Balta1701

You know the saddest thing? This may be the only way there is ever a full and complete investigation into Bonds's steroid use, given how slow MLB/Selig were to act on it & the fact that no one named Bonds when they went to jail.

Northside, I think you may actually be wrong in this case, at least based on my understanding of the FISA COR. The Wikipedia description seems useful to me here.

The Afghan Government may be trying to find a way out of this while still saving face with its people.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) Wait. I thought this whole thing, the problem, was that Bush disregarded and circumvented FISA to do these warrentless taps. Now, when it appears he followed the law regarding FISA, then FISA has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry Balta, but I think you are just talking in circles. Maybe one of the other Bush detractors can explain it to me. Ok, Bush has done plenty of wiretaps within FISA. For these, he has followed the standard FISA approval procedure. It's not like the FISA court has just never met over the last few years, it's approved thousands of wiretaps if I recall the numbers correctly. The FISA court has also rejected something like 10 applications for wiretaps over the last few years (more than in it's history beforehand, but still less than 1%). The Bush Administration responded to 1 of these rejections by challenging it to the FISA court of Review, which is what we've been talking about here. Every single one of those wiretaps is 100% legal, as far as I know, unless some court steps in and overturns FISA or the Congress amends the constitution. We learned from the NYT in December that even while Mr. Bush was following the normal procedures for the FISA wiretaps, they were also conducting some sort of surveillance outside of FISA, with absolutely no FISA approval. These wiretaps were never even brought to the FISA court. These are the ones that are in question as to their legality. We don't know why they didn't bring them to FISA, but they chose not to do so. So, they are doing plenty of legal wiretaps, but they are also doing wiretaps outside of FISA through the program the President authorized. It is these 2nd wiretaps that are the focus of this whole mess.

Wow. I bet that contribution was tax deductible also.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) You had a reason for posting this garbage. It portrayed conservatives in a less than favorable light, and that was all the reason you needed. When you can post something that is meaningful and substantial, we will give it the proper respect. When you post crap, you get no respect. So, grow a brain will ya? Yas is correct here. It's at least worth checking on a study like this for a dissenting view, to see if maybe the person doing the study had done something wrong.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) I still don't grasp your point. If the COR was put in place to address such issues and they ruled in favor of the administration, then by definition, they are within the law. Yes, the searches the COR ruled on are within the law. 100% correct. The COR never was asked to rule on the searches outside of FISA that Bush is doing. The COR was only asked to rule on a search request which came before the FISA Court and was incorrectly denied. It was not asked to do any review on the program outside of FISA, nor would it have any ability to do so given that Mr. Bush is doing the wiretaps outside of FISA.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:44 AM) Considering that FISA tried to circumvent the Patriot Act by adhereing to the old Janet Reno standards, and this was challanged before the COR by the administration. The COR ruled in agreement with the administration. So, what exactly has Bush done that is illegal? The COR ruled that the Administration had the right to search under the new Patriot Act standard, of "Significant" reason rather than "Primary". In other words, in the case where the permission for the Tap was denied, the tap was now allowed. In other words, any time the Bush Administration went to the FISA court with something that had a "Significant" foreign intelligence purpose, FISA should now approve it. Presumably, what they've done that's breaking FISA is collecting data that does not have any "Significant" foreign intelligence purpose. Otherwise, they could go to the FISA court and get a warrant, and if it was denied, they could challenge it to the COR again. Either that, or they're just really really lazy and have a lot of contempt for the law and they just decided to break it anyway.

So did anyone actually believe Sheff when he said Bonds told him the stuff he was using was just the Flaxseed oil?

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) I do.. but I don't think I can post the article here... or can I? Well, it sure looks like they're reading us...so I think they may notice...

Wait, so there are people who grow up in Berkeley and become Conservatives?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) I was citing the arbitration record as part of the picture of Crede/Boras - obviously the issue becomes very different after 2007 (or is it after 2008 that he is FA-eligible?). If is after the 2008 season he is FA eligibile.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 09:45 AM) yeah, but Crede has also made it clear that he dictates the final say with Boras. And thus far, we have avoided arbitration with him. No doubt Crede's price will be high, but I think the Boras factor is not as profound when the player himself is more involved in the process. Avoiding arbitration with Crede is not the problem. The problem is the years after arbitration. And whether or not Crede has the final say, Boras still gives him advice about what is best for him financially, and that is seen through the Boras lens.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 09:40 AM) No, but the US did fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the Kremlin's interests in Afghanistan. Of course Russia funded terrorist attacks against the U.S., if we're willing to define terrorist widely enough. Those SAM's shooting down planes in North Vietnam weren't exactly made in Vietnamese factories. Those Mig 15's dueling with F-86's over North Korea weren't speaking Russian to their Korean ground controllers. Kruschev banging his shoe on the table at the U.N. shouting "We Will Bury You" wasn't exactly the greatest moment in diplomacy.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 08:14 AM) If Fields continues to struggle defensively (likely), and Crede's back holds up (possible), I think the Sox will try to stick with Crede and trade Fields. But payroll is always an issue of course, as is the team situation. If the Sox are losing and looking to restructure a bit, Crede is likely to go. If the Sox keep winning and keep a higher payroll, I'd bet they make him a reasonable contract offer. It doesn't matter if they make him a reasonable contract offer if Scott Boras decides what a reasonable contract offer is. If Crede retains Boras as his agent, Boras will almost certainly advise Crede to not accept any long-term deals past his final year of arbitration eligibility without first testing the FA market to see if his price gets bumped up. That's what he does with everyone. And if they test the FA market once and can't find the big deal they want, they sign a 1 year deal with whoever will take them and try to hit the jackpot the next year (Millwood, Weaver). That's Boras's obvious strategy; get to FA as fast as possible and then try to hit the jackpot then. His people simply don't sign long term deals without hitting the FA market, and they don't sacrifice FA years beforehand. In other words, if we hold onto Crede, he's almost certain to hit the FA market, and it'll take a Konerko-type-miracle for us to keep him then.

"Oh you've got to be kidding me" - me, after that swing.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 01:44 AM) I'll be honest with you Balta, some of what you put together is a little over the top for me. The legal terminology and jargon is a bit difficult for me to follow. However, in the paragraph quoted above you state the searches are in breach of the FISA law and therefore illegal. You also still question the constitionality of them. Yet, if you go back to the York article, it states... Ok, this hits right at the key point, so I want to make it totally clear where Mr. York is misunderstanding the point of the document here. The phrase "Inherent authority" only appears 1 time in this document, so it's easy to see which clause he is referring to, and his interpretation of it just isn't what the full document indicates. Part of this clause I excerpted in my first post, here's how it fits in. Ok, now again here the key point is this one...when the document refers to "Warrantless searches" it is not in any way, shape, or form, referring to a FISA warrant. It is referring to a warrant under Title 3 of the U.S. code, a search warrant as outlined in the 4th amendment to the Constitution. When a search is done with a FISA warrant, it is done outside of the 4th amendment. Hence, any FISA search which takes place with a FISA warrant would be "Warrantless surveillance" by the definition in this document. This document, as did the Troung case, say that the President has the authority to coonduct searches in national security cases without obtaining a warrant which would satisfy the 4th amendment. What FISA does is something different...instead of satisfying the 4th amendment, it allows for a mechanism through which the determination of a national security case can be made. In other words, FISA does not at all restrict the President's constitutional ability to conduct a wiretap without a warrant in a national security, exactly as this document says. What Mr. York is missing though is that a FISA warrant is different from a 4th amendment warrant. A FISA warrant is used in determining that a case does fit within the President's authority to conduct searches for National Security. FISA only limits the President's authority to conduct warrantless searches where there is no national security justification. If a FISA warrant is denied, it means that the FISA court judged that there was no national security concern to justify the President using his power to search outside the 4th amendment. FISA therefore does not limit the President's national security powers at all...it limits his ability to use searches outside of national security concerns, something which is not given to the President in the constitution. This is the flaw Mr. York is making. Either deliberately or accidentally, he is taking the term "warrantless surveillance" to apply to surveillance without a FISA warrant. This is incorrect, and it is not the way the document talks. "Warrantless surveillance" as defined by the document is not surveillance without a FISA warrant, it is surveillance without a 4th amendment criminal warrant, with or without a FISA warrant. It does not speak to any questions of surveillance without a FISA warrant.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 07:50 AM) Isn't Crede arbitration eligible in 2007 and 2008? Yes. 2k5's almost certainly referring to any sort of long-term deal after that. Maybe even before that...if Fields is actually "Ready", Crede may very well find himself on the trading blocks, just because there is no chance we're going to sign him unless he switches agents.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:50 AM) Hope is all we have. There's definately no record of success with either of these two guys. At least in Thornton's case, there's a ton of potential, and the right circumstances have molded potential into success many times before.

We still get goose bumps too Geoff.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) Wow. This is great - its like we got free use of a law clerk for this discussion! Thanks for reviewing the full decision. That statement about the 4th amendment gets to the heart of the opinion I expressed on this issue when it first came out, but goes even further in stating that the FISA warrants don't meet Constitutional test. Fascinating. That combined with the failure in keeping branch checks in place (I know, I may be alone on that one), makes it pretty clear to me that this surveillance is not Constitutionally valid. And no, I do not blame Bush for that, at least not entirely. he is using a questionable method, but he didn't create the hole in the first place. See, I actually had a slightly different reaction when I was going through the thing. My reaction is that Bush's surveillance outside of FISA may or may not be constitutionally valid, we don't know. We can infer from logic that it must not be, but we can't prove it. After that whole mess earlier, I think I managed to get a better understanding of what exactly the FISA court is designed to do. As both the Truong case and that COR review state, the President has full authority to engage in wiretaps without a 4th amendment warrant if it involves a foreign intelligence agency. Now, if he's wiretapping a foreigner in this country, there's clearly no constitutional issue, as that person isn't granted 4th amendment rights. But with a U.S. citizen, there could be an issue...as without FISA, there is no means through which to determine whether or not there is a legitimate national security concern which could justify the wiretaps. This fact is why FISA is not in opposition to the Truong decision, and why it puts no additional limits on Presidential power - the President still has every ounce of power he had beforehand to engage in wiretaps outside the 4th amendment if they are for national security purposes. All the FISA courts do is determine whether or not there are legitimate national security purposes for the wiretap, and if there are, the President can authorize a wiretap outside of the 4th amendment. Therefore, if Mr. Bush is engaging in wiretaps without FISA approval, we have no means to test whether or not those wiretaps are actually constitutional...the job of the FISA court is to determine that. Logic tells us that if Bush is wiretapping without FISA approval, they must be some sort of taps that are unconstitutional, because otherwise the FISA court would approve the tap. But aside from that statement, I have no further proof to offer about the constitutionality. However, despite the fact that I cannot prove the searches to be unconstitutional...the searches are being done in a fashion which does not have FISA approval. In that case, they are in breach of the FISA law. I don't exactly see where there is a hole. A hole could have been created through simple means - challenging the offending provision of FISA in court and following up on claims of unconstitutionality (is that a word? Yow). But they didn't do that. And that, I think, is the real problem.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) We all need a break after that. Seriously, you should tighten that post up just a bit, link it to the NR piece and submit it as a diary on DKos. I didn't see anybody touch on it there, and in fact didn't even know about the article until YAS posted it here today. Let's see, today, I woke up, did the week's laundry for the Fiancee and me, made dinner, gave self a haircut, cleaned up after the haircut, shampooed the carpets, had lunch (technically it was also breakfast), biked in to school, checked on the experiment I've had sitting at 1350 degrees C and 3000 atmospheres pressure since Friday, came back to the computer, did that post, spent 2 hours sorting half-millimeter sized mineral grains into small piles, biked home, finished off dinner, ate dinner, spent time with Fiancee, and finally got back on here. It's on my list of things to do.

Don't the A's have like 4 outfielders counting Swisher, a first baseman, and Frank Thomas, already? That's like 6 guys to start at 4 spots. Where would he play?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) CNN has really gone downhill over the past few years. Since Crossfire dissolved, there's pretty much nothing worth watchcing. Wolf Blitzer is awful. Nancy Grace is a nutcase. Watching Larry King throw softball questions at his guests is a waste of time. Lou Dobbs isn't bad, but he's not exactly the most entertaining personality on TV. Anderson Cooper is decent, but nothing special. Outside of the "CNN Presents" specials, there isn't a whole lot worth watching. They're even screwing up Headline News now with the obnoxious pop culture garbage of "Showbiz Tonight." You want to know the scary thing...except for the 3 words "Since Crossfire dissolved"...I agree with every single thing said there.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Most of Europe is still kicking itself for not launching pre-emptive strikes on Nazi Germany back in the '30s. And Britain is also pretty thankful that it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. in the late 20's before the London Naval treaty was signed. And the U.S. is pretty happy it didn't launch a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union.