Subject: FISA/NSA Wiretaps
O'Reilly began the show with Judge Napolitano and discussed the case. To his credit, the whacko judge was on the right side. The argument revolved around war powers and O'Reilly kept beating him up with a red herring (wish I could see that in real life)... Anyway, O'Reilly was saying that when you've got a call on the line, you don't have time for judges. Napolitano really had no response except to say that it was against the law to do what the administration did. Why am I not surprised that a Fox News analyst didn't know the facts?
A second issue surrounded the issue of the leak itself and the NYT publishing the story.
I addressed both points in my call - transcript on the flip. I was "Fred from Waterford, NY".
O'Falafel: Waterford, NY. Fred, what say you?
Me: I'm surprised the judge didn't familiarize himself with the statute before coming on your show because he would have been able to correct you by telling you that FISA does allow for emergency wire-taps immediately - you just have to go before a judge within 72 hours to get approval for those wire-taps - after they've already begun. So if you have a call coming in you can IMMEDIATELY record it - you just have to make it before the judge within 72 hours. And as far as the New York Times goes...
O'Falafel: hmm-mmm
Me: (spoken in incredulous tone) You think people don't know that we're spying on terrorists in this country? I mean, what did this leak really do?
O'Falafel: well it just creates more chaos for the Bush administration, but let me address your first point which is a very good point... the Bush administration contends that it didn't have to go before the judge because it was given the authority to wage the war on terror in a military way. And let me give you an - and I want you to reply to this - so if you're on the front lines with all the high-tech gear we have now in the war - and you are trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his pals or whoever - and you are eavesdropping - you know you can eavesdrop now with all kinds of machines - and you are in the field - you aren't gonna go 72 hours later before a civilian judge and ask if you can do that - because there's too much of it - there's too much paperwork involved, there's the process of it... when you wage an aggressive war you basically hunt down and kill the enemy and that's what it comes down to. Bush is saying, look, I have the authority to hunt down and kill the enemy without every 72 hours having to go back and check with a judge for a warrant. Now whether that will hold up or not, I can't say. I believe it will. What say you, Fred?
Me: I would say that in any kind of law enforcement operation it's not...
O'Falafel: this isn't a law enforcement operation...
Me: ok... any kind of spying operation, anything like that, eavesdropping operations - it's not the spies that go before the judge - it's the lawyers and the beaurocracy that talk to the judge
O'Falafel Ok, Ok I got it - look... it's two different views... that this war on terror should be adjudicated in the courts....
I don't usually do this - I prefer, generally, to let the record speak for itself... but... let's take this apart - it's just too rich...
well it just creates more chaos for the Bush administration
so the Bush administration should remain above critical examination by the free press? Why, that's a novel argument!
the Bush administration contends that it didn't have to go before the judge because it was given the authority to wage the war on terror in a military way. And let me give you an - and I want you to reply to this - so if you're on the front lines with all the high-tech gear we have now in the war - and you are trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his pals or whoever - and you are eavesdropping - you know you can eavesdrop now with all kinds of machines - and you are in the field
can you here the gears grinding between his ears? he's reaching hard. I love these moments because more often than not, as he thinks aloud, he digs his grave deeper
you aren't gonna go 72 hours later before a civilian judge and ask if you can do that - because there's too much of it - there's too much paperwork involved, there's the process of it... when you wage an aggressive war you basically hunt down and kill the enemy and that's what it comes down to. Bush is saying, look, I have the authority to hunt down and kill the enemy without every 72 hours having to go back and check with a judge for a warrant. Now whether that will hold up or not, I can't say. I believe it will. What say you, Fred?
if I had it to do over again, I'd say that Bill just spouted a boatload of spin. Nobody denies that wanting to "hunt down and kill" terrorists. How many Americans that we've spied on have we "hunted down and killed"?
Ok, Ok I got it - look... it's two different views... that this war on terror should be adjudicated in the courts....
that's the best you could do, O'Falafel? Recycle some old republican talking point? ugh.
finally folks, a request. I've gotten into trouble with the wife... lol. As I've previously posted, we just had a baby and while I wait to begin law school, I'm a stay at home dad. That is how I've been able to call so many shows (and stay informed enough to say something relevant when I get on the air).
Anyway... we got our cell phone bill last month. It wasn't pretty. All of these calls take place during peak minute hours. Often (especially on Hannity) they'll keep you on hold for 30, 40 sometimes even 60 or 70 minutes. It comes down to this: I've got to curtail the calls unless I can get some help paying for them.
In addition, I've come across something called the "Radio Shark" at the Apple store. It's a radio reciever that hooks to your laptop and allows you to record the shows. It's about $70.
These are my thoughts: if I can raise enough to buy the gadget and defray some of the cell phone expenses, I can start recording these calls and create an email list so that I can send them out.
Listen... I don't like doing this at all. But two things compel me: 1) several posters have suggested as much (at least with regards to getting my phone bill paid) and 2) the radio shark thing is really cool and I think you'd enjoy it as much as I enjoy talking to the blowhards. Something you don't know (because I don't blog about them as much) is that I also call Lars Larson, Tony Snow and a bevy of local right wingers... some of these calls can be really entertaining if you are geeky enough (like I am).
So anyway, the fact is that I've spent over $1,000 in the last two years calling these shows. It's my hobby (and that's a pretty cheap one, if you ask me), so I don't think I "deserve" anything for doing it, but a coupla bucks from a coupla people would help.
BTW: I will not take any more moolah than I spend. I'm just looking to defray expenses. If you can help, email me at stark - dot - m - at - gmail - dot - com.
Edit/Update: some have asked if they can donate through paypal. We have an account set up for ebay, but I'm not sure how to provide a direct link. However, I went to the paypal site and they say you can contribute through our Paypal account email. It is mayin617 at yahoo dot com. Again, thanks very much.
