security Agency, the NSA, began intercepting suspicious emails between Germany and Pakistan. It ended last week in the central German Sauerland region, with the arrests...

October is before December.

Now you know why I banned you from my posts. You're stupid.

buh bye now

Do you even read what you comment upon, BG2? The intercepts were last October. And what data mining project was dropped? Temporary new laws for FISA surveillance were just approved a month and a half ago when Dems got squeamish about being blamed for an attack during recess.

There are three flies on my computer screen. Must be jim, cleo, and mantis, lurking.
======================================

Kim, he's gone. I banned him from my posts for stupid shit like that. If he doesn't stay gone, I'll ban him form the whole site. Then his only recourse will be Kevin and I can tell you that's a long row.

Run for your life, Paul's got his big swatter.
==========================================

Datamining, and privacy in the 21st Century is a subject long overdue for discussion. So far, the left has hopelessly demagogued it. They cheerfully yield to their merchants intending to rob them what they refuse to their soldiers seeking to defend them.

Insert cliche about the Constitution not being a suicide pack.

Furthermore, find a domestic victim of FISA and NSA surveillance.

This is why Hillary won't get elected. Fifty percent of Americans understand that she would illegally survey them in a New York minute.
===========================================

I think you should unban him. He's my most reliable source for the daily democratic meme dump. Who else lays it out without any supratentorial input.
========================================

Ahem:

Paul, the "row" to Kevin goes through me. BarneyG can appeal to me first, and THEN he can go to Kevin.

I'll save him the step, though, and expedite matters. I won't lift a finger to defend him.

J.

Those guys never, ever let facts get in the way of a good misrepresentation.

Oh, and Paul, did you HAVE to step on my piece by FOUR MINUTES? I know you're our "designated asshole," but you're supposed to use that position against OTHERS, not your colleagues...

(sigh)

J.

>Oh, and Paul, did you HAVE to step on my piece by FOUR MINUTES? I know you're our "designated asshole," but you're supposed to use that position against OTHERS, not your colleagues...

Actually I typed it about 9:30ish wizbang time. I saved it in draft for a while to make sure I was clear of your 9/11 set. I didn't want to post in that window. Then when I went to fire it, I saw yours was in draft but not fired. (even though the "entries page" said 2 minutes ago or whatever) I had no clue your intentions so I just fired mine.

If you had fired yours at the right time, it would have gone above, but when you pulled the trigger you did not fix the time.

IN other words, don't blame me dude, you dunnit.

oooooh, where you waiting on the cron job? Maybe that's how it happened, didn't think of that above.

They can feel it in their bones. You know how sometimes you turn around suddenly and someone's watching you and you wonder how you sensed it, or whether you did. That's the feeling she gives.

Go Dems, go.
=============

They are just trolls. Every now and then you have to spray.

Uggh..everytime there is a triumph in the WOT some sappy "peanut and corn" ridden democrat denounces it saying it "tramples on the Constitution". Usually faggy biden or that schmuck schumer.

Now wait just a minute. We used NSA intercepts and the NY Times didn't blow the operation? How did that happen? Maybe they were too late because the bust went down two weeks early. Pinch can't be a very happy camper right now. Methinks the Table Moose is gonna get a workout this week.

Blue N:

but may I make a suggestion?

Sure, but before Paul answers you I'll step in as one who has been commenting on this site from its inception:

By and large the people that have been banned here have had more than a few warnings about being banned and patiently explained what they have done to warrant the action and how to do to prevent it.

In every case they refuse, and continue to be the asshats they insist on being.

"Echo chamber" indeed.

The correct term should be "Civil Discourse & On Topic Chamber," but don't let that stop you from adding your snide little comment as a parting shot.

Blue, I wish he'd left the post up, so it could be obvious how stupid he was. BG2 didn't so much disagree with him as have three important facts wrong. And try to get BG2 to admit he's wrong, even with evidence in front of his face.
===============================================

Well, as you guys can read in the same article above - the information received that broke this plot came:

when the US National Security Agency, the NSA, began intercepting suspicious emails between Germany and Pakistan.

So, the information that helped find and foil this plot, was achieved 100% without violating the Constituation or FISA in any way shape or form. AND all the tools used are perfectly fine with all the Democrats in Congress and the Senate.

Just as I suggested it might be, when this article was posted previously.

So, just so we're clear there - I was right, and those who accused the Democrats of wanting to "stop this kind of surveillance" were wrong.

Secondly, unless you want to define "police work" as "only work that involves the local police" - this WAS police work.

This was intercepting communications, surveillance of suspects, informants. I consider that police work. But I guess we can stretch it, and to be more fully precise, say "intelligence work".

The main point to me is - this plot was stopped with no Constitutional violations; no FISA violations; no torture involved, which stains our honor; and no invading of foreign nations.

Which shows once again that we don't NEED to violate the Constitution, torture prisoners, or invade foreign nations who haven't attacked us.

Jim,

You proceed from a false assumption. Telephone calls and email between a person in the US and a person in another country can be constitutionally monitored without court order. Despite the Democratic spin, these are not "domestic" calls.

Jim:

this WAS police work. This was intercepting communications, surveillance of suspects, informants. I consider that police work.

You would, for obvious reasons that a saner person could never understand.

So the question must be asked, how many trained and "sworn-to-uphold-the-law policemen are employed by the NSA?

Actually, Eric, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm trying to correct a previous assumption.

In another article here on the same incident, the writer said that this plot was foiled by the sort of surveillance that Democrats are against.

I pointed out that this was very likely completely foreign surveillance, which is both Constitutional and fine with FISA - and which no Democrats have trouble with either.

The liberals still contend terrorism should be a law enforcement issue and cite the German case as proof. Yeah, that naive little bubble has been burst.

No it hasn't. In fact, you just supported it. The NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. are part of "law enforcement".

That "cop on the beat thing"? That was your own strawman invention.

Whoops - Eric, didn't read your post fully.

I'll quote it here:

You proceed from a false assumption. Telephone calls and email between a person in the US and a person in another country can be constitutionally monitored without court order. Despite the Democratic spin, these are not "domestic" calls.

Eric, that's simply not true.

Phone calls between a US citizen and a person in another country can NOT be legally monitored without a court order.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of 14 Constitutional Law scholars:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/why-the-nsa-surveillance-_b_13522.html

And who also thinks this way? Look at the signers - included is William Sessions, former head of the FBI.

And you can also the non-partisan Congressional Research Agency, about Bush's lack of notification of Congress about this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802158.html

And finally, you can ask yourself why, if it was so perfectly above-board and legal, Gonzales and others ran to Ashcroft's hospital bed to try and take advantage of his state to approve it - and ask why, even then, he denied it.

I mean, why *would* it be legal to spy on a US citizen in US territory with no warrant? If you think he's talking to someone suspicious, get a warrant. And you can get one up to 72 hours later. And something like 5 requests out of over 10,000 have been denied, in all the years that FISA has been in effect.

Marc, please explain how tapping phones and email, surveillance of suspects, and use of informants is NOT police work.

It's police work; the NSA part was not 'good old solid', it is novel.

And jim, what the Dems caved on a month and a half ago was over foreign to foreign calls routed through the US. You're just wrong. They had been objecting to it, and maybe, knowledge of this German plot is what caused a bunch of Dems to change their minds about FISA This illustrates the old-fashioned ideas about surveillance you have. It is not copper wires and operators any longer. In an era of datamining, your demagogic insistence that this is spying on individuals is simply outdated. We might be able to update the laws to reflect present reality, except for all the Dems who project their behaviour onto Bush. Would Hillary illegally survey us? You bet your bottom dollar. Has Bush? You can spend your last dollar looking for a domestic victim of his spying.

Has anybody trashed you about 'baseless' yet?
====================================

And you have the story wrong about Ashcroft and the hospital. It was Ashcroft's assistant, temporarily in command, who failed to let the White House know he wasn't going to routinely re-authorize surveillance that forced the last minute run to the hospital, on the eve of the Spanish bombing. He had a week to let them know. Why was he taking advantage of the AG's sickness? The popular meme on this is 180 degrees reversed from the truth.
===============================

And the 45 day periodic re-authorization that Ashcroft's assistant refused to do without warning? Is that law? No. It was procedure put in place by the White House to prevent abuse.

What was abusive, and dangerous, was for the assistant to not warn the White House that he wasn't re-authorizing. That created the emergency, which the press has mischaracterized ever since, leading, of course, to you being misinformed.

Douglas Kmiec had an article in the WaPo about this months ago.
====================================

Why don't you put a little note at the end of your stories asking people who don't agree with you to refrain from posting in the comments? If they disobey you can ban them and it would it would give you the echo chamber you seem to want.

20. Posted by Blue Neponset [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 11, 2007 2:18 PM

Because that is not the policy.

And frankly you've got a lot of damn nerve. You have disagreed with everything posted on this blog for years... and you're still allowed to post... So you know you're lying.

Correction. -I change my mind- You WHERE allowed to post.

Let me explain how it works to you... first hand.

You have PAST TENSE been allowed to post, no matter how much you disagreed. But to show you that it is about BEHAVIOR and not IDEOLOGY I'll ban for for being a moron.

Now, do you see the difference yet?

Phone calls between a US citizen and a person in another country can NOT be legally monitored without a court order.

Jim Jim Jim (shaking head)

I hate to burst your bubble, but a post on a liberal blog that also called for a military coup on the U.S. is not legally binding. - I'm sorry for you.

While you are right that this exact case didn't involve domestic emails, that is purely a coincidence of geography...

If the Huffpost ran the world and one of these guys was in the U.S., they would have killed untold people. You guys say that listening in on terrorists in another country is fine but if one of them is in this country they we can't listen in... That's moronic.

Let's take this exact case Jim...

They tracked these guys for MONTHS. If you read it, the whole thing was brilliant. They went in and stole the terrorists 30% H2O2 and replaced it with 3% which was harmless. So they had the luxury of time... So what if after months of tracking these guys one of them picks up the phone and calls NYC on September 10th?

YOU don't want the NSA to listen to KNOWN TERRORISTS ACTIVELY PLOTTING TO KILL AMERICANS because you're a slave to a flawed political ideology.

You're willing to kill Americans to make a political point. How great for you.

Kim,

First - there is simply nothing novel about monitoring email or phone communications in a foreign country.

Second, you claim this:

what the Dems caved on a month and a half ago was over foreign to foreign calls routed through the US.

So then, by your own admission - the Democrats *aren't* against surveillance of completely foreign communications, **even if** their routed through the US.

Thank you for proving my point.

What this shows is that shared intel is necessary to foil terrorists.....

If we would have had the same intel sharing here in America between January 2001 and 9/11...it just might have been prevented...

This was clearly a real deal unlike those Bozos in Florida..
This was a good thing...it will not stop...but with co-operation ...we can just maybe stop it.