Look out, here come the "legal experts" and they're packing...

They're packing talking points and NPR is not immune. Here's what one of them said this morning:

"The FISA court, to issue a warrant, needs a name for the investigation. Since the nature of the wiretaps were to find general patterns of communication such as long international phone calls and specific wording in emails, it is impossible to provide a name and thus impossible to apply for a warrant."

Does that make it all leg-al-er? Or is it sorta constitutional-like?

** FYI **- WH presumptions 2000-2006:
1) Americans don't have heads, they have "commentary boxes" where propaganda is stored as long as it's repeated enough times.
2) If you are an "expert" in something, then you're an expert in everything (example: arabian horses) and thus can comment on such lofty subjects such as the constitutional legality of domestic wiretapping. (If you have Col., Gen., Adm., or Spec. in front of your name you cannot be questioned as to your credentials)
3) Journalists always lie.
4) Commentators always tell the truth.
5) Your opinion radio must confirm what the commentary television is telling you.
6) The print media will follow how the stock holders feel on any given subject. Bad news makes stocks go down.
7) The whistle-blower is the criminal for whistle-blowing.
8) Democrats are too weak to be effective and thus do not have the privilege to be obstructive.
9) The American public is too scattered to allow the "will of the people" to actually create policy. It is important to tell people what their will is, then execute that policy, and blame the people when the policy falters. ("Trust me."...then later, "It is your fault for trusting me.")
10) The American public is too busy to care.

Don't believe everyone on NPR. Remember, Justice John Roberts was their supreme court expert analyst for 11 years. Fantastic reference, but skewed at best.

But, it does pass the brain-dead lemmings that voted for him and that are willing to give up civil rights for the elusive feeling of "safety."

The points need to be continually hammered: 9/11 commission has a list of things that would make us safer--never been implemented.

Where protected privacy rights are concerned, the State is required to be very particular about what they're looking for, and from whom.

They don't get to cast a dragnet and go on fishing expeditions.

Courts use "John Doe" all the freaking time.

You see, you can say anybody is John Doe if you need a name for them, you are mistaken, but that is OK under the law.

There are even cases that are styled "13 Unknown Officers."

The "gotta have a name" stuff is complete b/s, especially since their intercepts can be retroactively validated by the FISA Court, by which time the owner of a particular cell or land-line can be easily established.

More than anything, what this points to for me is the fact that the government is, in fact, using wide sweeps of *all* communications. The "name" issue tells me that their net is so wide, they themselves are incompetent to comply with the law.

And that's scary not just from a 4th Amendment standpoint, but from a national defense standpoint, too. It tells me that their attempts really *do* reach the level of trying to find out some sort of cypher from mass-batch grabs. Remember the scenes from "A Beautiful Mind" where the Russell Crowe character had gone completely batshit crazy insane and was monitoring commies by analyzing Reader's Digest and Highlights for Children?

This is that. And that's the kind of wholesale incompetence that gets people killed.

I heard this on NPR this morning and, not having any experience in criminal procedure, could not think of a way around it, since I fell for the "gotta have a name" bit.

Your posts gave me my way around. My thanks.