Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Monkie

(1,301 posts)
37. so the reality is you are appealing to authority and preaching blind trust
Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:23 AM
Jun 2013

im sorry, but i am a little disappointed, you claim expertise in legal matters, claim to represent just the facts, then accuse greenwald of "flat out distorting" while ignoring something, a basic fact, that anyone with even the most basic "armchair" knowledge of the legal profession would know.
if there is ambiguity in the language used to define law, then lawyers will use this ambiguity to claim the right to bend the law, or break the spirit of the law, and judges will allow this, if this whole process then takes place in secret, and when one of the basic checks and balances a democracy has, the oversight of the public, or a free press, is missing, then there is a real danger for abuse.
now i am not a lawyer, but i work with language in other ways, PR and advertising is where my experience of this ambiguity comes from.
and when the law contains phrases such as " not intentionally" and "reasonably believed", well, this is so ambiguous i could not only drive a bus through it, i could turn the bus around in it.
you also make claims about the retention of documents, where you yourself are being disingenuous, to put it politely, because this is the quote from the official interviewed by the guardian:


A senior US intelligence official told the Guardian: "Under section 702,
~edited out the fluff to get to the relevant part~
These procedures are approved on an annual basis by the Fisa court.


i think this proves my point about lawyers and busses, the quote from the official is, these procedures are approved on a annual basis, that is something completely different from "a warrant is only good for a year", it has already been shown/proven that other blanket fisa warrants that had a time limit of 3 months have been renewed every 3 months for the past 7 years, so who is the person that is flat out distorting, you, or greenwald and the other lawyers he quotes?

now maybe you are right, and greenwald is wrong, in saying the fisa court is not a rubberstamp, but you dont provide the actual data we have seen, which is how many times the government has ben reigned back by this court, which i think is quite a important metric when judging if the court is "rubber stamping" or not. of course you could argue that this means the law is being applied correctly, but i dont think you really want me to dig up examples where this is not the case, we only have so much time in a day, or not?

lastly, you wave away the rest of the article as hearsay and speculation, but lets look for a minute who it is that is doing the "speculating", on the one hand we have you, a anonymous expert, and on the other we have greenwald, a lawyer, jameel jaffer, deputy legal director at the ACLU, and jack balkin, professor of constitutional law at yale university, and i dont think anyone else has any doubts regarding who's appeal to authority is more convincing here.

i do welcome a discussion, and i think i have covered most of what you claim, but to me your post does begin to look like cheerleading and a lot less authoritative and balanced than your original post on this subject implies.
i dont mind "giving" you the point that there is _some_ tiny amount of oversight of the program by the FISA court that greenwald does not acknowledge, but this is so minor. i am most disappointed that someone that claims legal expertise and balance would try to deny or ignore the obvious ambiguity in the wording of the law, something that i would think is a basic requirement to be a expert, recognising dangerous ambiguity.
and when we couple this with the fact that someone else already showed that you were wrong about the law as it pertains to email, i think it is fair to say that your claims of authority and fact have been debunked.
FISA & EPCA the facts & nothing more [View all] giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 OP
Thank Gawd they never break laws RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
I am talking about experience giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #3
experience is welcome, could you comment on greenwalds detailed take on FISA? Monkie Jun 2013 #5
When I get home tonight giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #18
ok sorry, i got a little angry at you Monkie Jun 2013 #21
I didn't realize you were attacking me, giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #22
Response to Greenwalds Piece giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #30
I think that emails older than 180 days only require a subpoena Jarla Jun 2013 #31
Nope, certain things apply to US Persons & Non US Persons everyone within the US is considered a US giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #32
From the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide Jarla Jun 2013 #35
as the other poster has shown, claiming something is misinformation does not make it so Monkie Jun 2013 #36
so the reality is you are appealing to authority and preaching blind trust Monkie Jun 2013 #37
I didn't preach to blind trust, nor is anything I said opinon based giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #41
im sorry, you did exactly that, blind trust, and you now offer no argument Monkie Jun 2013 #42
Whatever giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #43
i see you have nothing factual to say about my arguments Monkie Jun 2013 #44
I said back it up giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #45
i did not realise i had to back up commonly accepted facts but sure. Monkie Jun 2013 #46
a good example of ambiguity in the law, is the word Fair use Monkie Jun 2013 #47
You are attempting to try & muddy giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #48
you still address none of my points, the fact is there is no case law for FISA Monkie Jun 2013 #49
Bullshit giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #50
i put up, miss anonymous expert, and all you did was cry and cry "the law the law" Monkie Jun 2013 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Monkie Jun 2013 #52
Um, does anyone break a law and then tell you about it? randome Jun 2013 #4
Is there a real question from you? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #7
You said "Thank Gawd they never break laws". randome Jun 2013 #8
Easy RobertEarl Jun 2013 #9
So no government secrets ever? randome Jun 2013 #10
OK, I answered your question. Here's one for you. RobertEarl Jun 2013 #13
Private contractors, no. randome Jun 2013 #14
Secrecy RobertEarl Jun 2013 #15
So facts just kick your ass don't they? giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #17
so why wont you answer the real question, the lawyers questions?straw men and "facts" Monkie Jun 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #23
again, if i had seen you had also responded to me after attacking the other person Monkie Jun 2013 #24
It's ok, we can feel foolish together giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #25
Awww RobertEarl Jun 2013 #26
Nooo giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #28
it is funny that someone that approves this data retention deletes their post Monkie Jun 2013 #38
Seriously, It was because I had called you a dick giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #40
"you went on about your ass, kangaroos and laser beams." datasuspect Jun 2013 #29
People don't get prosecuted for fucking torture Fumesucker Jun 2013 #2
Yeah, where were all of you complainers back in 1979? I didn't see you make a PEEP back then! MNBrewer Jun 2013 #6
Where were they in 2012? 2011? At what point did this drop off the radar? randome Jun 2013 #11
I know, so it' can't POSSIBLY be an issue NOW!!! MNBrewer Jun 2013 #12
Thanks giftedgirl. We need more info and less hype around here. From the posts i've read you okaawhatever Jun 2013 #16
Completely agree. n/t FSogol Jun 2013 #19
Thank you giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #33
Actual information on DU? How quaint. MineralMan Jun 2013 #27
The Gov Facts, often turn out to be LIES usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #34
Thanks for posting some facts. HappyMe Jun 2013 #39
i call debunked, anonymous "expert" vs the top ACLU lawyer, and 2 constitutional lawyers Monkie Jun 2013 #53
Debate is fine but you don't seem willing to engage in it. randome Jun 2013 #54
i'm sorry, i really tried debate, but there was none to be had, sadly Monkie Jun 2013 #55
Wasted time railsback Jun 2013 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»FISA & EPCA the facts & n...»Reply #37