<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is The NSA Surveillance Legal? Let&#8217;s Remove Any Doubt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Private Servers</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-812590</link>
		<dc:creator>Private Servers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-812590</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Habbo Retros...&lt;/strong&gt;

Habbo Retros are slowly attracting more users with each passing day, most people prefer to play Habbo Retros with pets according to a recent google study, further evidence also supports that Habbo Retros have lead to an annual decrease in revenue for s...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Habbo Retros&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Habbo Retros are slowly attracting more users with each passing day, most people prefer to play Habbo Retros with pets according to a recent google study, further evidence also supports that Habbo Retros have lead to an annual decrease in revenue for s&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: iPod Downloads</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-279371</link>
		<dc:creator>iPod Downloads</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-279371</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Bo Carter...&lt;/strong&gt;

 I am a movie fanatic. Fortunately, I found a place to download the...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bo Carter&#8230;</strong></p>
<p> I am a movie fanatic. Fortunately, I found a place to download the&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ignatius Heeds My Call</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24473</link>
		<dc:creator>Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ignatius Heeds My Call</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24473</guid>
		<description>[...] Oh, alright, I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;s never read me before - but this piece by David Ignatius in today&#8217;s Washington Post might very well have been written by me - and in fact, it almost has been. Here&#8217;s what I said on Saturday: I fully support the President’s initiatives, at least to the extent that I know about them. I have not been convinced, however, by the legal justifications put forth. Thus I welcome any removal of doubt, even if it must be accomplished through litigation. The principles of constitutionality and legality must be ensured. If the President acted illegally in a time of national crisis and in vigorous defense of the nation, I’m not overly concerned. If such a state of affairs continues indefinitely, I would be very concerned. We must operate within the law, and within the Constitution. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Oh, alright, I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;s never read me before &#8211; but this piece by David Ignatius in today&#8217;s Washington Post might very well have been written by me &#8211; and in fact, it almost has been. Here&#8217;s what I said on Saturday: I fully support the President’s initiatives, at least to the extent that I know about them. I have not been convinced, however, by the legal justifications put forth. Thus I welcome any removal of doubt, even if it must be accomplished through litigation. The principles of constitutionality and legality must be ensured. If the President acted illegally in a time of national crisis and in vigorous defense of the nation, I’m not overly concerned. If such a state of affairs continues indefinitely, I would be very concerned. We must operate within the law, and within the Constitution. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24287</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 19:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24287</guid>
		<description>Hey, if an element of vindictive, Nixonian paranoia becomes enmeshed with all this (see my most recent post), I won&#039;t be able to support that...the database should be used for national security only, in my view...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, if an element of vindictive, Nixonian paranoia becomes enmeshed with all this (see my most recent post), I won&#8217;t be able to support that&#8230;the database should be used for national security only, in my view&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24285</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 18:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24285</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m just taking the opportunity to point out that, only a few days ago, you were &lt;a href=&#039;http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24137&#039; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;poo-pooing&lt;/a&gt; my &lt;a href=&#039;http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24135&#039; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comment&lt;/a&gt; suggesting exactly &lt;a href=&quot;http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24142&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this eventuality&lt;/a&gt; as a hypothetical &quot;slippery slope&quot; argument.

I realize these allegations are far from proven. But it&#039;s remarkable how quickly that &quot;slippery slope&quot; stops looking so steep ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m just taking the opportunity to point out that, only a few days ago, you were <a href='http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24137' rel="nofollow">poo-pooing</a> my <a href='http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24135' rel="nofollow">comment</a> suggesting exactly <a href="http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24142" rel="nofollow">this eventuality</a> as a hypothetical &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; argument.</p>
<p>I realize these allegations are far from proven. But it&#8217;s remarkable how quickly that &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; stops looking so steep &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Brian Ross: Big Brother Is Watching</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24284</link>
		<dc:creator>Decision &#8216;08 &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Brian Ross: Big Brother Is Watching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 18:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24284</guid>
		<description>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24283</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 18:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24283</guid>
		<description>Jacques, my points still stand, and an allegation by Brian Ross is not proof.  I&#039;m not an apologist for the administration, and I&#039;m not Tony Snow.  I was laying out my position and my position only...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacques, my points still stand, and an allegation by Brian Ross is not proof.  I&#8217;m not an apologist for the administration, and I&#8217;m not Tony Snow.  I was laying out my position and my position only&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24281</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 18:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24281</guid>
		<description>There was an interesting revelation in an article about the lawsuit against Verizon:

The lawyer suing Verizon “said the information, only collected from landline subscribers, would not provide the government any information to help national security. &quot;The terrorists are on the pay phones or using the prepaid phones,&quot; he said. &quot;They are not on landlines so this entire exercise is another one of the administration arguments that we have to protect national security by doing something which doesn&#039;t have any protection for national security.&quot;

If this is true, it boggles the mind.  This whole program is limited to landlines only?  Who uses landlines any more?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was an interesting revelation in an article about the lawsuit against Verizon:</p>
<p>The lawyer suing Verizon “said the information, only collected from landline subscribers, would not provide the government any information to help national security. &#8220;The terrorists are on the pay phones or using the prepaid phones,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They are not on landlines so this entire exercise is another one of the administration arguments that we have to protect national security by doing something which doesn&#8217;t have any protection for national security.&#8221;</p>
<p>If this is true, it boggles the mind.  This whole program is limited to landlines only?  Who uses landlines any more?</p>
<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24273</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 16:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24273</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;if we permit surveillance of suspected terrorists (and how do we know it’s limited to that?) ... why not ‘unpatriotic’ reporters and anti-war protesters?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well, &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;that didn&#039;t take long&lt;/a&gt; did it?

Still think the NSA program is limited to &quot;terrorists&quot;? Or are reporters, whose reporting hurts the war effort, fair game too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>if we permit surveillance of suspected terrorists (and how do we know it’s limited to that?) &#8230; why not ‘unpatriotic’ reporters and anti-war protesters?</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html" rel="nofollow">that didn&#8217;t take long</a> did it?</p>
<p>Still think the NSA program is limited to &#8220;terrorists&#8221;? Or are reporters, whose reporting hurts the war effort, fair game too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/13/is-the-nsa-surveillance-legal-lets-remove-any-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-24261</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 13:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/?p=3910#comment-24261</guid>
		<description>1)  There is a difference between a policy success and &quot;an administration victory.&quot;  A policy success is an achievement which will be recognized for centuries:  the Marshall Plan, the Clinton budget surplus, the end of Russian Communism under Reagan (just to be even-handed here).  Getting two Supreme Court nominees through a GOP Congress isn&#039;t a policy success -- all Presidents with Court vacancies fill them.  It&#039;s part of the job.  Perhaps they will be great Justices, or perhaps not:  we don&#039;t know.  

2)  The economy is decent enough, as you would expect it to be after the fiscal and monetary stimulus we&#039;ve had.  If you want to use the Dow Jones as a proxy, we&#039;re about where we were when Clinton left office.  If the economy were in its present state and we had a balanced budget, then I would view that as a policy success.  However, because the economy is juiced up by hundreds of billions of dollars of government borrowing, we are not seeing the full picture.  The inevitable result is that we will have to repay the government debt, quite possibly in a time when the economy is slowing or foreigners are not longer willing to buy government paper.  

I used to work with someone who made a lot of money in dot-com stocks in the 1990&#039;s and then bought his house on margin (using Qualcomm stock, if you can believe that).  Things looked pretty good for him, too -- for a while.

3)  The unemployment rate uses as the denominator everyone currently in the work force (leaving out the chronically unemployed or those who can&#039;t find a job and leave the work force).  As mentioned, when both the Fed and the budget deficit combine to goose the economy, it will create a lot of jobs.  However, if you look at metrics like disposable income, household balance sheets, and consumer confidence, it doesn&#039;t seem like the mass of Americans are getting ahead (and certainly they don&#039;t seem to think so).

4)  Tax cuts aren&#039;t a policy success.  You can always give money away.  Fiscal discipline is a policy success.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1)  There is a difference between a policy success and &#8220;an administration victory.&#8221;  A policy success is an achievement which will be recognized for centuries:  the Marshall Plan, the Clinton budget surplus, the end of Russian Communism under Reagan (just to be even-handed here).  Getting two Supreme Court nominees through a GOP Congress isn&#8217;t a policy success &#8212; all Presidents with Court vacancies fill them.  It&#8217;s part of the job.  Perhaps they will be great Justices, or perhaps not:  we don&#8217;t know.  </p>
<p>2)  The economy is decent enough, as you would expect it to be after the fiscal and monetary stimulus we&#8217;ve had.  If you want to use the Dow Jones as a proxy, we&#8217;re about where we were when Clinton left office.  If the economy were in its present state and we had a balanced budget, then I would view that as a policy success.  However, because the economy is juiced up by hundreds of billions of dollars of government borrowing, we are not seeing the full picture.  The inevitable result is that we will have to repay the government debt, quite possibly in a time when the economy is slowing or foreigners are not longer willing to buy government paper.  </p>
<p>I used to work with someone who made a lot of money in dot-com stocks in the 1990&#8242;s and then bought his house on margin (using Qualcomm stock, if you can believe that).  Things looked pretty good for him, too &#8212; for a while.</p>
<p>3)  The unemployment rate uses as the denominator everyone currently in the work force (leaving out the chronically unemployed or those who can&#8217;t find a job and leave the work force).  As mentioned, when both the Fed and the budget deficit combine to goose the economy, it will create a lot of jobs.  However, if you look at metrics like disposable income, household balance sheets, and consumer confidence, it doesn&#8217;t seem like the mass of Americans are getting ahead (and certainly they don&#8217;t seem to think so).</p>
<p>4)  Tax cuts aren&#8217;t a policy success.  You can always give money away.  Fiscal discipline is a policy success.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

