I love that ACLU!

Let me guess the gist of the gov't's response: "National security, bitches, so STFU"

I'm quite sure that even if the court decides to release it, Bush'll find a way to block it anyway.

The Bush Admin has certainly been gung ho when the release was in their favor - In re Sealed Case, the only FISA appellate decision, which went their way - sure hit the bookstands.

Bill of Rights: Who knew?!

RWN @ 6:36
I think you are right on with this.

I believe it was a FISC judge that forced the DOJ to certify the program(s) which is what caused the panic and the late night visit to Ashcrofts hospital bed.

I would be interesting to watch the fleas scratch the dog for a change.

Anyone notice how TPM doesn't allow any anonymous comments any more under the latest headlines they have on their site? I can't believe that the great J.M. Marshall is muting people's voices on his forum. Bravo! And I thought he was a "fair and balanced" man. I guess I was wrong. The only place left to put up your comments now is the DailyKos. Thank you Mr. Marshall!

sc: desire as in Mr. Marshall I desire the voice that you stole from me back

There's a diary over on dailykos right now with a copy of an extensive complaint filed against Gonzales with the Texas Bar.

My name is dick cheney but my comment won't post because I used the moniker ANONYMOUS. Damn that Marshall. Oops, it posted, then, a big juicy kiss on the forehead for Josh.

Hold them accountable. If the Republicans wish to play partisan politics and defend these criminal acts, let them pay for it in the next election. Let them try and defend these illegal actions. There is a constitutional requirement in cases where the President and others refuse to follow the laws passed by Congress and blatantly disobey our Constitution. It's called impeachment. The times call for it. The people deserve it. The Congress should do its job. If the Republicans take the side of the criminals, let them pay at the polls. It is more important than any other issue - including the war in Iraq.

Any thought to the idea: "third party data capture" = wiki IP data?

In the wiki summary logs now published, check the Washington Post-listed IP numbers posted for the White House. As an example, then, in 2005, look for the CIA-related updates in the special division; the White House personnel appear, based on the Wiki-IP data, to have received some specific briefing related to the CIA special projects near those dates in December 2005; or they accessed a specific document. Each disclosure by WH-EOP related to any issue is a key word you can enter into the RNC e-mails; if there are gaps, then you have to ask: Why are they searching for things "indepedently"? The answer relates to the other communcation going on inside EOP-NSA: They have non-official IM-systems which you have not been specifically made aware or requested. It's an error to only focuse on the RNC e-mails to fill in the gaps for the EOP-WH communcations on the US Atty firings.

As to the third party data cature, do not focus only on the White House EOP numbers listed; but do the opposite: Scan up and down that particular wiki-change-history-log for the other EOP IP numbers; you will see patterns/groups of changes for a particular IP-data block; then check your open source information in the search engines to see which other sites these EOP-related IP numbers were visiting. Don't rely only on the software-generated products, but go into the wiki yourself and get a feel for the history logs, and IP-neighbors.

One thing to do is look at the wiki-listed EOP IPs, then use those IP-neighbors for searches in teh open source search engies. You'll see how there are other patterns at the macro and micro levels: One is celestial, the other is biological. These are only analogies to help you see the pattern: It's connected like a molecule or star cluster; the same IP-data appears; the key will be to use the models to organize the data for the Grand Jury.

Once you link the academic websites with the EOP, you will be able to see which secific files at that university they were looking at. In the case of the cryptography, one interesting pattern is to see the common IP-updates on the wiki of intelligence community contractors linked to the technology/HUMINT resources [Ex: Ft. Huachuka; and the pilotless drones]. Once you dig into the contractor-linked IP data on the wiki, you'll see that those contractors -- when they visit the same sites as CIA and EOP -- have looked at specific key words in academic papers which related to the NSA cryptography. Using those key words from the search engine-provided papers, you can then review who made updates to _those_ wikis; and branch out into the NSA contractors: Who was doing what; and which Boards of directors at thos NSA contractors have a problem: Staff working/getting paid to work on US govt contractors, but either leaking sensitive information, or using contractor resources for non-official purposes. However, recall the DOD IG special investigation units have also been making wiki updates, so they are "tainted". That's why the public needs to do the analysis, forward their finding to the States/Grand Jury, and cannot rely on government investigators to report findings.

The posted information seems overwhelming is that it's not summary information of any public news, but something else: Summary reports of the third party data capture analysis between open source, wiki, and the disclosed information. The public information -- for now -- isn't making sense because you're trying to "Understand it" from the persective of what's been disclosed in the news, not what's been disclosed in the search engines and wikis. You have yet to look -- in detail -- at the wiki information and the open source IP-connected data attached to that IP number. The commentaries outline the emerging lines of evidence emerging on the wiki-IP-search engine data; combined with a commentary on how the current spin was attempting to mislead the public. It was hoped that eventually, if needed, there would be a record of what was known; and if needed, there was a method to organize regardless the results. Each of you has a small piece of inforamtion to, if needed, lead a lawful defense of the Constitution. You'll learn more about this later, and the others involved. Try to think simple: Start with the obvious organization elements for the information; and then use that structure to start having the evidence like decorations on a seasonal item.

The monitoring of the wiki-IP data isn't something that's just started, but has been going on for years. The wiki is like WWII ULTRA: Take a look at the battle of Coventry when Churchill knew -- through ULTRA -- what was going to happen, but couldn't say anything because that would reveal ULTRA. This is one reason why wiki wasn't specifically mentioned until now in the context of third party data capture; or the method of pinpointing specific US government-disclosed information ["internal leaks"]: The President would have been alerted to this, change his legal positions before the FISA Court, and in the NSA litigation. Going forward, he'll have to cotradict himself. The wiki-related information was used to trace the connection between the DOJ Staff counsel and the intelligence community meetings in the DC Area; and the DOJ Staff access is related to information disclosed to DoJ Staff that they were not aware was being monitored. Their actions -- as recorded in the DOJ STaff IT area -- was timed to prompt specific discrete actions that they would disclose publicly; that public action is linked with internal communications the President and AG thought would never be disclosed. Now that they acted, and left evidence, it's possible to review the records to determine what they were reading; who they forwarded it to; and what prompted their combined visits and actions. The DOJ-EOP Staff, because of this overwhelming evidence, cannot easily endure a cross-examination or an interrogation on these issues. Note they'll invoke the very "rights" they say Americans are not entitled to assert.

Saying "third party data capture" -- as opposed to wiki -- has been a way of communicating to some the wiki-related information; and that would give them lead time to store records, continue monitoring, and blindside the CIA, DOJ, and EOP. Sorry couldn't be more specific. You one day will learn the methods by which the IP-connected data from EOP, DOJ, NSA, and CIA were captured; how it's known who inside the US government is reading this site; and how this was coordinated without the NSA and President being alerted.

Now that the wiki-related IP information has been disclosed, organized, and is easily searchable by organization, I encourage you to re-read the information provided to you on TPM: You will see how things have been presented with the intent that you see that there was something there; give you a means to digest it and find it; but delay providing direct information to the US government so they would adjust their open leaks. Recall, the wiki's accuracy isn't the issue: Once that wiki-related information is connected with the US government IP, the issue is two fold: Either the information is official and amounts to a leak, breaching executive privilege; or it's not official information and that IP-number-data at the wiki is evidence that that particular US government personnel was involved with non-official use of government computers.

The delay was intended to give you time to digest some of the majority of the information. Think in terms of a railroad track -- there are two different rails. You've seen part of the rails; and part of the cross-ties; your job will be to accept that there are other people with other parts that are going to be meeting with you. They have also been prepared and have been working on other portions. You're not alone on this.

This has been done to ensure the NSA and WH were not aware of the many different groups involved with the analysis; and preparation for the grand jury. There are leaks by Congress and EOP to personnel attempting to mislead the Grand Jury. One day, as with Ultra and Coventry, you'll be given the bigger picture. Check the most recent entry on war crimes; review the process to consolidate the war crimes information using the third party data capture; and understand the issue isn't FISA, EOP, or Congress: It's law firms and legal counsel connected with war crimes planning; and contractor involvement with that planning, coverup, and coordination. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Prepare to support the Grand Jury as they turn their attention to the third party data capture -- not juston the wiki -- but in other locations. Yes, there's more. Please discuss the evidence with your State Attorney General and their Staff. Good luck. The common element: Allegations of war crimes and unlawful conduct in breach of the US Costitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions. Nothing more complacted than that. This was coordinated using methods the NSA have been unable to detect; many were involved. Their oath is to one thing: The US Constitution. Nothing else, no higher loyality. This was done for you. Others chose something else. The Grand Jury and others will decide whether their actions warrant adjudication for war crimes, oath of office violations, malfeasance, or other allegations related to sedition, rebellion, and insurrection against the United States and US Constitution. Best wishes. The rule of law shall prevail.

Could someone please translate the above post into plain English. I gather that some sort of information has been compiled for presentation to a grand jury, but exactly what eludes me. I can't tell if the poster is a nutjob or a genius.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/therap/2007/jul/31/project_for_constitutional_compliance#comment-281728

At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress.

The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

At the Justice Department session, critics of the legislation also complained to administration officials about the diminished role of the FISA court, which is limited to determining whether the procedures set up by the executive administration for intercepting foreign intelligence are “clearly erroneous” or not.

That limitation sets a high bar to set off any court intervention, argued Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who also attended the Justice Department meeting.

“You’ve turned the court into a spectator,” Mr. Rotenberg

said.http://www.nytimes.com/

Anon, Is there "hope?"