FISA: More Than You Want to Know

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.

Let me get this straight.

1. You are a Time columnist.
2. You wrote an article on FISA.
3. You don't have the time to get it right.

Gee, most of us don't have the luxury of saying we don't have the "time" to do our jobs...

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.

Then please shut up.

http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/11/26/shameful-journalism-by-time-magazines-joe-klein/

"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

... and yes, Joe means "who's right about the categorical claims I just made on this very subject in the print edition of Time magazine."

This is surrreal. Time really needs to fire this guy.

Joe,

I am a lawyer and I think you are being fed bogus arguments by opponents of this bill.

The first section of the bill states, unequivocally:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States

The sections you cite in this post are only applicable when the government wants to intercept communications for which one party is a U.S. person or located within the U.S. FISA used to require individual warrants for such interceptions. The Protect America Act removed such communications from FISA's scope altogether. The RESTORE Act is, essentially, a compromise. It allows warrantless interception of these communication (in which one is domestic), but it requires the FISA court to review the procedures used by the government to ensure that these interceptions are not targetting U.S. persons (i.e. that the interception of their communications is truly incidental to surveillance targetted at foreign persons). When people talk about "basket warrantes," this is what they mean. But these "basket warrants" would only be necessary when there is a domestic element to the interception.

There is zero chance that the courts (or anyone else) would interpret these provisions to require court oversight of all foreign surveillance, and anyone who tells you otherwise is feeding you a bunch of bull.

This is ridiculous, Joe.

Lets ASSUME your intelligence source (presumably a Republican, since he is distinguished from the Democrat) is right, and the term person, though explicitly defined to include groups/entities, will in practice always mean individual targets.

The review is still ANNUAL, which means that it is not a necessary requirement for any time-sensitive surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications.

So this nightmare you keep having where the government has identified the bad guys but can't tap their phones because of red tape is still, as it has been from the outset, complete nonsense.

Given that we know the Bush administration was flagrantly violating FISA in secret, and that you don't know what this new legislation entails, why on earth are you still encouraging MORE capitulation by the Democrats?

You're arguing in favor of granting surveillance powers which you literally don't understand.

...some sort of limited immunity deal for telecoms that can prove they received specific requests from the Bush Administration for information of the sort that will be made legal by the revised FISA reform...

Joe, you're just flat out wrong here. Period.

The telecoms immunity issue deals with domestic spying. Changes in the FISA law will not affect this. Your reasoning is either wrong or a dodge.

Read this from the WP:

In an interview yesterday, (whistleblower Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician) alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T. Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content.

~~~

One of Klein's documents listed links to 16 entities, including Global Crossing, a large provider of voice and data services in the United States and abroad; UUNet, a large Internet provider in Northern Virginia now owned by Verizon; Level 3 Communications, which provides local, long-distance and data transmission in the United States and overseas; and more familiar names such as Sprint and Qwest. It also included data exchanges MAE-West and PAIX, or Palo Alto Internet Exchange, facilities where telecom carriers hand off Internet traffic to each other.

"I flipped out," he said. "They're copying the whole Internet. There's no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything."

Qwest has not been sued because of media reports last year that said the company declined to participate in an NSA program to build a database of domestic phone-call records out of concern about its legality. What the documents show, Klein contends, is that the NSA apparently was collecting several carriers' communications, probably without their consent.

Here is a clue for Joe....

it really doesn't actually matter all that much exactly how the courts interpret the language of the bill in question. What matters is the intent of the bill -- if a court were to decide that the language of the bill said something that was not intended, THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WILL BE HAPPY TO PASS LEGISLATION CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT WILL BE INTERPRETED PROPERLY.

I mean, if you don't believe me, call up Pelosi or Conyers or Reyes and ask them if they would take the necessary steps to make sure that the courts interpret their intentions properly.

The existing law already provides for immunity for telecom companies that rely in good faith on government requests for information.

A district court has already ruled, in a pending suit, that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable party in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

Why is it sound policy to give immunity to acts that were clearly illegal? From the outside, this looks like an example of a rich and well-connected group buying a more favorable brand of justice than the one that applies to the rest of us. What am I missing here?

Thanks for continuing to return to this issue. It's extremely important to get all this stuff right.

Allow me to point out the condescending idiocy of the title of this post: this is not "more" than I want to know about FISA.

By your own admission, you have reached no conclusion about what the bill even says, and you don't have the "time" to figure out what it means. All you have told us about FISA is that you are utterly clueless about FISA, which I'm afraid everybody already knew.

As a politically aware, semi-literate American, I certainly want to know a whole lot more about FISA that this pathetic tripe.

All the other issues here aside, I'm curious about something. If the Democrats were, in your view, somehow weak on national defence because of your old, and now, apparently, misinformed view of the law they passed, what does that make the Republicans for wanting to strip away even more civil liberties than the law you support will allow? Strong on wiretapping? Soft on privacy? What? People like you are always happy to find a reason to make these sweeping judgments about Democrats, but somehow, the obvious corollary never gets applied to Republicans: these things only go one way. Why is that, Joe? When will we see a column titled "The Republicans are blowing it on civil liberties"?

If Joe Klein is not fired immediately I intend to start an online boycott.

You can't have someone that admits he's too stupid to understand a bill, write about one. It is that black and white.

We will not start calling for a boycott on Digg and all the other social networks.

Joe is entitled to give his opinions to his readers. He is not entitled to lie and butcher the facts to millions of readers, and then claim he was two F###ing ignorant to understand what he wrote about.

How can the editors of Time not see that? It's beyond disgraceful and Time Magazine is now officially a propaganda "fixed news" network for the state.

Thanks for continuing to revisit this Joe. We ARE interested in this topic. I would much rather read more reporting on this than any of the horserace garbage that this site continues to write about.

Topics like this are what matters to me.

If you have neither the time nor the legal background to determine who is right then I strongly suggest that you ask the TIME legal department to help you hire a legal firm to help you. This issue is to important to the American people to be mislead by a hack writer.

Get it right or get OUT.

"FISA: More Than You Want to Know": WTF

Is not "projection" symptomatic of an emotional impairment?

Many commenters, if not most, to your "FISA" posts knew that your conclusions therein were not based upon objective facts. Now, faced with those facts, many, if not most, are not surprised by your inability reach any "conclusions."

But it is utterly disingenuous for you to suggest that this post is an attempt to educate anyone other than yourself as to the contents of the FISA bill. The cherry on top of the emotional tantrum is this: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right ..."

Grow up. Get a clue. Get a grip. Get some help.

Joe,

"FISA: More Than You Want to Know"

As usual you're wrong. All people want to know is the truth...not some Republican spin that you mindlessly repeat well all the while you seem to be incapable or unwilling to actually read let alone verify what you are "reporting" on. And was this piece or any of the others actually edited...I mean by an editor? And if so then you should both be fired.

But you did tell us something that we all already know: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right." And you're an astute political observer? Newsflash! The sky is blue, the earth is round and you're a glorified, stenographic hack.

Time to give it up Joe.

If "persons" is defined in 50USC1801(m) as you say it is, then, indeed, that's what "persons" means.

You don't write a document like FISA without clear definitions and you definately don't change definitions in the middle of a document. In this context "persons" means basically anybody and everybody.

I don't think this should even be considered an issue. Why would you muddy the waters here? You have a definition and a usage. The definition is instructions on how to interpret the usage. Clear as a bell.

The bigger question and loophole is "reasonably" in that previous paragraph, at which point, I believe, most Republicans will chime in here with "trust us!".

And Democrats don't want to. Why should they?

And, I say no partial amnesty for the telecoms. They did irreparable damage that cannot be reversed by complying, and they should pay the piper.

Why should Republicans be allowed yet another opportunity to shield the corrupt? I say the Dems should stand their ground, and give them a choice:

Either pass this bill or try to pursue this work under normal constraints.

And WHAT would be their excuse if they chose to let FISA go?

We don't WANNA because you wouldn't let us protect our cronies! After all, OUR cronies are more important than YOUR safety!

Get off that fence, Joe! Those All-American lilly white pickets are sticking in your crotch. That MUST hurt!

"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

Are you serious, Joe? Then what the hell kind of facts are you reporting? How are we ever supposed to ever take you seriously?

And Time, how can you let this guy go on reporting about something has neither the time nor legal background to cover?

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

If Joe Klein is not fired immediately I intend to start an online boycott.

Sorry. It's already a win-win for Time. The controversy drives extra traffic to Swampland. But all the extra eyeballs here are people who already know Joe is wrong and why. In the meantime, the print edition will "cover the controversy" and in exactly the same way that Genesis gets promoted to a reasonable scientific theory in classrooms, The RW misrepresentations will get elevated to a plausable alternative to the actual text of the bill. And Joe doesn't get laughed off the playground by his DLC buddies.

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right

you are literally human garbage.

This is just sad and I think heads will roll.

"I've reached no conclusions... I made a mistake by not reporting this more thoroughly. I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

After being proven that he is fed propaganda and straight up made up lies to x million readers, Klein still cannot fess up that he is a tool. This is like the President of Flat Earth Society who after a Space Shuttle ride declares that he is no scientist and still cannot be sure if the earth is round.

Again, pathetic cannot begin to describe Klein and his editor's efforts.

Lastly, "But he [Bush] won't have a choice if it is passed by a veto-proof majority."

Wow, this is just brilliant writing? How much is Klein getting paid to write such drivel? Can I send him a copy of Charlie Savage's book re Bush's signing statements?

"FISA:More than I can understand"

Jay, Karen, Ana Marie,

Isn't it possible for the three of you to become embarrassed enough for Time Inc. that you might, you know, intervene?

Can you possibly not understand how bad Joe's mendacity and ignorance makes *all* of you look? I'm now associating his behavior here with Time Inc. and I think it's completely reasonable for me to hold Time responsible for this train wreck. Do you want everyone to have that reaction?

It's kinda funny that I just created an account that I'll probably never use again. Joe Klein stating "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right" about his job and what he writes makes it clear that I am wasting my time reading Time (no pun intended). If I stated in my job as an engineer that "I have neither the time nor background to figure out what's right" I would rightly be fired for not having the proper attitude for the job. Time's standards are obviously a good deal lower. With those standards how can I trust anything written in their pages? The final answer is I cannot.

Mr. Klein, why is this even being brought up in an article of anews magazine if no research was done? The Intelligence community has for many years had a standardized definition of the term "persons" and all the meanings it carries.

If these are the most reliable "sources" availble to you perhaps it is time to hit the street again and drum up some more reliable information.

The FISA courts have been functioning for quite some time and have developed a language a legal tradition which is available as a matter of public record from a number for sources. The current administration has abused the Intelligence community and ignored the established practices of the courts, which is what has caused the need for further legislation on the matter in order to protect US persons from this irresponsible administration. Perhaps someone NOT connected politically to the group which cause the problem would have been a better subject for an interview than a white-house mouth piece.

Joe, how about doing us a favor and not doing any more writing unless it is a total and complete retraction of all the dumb republican talking points you have stated over the last 5 days or your notice that you are leaving journalism forever.

Shame on you!

Jeebus, Joe! Look, anyone with a modicum of dignity would want this argument to go away, right? There is a really easy way for you to make it all GO AWAY. Glenn Greenwald has written extensively and insightfully on this topic. So has Ryan Singel. As has a blogger by the handle Anonymous Liberal. So, even if you don't understand the implications of the issues, and you are neither willing/nor able, to wrap your mind around the complexity, my guess is you're pretty good at synthesis. So take Glenn, A.L., and Ryan's work, compile a synthesis, give credit to these experts and back away from the whole mess. You're quoting insider 'experts' now, and making a hash of it. At least thse three would be willing to make sure their ideas were being represented fairly and afford you a modicum of legitimacy. Lord have mercy, man. What have you got to lose?

It's content like this that makes me ever more sure that I did the right thing not renewing my subscription to Time which I inherited from my grandfather. He'd been a subscriber since the 1930's. He'd be as disappointed as I am in this sort of thing.

When the publishers of Time stop rewarding this worst in journalism, I'll think about resubscribing.

I believe Mr. Klein reveals more than he realizes by the sharp contrast in his two attributions. On the one hand, we have "a Democratic source" [from HIC, that means a House member or staffer]. Compare that with:

An intelligence community source who deals with the FISA court told me he believed the word "persons" could be interpreted by the court to mean individuals.

I'd be interested to know from all the legal minds present whether any "intelligence community source" career professional familiar with FISA who was not a Republican appointee could possibly maintain that there was uncertainty about FISA's established take on "persons".

I suspect this source is a Republican and that Klein is too embarrassed to admit it. This would be just one more way, minor in comparison, but indicative nonetheless, of Mr. Klein's dishonesty. Anyone recall the way Judith Miller attributed info to Scooter? Sorry, Jay. I'm going with my suspicions until you show why I shouldn't. Given Joe's dishonesty elsewhere, there's no reason to respect or believe anything he says any longer.

Clearly the Republicans are blackmailing Joe to write this stuff. I wonder what info they have on Joe that they surely got with the illegal wiretapping that they do...

First off, this is an old and transparent trick. When you're completely in the wrong, raise some minor point, throw as much chaff as possible around it, and then accuse the other party of quibbling over minor details.

The chaff is being tossed around wrt the absolutely absurd notion that the bill, as written, requires that tapping every foreigner requires a warrant.

But at least now we know that none of the claims in the article were correct. For example, a central premise of the article is that the democrats are so clueless on this issue that they would require all warrants to surveil any foreigner.

Well, not only does Joe's democratic source say that that's not so, it's also clear, from his response, that such warrants are also not the intent. So all the claims of democratic fealty to civil libertarian extremists turn out to wrong.

But Joe doesn't stop. He seeks new areas of nonsensical error.

He says that the Democrats have to get a veto-proof majority.

This is not true. The August bill sunsets. The president is the one who has to a get a filibuster-proof majority, or we revert back to the old FISA rules.

So Joe's predicted legislative result, including telecom amnesty, which can't be "grandfathered" because it was never legal behavior in the first place, requires the president to engage in some bipartisanship, and find common ground with Democrats.

It's remarkable just how completely wrong he is getting this story.

Even worse, of course, is the fact that the 4 millions subscribers have had no correction to the claim that Democrats are disarray over surveillance issues.

"I've reached no conclusions"? So why did even attempt to write on this in the first place. It's not actually a matter of opinion: the bill is there to be read. Pathetic.

Answer me this: At what point does Time acknowledge that you just aren't very good at your job? I mean, how much do you need to get wrong (or not even bother to learn, even as you write about it) before they stop pretending you're a journalist? How many errors and bogus predictions add up to the obvious conclusion that any number of the bloggers Joe hates so much would do his job more professionally? Can we just say that Joe's contribution to public discourse is nil? In short, why does this sad man even have a column in the first place? And when will Time correct the record and apologize to its readers--not only for the factual mistakes, but for the willfully ignorant columnist?

-joe

Jay: thanks for pointing out what I totally glossed over at first read... Joe decided, either out of willful malice or staggering ignorance, to define "grandfathered" as the exact opposite of what it actually means: "An allowance for older businesses to continue operating for a time under conditions that were permitted at the time these businesses were subject to other regulations."

Wow. Just, wow.

No matter how hard you try Joe you cannot stop our Hillary.

Give it up!

Glen Greenwald

Glen Greenwald

Glen Greenwald

Glen Greenwald

Glen Greenwald

Glen Greenwald

Just admit you're wrong and apologize.

This is the most pathetic post I have ever read, anywhere. Dig yourself out while you can.

Joe, when do you write an article with a big picture that corrects the completely false perception of democrats that 4 million readers got in the last Time magazine?

I mean, this stuff matters, and you can't just blow off these kinds of errors.

Well, I think everyone should quit picking on Joe. Joe Klien is a political pundit, not a journalist. Political pundits are more about truthiness than truth.

If you are going to spend a few bucks on a magazine, I would recommend People. Much more entertaining.

And remember, Dan Rather is no longer employed.
As a nation, we have moved on.

I just want to say to jayackroyd:

Excellent work; it's been a pleasure to read your well-written and informed critique of this episode.

I'm going to post on this after I figure out a way to not reiterate my previous commentary verbatim.

This is just astounding. We are truly being treated to a thorough tour of the sausage factory that is elite punditry.
I can't wait to see what he says next--is he going to admit that he consults an astrologer for "interpretation" of the statute? Or a palm-reader, perhaps? I mean, hey, "That's one way to look at it", right?

"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right..."

Incredible, incredible.

Joe, Joe, Joe!

Be a mensch, admit you made an ENORMOUS mistake, and move on. Internet discourse gets ugly very quickly; a heartfelt mea culpa (assuming you understand why everyone is so angry) can calm things down just as quickly.

Despite your (on-line) post-hoc amendments, clarifications, and obfuscations, the Great Unwashed will read your print column and remember a handful of things a week hence -- one of them being that the silly Dems want to give terrorists the same rights as Americans. Correcting that grave mischaracterization will be like putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

By your own reckoning, the Limbaughs of the world will make hay with this talking-point. Worse yet, it comes from the one of the MSM's "house liberals." With friends like you, Joe...

Stuart-

One of the most interesting elements in all this is the care with which Joe uses language. As p_l has said, he writes very well. And I agree with a comment elsewhere on the blogosphere that I saw today that Primary Colors was a very good book about political campaigns. All the better because it was a work of fiction. Greater truths and all.

So there is no question Joe knew that he was writing in a misleading way when he said "grandfather." There's no question that he knew what he was doing when he said the president "ordered" the telecoms to do something. His opening "I may have made a mistake" in his non-correction was intentionally ambiguous. And his current attempt to say that there is an insoluble language problem in the bill that he doesn't have the time to explore purposely skirts the simple fact that there is no intention in the bill to do the stupid things he attributed to the democrats.

But we still don't see the sausage making going on. We still don't know why Joe is taking this position, and why he is so resistant to just saying "My bad. I got p3wnd by my source." and moving on.

Also, this illustrates the bizarre anonymous sources business. He doesn't need an anonymous source to say that the bill doesn't require a warrant for all taps of foreigners. He could easily get someone on the record, like Feingold or Dodd. VERY easily get Dodd.

In fact, an interview with Dodd might be a very nice mea culpa. He could do a companion interview with McConnell or, even better, McCain. Their willingness to speak to him might itself be newsworthy to a real journalist pursuing this story.

Klein writes: "I've spent the past few days nosing around in the ongoing dispute about what the House FISA Reform bill (The Restore America Act) actually says. I've reached no conclusions."

This is like my students prefacing a grade complaint encounter by claiming that they worked on the assignment for a long time, and that they should therefore not have to meet the assignment's actual standards.

I can understand that attitude coming from naive eighteen-year-olds whose parents have always told them that they're great at everything they do because they're, well, them.

But from a so-called professional journalist? You're really betraying your true colors throughout this whole pathetic spectacle.

This might be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for Joke Line. He's been public ally called out and proven to be a liar and a hack liar at that. He's been shown to be a gullible arse who can be played like a fool by the republicans. That's out 'liberal' Joke Line for you.

And now, The Centre for Citizen Media -- jointly affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard University Law School -- has picked up on the Klein/Time story, labelling Klein's behaviour "Shameful 'Journalism'," and contending that the "flagrantly inaccurate and misguided Time magazine column by Joe Klein" is "[o]ne of the most amazing episodes in modern American journalism." They concluded: Klein's "work in this case may become Exhibit A for what's wrong with the craft today."

You've had it Joke Line, and we've had it with you. Retire now, be for Time is forced to fire you.

Why not pitch this as a book-length work of fiction? "FISA: More Than You Want To Know," by "Anonymous."

John Travolta could play Nancy Pelosi.

"I would have gotten away with it, too. But if it weren't for those meddling kids."

But we still don't see the sausage making going on. We still don't know why Joe is taking this position, and why he is so resistant to just saying "My bad. I got p3wnd by my source." and moving on.

Joe's (massive) ego warps his perception. From Joe's perspective, he probably feels like he's one guy, representing the forces of enlightened Beltway bipartisanship, fighting against the partisan, extremist hordes of the internets. When you read through his posts, which are liberally (if you'll excuse the pun) sprinkled with the word "bipartisan" like it's some sort of magic charm, it's pretty obvious that he normally thinks in those terms. If he were getting battered by people he respects (powerful people), rather than the DFH's of the internets, he'd have come to his senses and caved long ago. And now he's dug in. It reminds me a little of Larry Craig, actually.

I wonder what kind of feedback he's getting from the people around him. I also wonder why the other people here haven't tried to come to his defence, or tried to defuse things, something. They're letting him twist in the wind like a pinata. I seem to remember them helping each other out a couple of other times in the past.

The amazing thing is that Mr. Klein was blatantly lied to by his Republican source(s) and that he mindlessly repeated their lie in order to smear the Democrats as being "soft" on terrorists. And now, he fully knows this, yet continues to try to wriggle out of the controversy with these mindless "updates."

The FISA issue is an extremely important political issue in which U.S. citizens are closely interested. It is vital that the media accurately report what is actually going on, what is proposed and what the specific wording means. Why doesn't Time do this? Why doesn't Mr. Klein accurately report the facts? Why doesn't Mr. Klein accurately report that he was lied to by the Republican source(s)? Why doesn't Mr. Klein patiently explain what the proposed versions of the new amending statute says? Why was the initial smear of the Democrats necessary?

This is beyond mere embarrassment - this represents the epitome of what currently ails the D.C. journalistic establishment. Where is the professionalism? Where is the accuracy? Where is the correction? Where is the apology? Have standards dropped so low that respected pundits can merely mindlessly repeat Republican sliming lies??

Lies about WMD's. Lies about alleged ties to terrorists. Lies about oil revenues paying for the Iraq adventure. Lies about the mission being accomplished. Lies about deployments. And now (once again), lies about FISA and domestic eavesdropping. And Mr. Klein and Time repeating them all...

"So there is no question Joe knew that he was writing in a misleading way when he said "grandfather." "

More importantly, Joe likely knows there isn't anything being "grandfathered" or reverse grandfathered (or double secret probation grandfathered) at all. There's nothing in the RESTORE Act the legalizes wholesale domestic data transfers to the NSA, either with or without a warrant, yet Joe hangs his hat on this canard to justify his continued support for immunity.

And Time's editors continue to allow Joe's easily fact-checked errors to be published...

Ironically, this whole kerfuffle indicates the only ones "Still Stumbling on National Security" are Joe Klein and Time Magazine.

I'm not a journalist and don't play one on TV, but "nosing around in the ongoing dispute about what the House FISA Reform bill (The Restore America Act) actually says" is what you generally do BEFORE you write a column about it.

And if YOU'VE "reached no conclusions" AFTER "nosing around", then it generally doesn't make sense to criticize anyone else for the conclusion(s) THEY may have reached.

Then again, it always helps to be certain of the conclusion they DID reach before you criticize them of "stumbling".

This is both the good and the bad of the current age. Joe Klein has learned that there is more accountability than their once was, if it may seem to him, a bit random. But to us, there is a cavalier attitude about it all that's probably more readily apparent to those outside of the beltway than in. The whole dismissive capsulization at the end for me epitomizes it. it's like saying "two teams showed up, tussled on the field, and one left victorious, for today." Which is how politics is now reported -- like a sporting contest, rather than (sometimes) a talk about ideas and concepts (that are apparently too complicated for Time's writers to do more than demagogue about), or (seemingly more often the past twenty years) battles to obsfucate the truth of the matter since one side is well aware of what the public will think, so there best strategy is the Chewbacca defense. If the glove does not fit you must acquit. Democrats must be tough on national defense. Hey, look Joe, I can do it too. Hire me Time.

Joe, when do you write an article with a big picture that corrects the completely false perception of democrats that 4 million readers got in the last Time magazine?

I mean, this stuff matters, and you can't just blow off these kinds of errors.

TIME DOES NOT CARE or they would have pulled Joe off this, apologized and started the retractions. TIME DOES NOT CARE. My guess is they got a big giggle and saw the green light when FOX went to court to defend their right to lie to their viewers.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

Klein just put in print that he doesn't have the time or the knowledge to write about this hugely important issue. Look, there are only two possiblities. Joe is deceiving his readers and TIME is going along with it or Joe is a chump and TIME knows he will get it wrong so they give him space. In that case they are using him. He is their chump or he is in on it. Period.

You've been ignoring serious questions on this issue so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you keep ignoring mine. Still, I ask again: Why should the telecoms get immunity? The laws governing what information can and can't be shared are clear. At the very least, as a Verizon and AT&T customer during the period where confidential information was leaked, why are you denying me my day in court?

The magisterial Joe Klein cannot be brought low by the Internet rabble. This is, after all, Joe Klein, we are talking about, a man who has access to the people who matter. How dare these mere READERS, question his grasp of an issue?

The silent film era of unaccountable journalism is over, Joe, and Internet media reveal you to be a shameless weasel. Everyone can check your facts almost instantly now, Joe. You can't get away with your old act any more.

Remember to give Glenn Greenwald the keys to your office on your way out.

Joe hangs his hat on this canard to justify his continued support for immunity.

Ahh immunity.... Notice how the subject is changed and no one is discussing telecom immunity. It would seem that our friends at Time-Life would rather hang their star columnist out to blow in the wind rather than acknowlege that perhaps they too are embroiled in some difficulties regarding government data access. One wonders how cooperative AOL was when the feds came calling.....

Maybe it is time for us as good Democrats to abandon this site and this blog and these republican synchophants like Joe Klein to show them that we don't appreciate being lied to by the people who are supposed to be on our side.

some sort of limited immunity deal for telecoms that can prove they received specific requests from the Bush Administration for information of the sort that will be made legal by the revised FISA reform--in other words, a grandfather clause.

How does Joe know what "sort of information" the telecoms were providing to the Bush administration. The whole subject is double-super-secret...so secret that even though someone got a copy of a report saying that they were spied on, that report is still so secret that the government argues that the person spied on has no standing to sue.

Joe should really provide more information about this, because he apparently has an excellent source who is happy to reveal double-super secret stuff!

Jerry Garcia Truth

I've kept this to myself for too long. I was part of the inner-circle of the Dead in the 80's-90's. Two band members, who will remain unnamed, poisoned Jerry while he was at the rehab clinic where he died.

He kept calling them from the clinic telling them how much trouble he was having with withdrawal. They secretly brought him something, telling him it was dope, that wouldn't leave any traces and stopped his heart. He was dead a few hours later.

The guilty band members knew Jerry would never clean up so they wanted him to go out before he saturated the market with his fat self, and they wanted to have control over all of the band's intellectual property. They have no idea that I know about this.

I love the Dead.

Journalists are continually bombarded with rumors, often scurrilous. They are not news. Rumors only become news when they are confirmed, cross-checked and responded to by the target of the attack. -Joe Klein November 17th, Swampland.

So, Joe. Who confirmed your original article? Obviously, you did not even read the FISA legislation, much less cross-check it. And, finally, what Democrat did you get a response from before writing your original article?

Joe obviously imagines he has some sort of point here. I'm trying to puzzle out what it is.

In particular, he has decided to ignore the blatantly false factual statement on which his original column was based - the notion that the RESTORE Act would require a warrant for every wiretap of a foreign to foreign communication - in order to focus instead on something in the basket warrants provision that he finds ambiguous.

What is that something, and why does he care? That's my puzzle.

The "minor point" of this dispute between his sources, if I'm reading him right, is this: when applying for a basket warrant on a collection of "persons" who are foreign - necessary only in order to "acquire" all of the communications of those "persons", including those with one end in the U.S. - does the government have to specifically name the foreign individuals in the collection? Or is it enough to name their organization as a target?

Joe seems to assume the former would be hideously burdensome, though I can't see why. The language is clear that the government can throw as many individual targets into a single warrant request as they like.

In fact, it seems to me that it would be more burdensome for the government to declare a corporate "person" like Al Qaeda as a target. Why? Because warrants - and reports to the court - are only required when the feds have specific reason to suspect that the target will be communicating to U.S. persons. They certainly know that Al Qaeda will try to do that. They are unlikely to have such specific suspicions for the vast majority of foreign names and numbers on any particular list they find on a captured cell phone or computer, or compile from the outgoing calls of someone already targeted.

So if they seek basket warrants only for targeted individuals, they'll need warrants for only a small subset of them, and be subjected to oversight only for a small subset. Why on earth wouldn't they prefer that to having to report back to the court on all their surveillance activities on the entire "person" of Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah?

Regardless of the scope of "person", though, it's all irrelevant to Joe's original, plainly false, claim that warrants will be required in order to target any foreign individual. Does he realize this is just a red herring, or is he so confused he imagines some sort of relevance?

He'll never engage with us directly, so we'll never know.

Folks, y'all are missing the point here. Joe is not reporter, in the old-school, just the facts way. Like most modern reporters he's fr more interested in the "narrative", in having a story to tell that pulls readers or viewers in. Joe is actually a quite talented storyteller, as anyone who has read his two fictional books about politics knows. But therein lies the rub. Those fictional books showed that his love of good characters trumped any idea of objective truth. Joe is a dramatist at heart. Which is why he should stick to the color and not the actual facts, which he frequently gets plain wrong.
Yet I've got to admit that even as a fabulist, he does have his weakness. His narrative is old, stuck in the conventional wisdom of a generation ago. Why this particular spin on FISA was so appealing to him was that it re-enforced an old familiar narrative about Democrats being pussies on security issues that has been a staple of the conservative movement's stereotyping. And anyone in Hollywood can tell you that you get rich playing to people's stereotypes, not challenging them. Joe Klein is the political pundit's equivalent of Jerry Bruckheimer. Who cares if the plot has holes in it, as long as it keeps your ass in the seats, right?

You, Sir, are a jackass.

Was gonna say, and hardly for the first time: Joe, stop blogging! The day before yesterday! But then there wouldn't have been this post. And without this post there would have been no comments. Which means Bill in Chicago (my hometown) wouldn't have made me laugh for the rest of the year with his comment, particularly the part about Travolta playing Pelosi. So Joe, do keep blogging but be warned: each time you do you only look even more foolish, uh, because you are.

>Joe is entitled to give his opinions to his readers. He is not entitled to lie and butcher the facts to millions of readers, and then claim he was two F###ing ignorant to understand what he wrote about.

>How can the editors of Time not see that? It's beyond disgraceful and Time Magazine is now officially a propaganda "fixed news" network for the state.

Thank you - the comments here are much more intelligent than the magazine itself.

At the YKos TIME party, I told a Sr. TIME Genius or two why I had cancelled my subscription of some 20 years.

And it wasn't even Joe Klein. Of course, now it is, too.

That's how bad it has become.

"I have neither the time nor legal background to tell who's right."

Well, then, by all means publish an article or several in a "respected" magazine insinuating, at minimum, that you indeed have said time and legal background! Or even sources who do!

This country is dead, and when future civilizations try to figure out why, Joe Klein will play an understudy role.

The hardest thing in all the world for a human being to do is look in the mirror and evaluate themselves objectively.

I'm way ahead of the curve. Cancel. Show them your wallet. That's all the Joe Klein's and the Republicans listen to in the first place.

Of course, Joe will still be on TV, most likely. Kudos, Joe. TV is where genius goes to get the runs.

Glenn Greenwald is systematically and thoroughly humiliating you in the sphere of objective analysis.

I would cop to it if I were you.

Our most pre-eminent national newsweekly has a prominent columnist who makes astonishing mistakes when he writes about issues of vital importance to the entire country, and who openly admits that he doesn't have the time or the education to get the story right. This is TIME Magazine we're talking about here, not some small-town newspaper.

Does TIME have no standards at all? By what criteria are writers hired and promoted? What does it take for someone to be fired at TIME? Is commitment to accurate journalism optional at TIME, something its journalists can do if they feel they have time for? If Klein doesn't have the legal background to write accurately about legal issues, then why is he allowed to write about them? Should we blame him or the people who allow him to get it wrong over and over again, and to say that he basically doesn't care whether what he writes is accurate? What value does Klein have in the eyes of TIME's editors that outweighs his inability to meet the most basic standards of journalism? Is it that he can be counted on to dissiminate Republican talking points in TIME Magazine's news columns?

Klein is one of those lucky idiots in life who somehow managed to get promoted up way, way past his abilities. The real problem here is the group of people who have acted as his enablers. Somebody -- God knows who at this point -- needs to fire everybody in TIME management who have such contempt for the mission of TIME Magazine.

Ah, Hastings Hart, you make a common mistake: TIME magazine has but one mission: Make money.

That's why you should never buy it.

It's very uncomfortable to feel so embarrassed for another human being. We all know the feeling.

Except you, Joe? Hard to tell.

"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right".

In other words, you're lazy and incompetent. I'd be fired from my job if I tried that line.

Despite what you repeatedly claim ("FISA: More Than You Want to Know") most Americans really do care whether they're being spied on or not.

I'd tell you to "do your job" but we've had years of your simply making things up because you don't have the time or background. You will never do a good job.

I created this account just to say: FIRE JOE KLEIN! Get someone who cares about the issues and is industrious enough and knowledgeable enough to do a good job at them!

Dear Sr. TIME Editors, with whom I've spoken personally about this very crap:

Why would I re-subscribe?

You all wanted me to, but really, why would I?

Sincerely,

John Onorato
Mundelein, IL 60060

P.S. That should provide you what you need to know to figure out how much of my money I sent to you that I could've done something sensible with, like buy penny-stocks, or go to a casino with, or play three-card monty, instead of investing in what I once considered informed analysis.

Very, very sad.

How embarrassing for Time that Joe Klein can be fed blatant lies by his sources and be so ignorant that he doesn't recognize he's been conned. At a very minimum, Time's editors should ensure that those sources are not used by any employee of Time ever again.

If the magazine does not choose to insist that even the columnists have some measure of integrity in formulating opinions and commentary, it deserves the disdain, ridicule, mistrust, and financial loss that will surely follow.

"Ahh immunity.... Notice how the subject is changed and no one is discussing telecom immunity. It would seem that our friends at Time-Life would rather hang their star columnist out to blow in the wind rather than acknowlege that perhaps they too are embroiled in some difficulties regarding government data access. One wonders how cooperative AOL was when the feds came calling....."

Indeed. The AOL/TimeWarner empire is likely not a dispassionate third party in this matter. Not that there's been any disclosure to readers. Time for another Blogger Ethics panel...

Klein's unprofessionalism on such a critical issue is beyond disgusting. TIME can forwith be considered a joke news source. They don't even attempt to defend themselves because they consider their readership to be peons not worth their time.

VIA ATRIOS:

JOE KLEIN = JOKE LINE

Honestly, if Joe or anybody else at Time is reading the comments this far down, it should be clear to you that a lot of comments thus far have said the same thing: "This stuff matters!"

Joe claimed something in the print magazine. He was wrong. He now says that he doesn't really know what the bill he was commenting on said.

This Stuff Matters!

THIS STUFF MATTERS!

It's people like Joe who are poisoning the debate because in many ways they lead that debate; and they are not qualified and do not have the time to verify the details.

Governance is about the details, Joe. If you can't find out, get out!

Joe Klein needs to not have a job, and soon.

Lest anyone forget, CNN is owned by TIME Warner. Is it any wonder that CNN has turned into FauxNoise-lite? TIME's editorial staff is merely another unpaid propaganda arm for the Republican Party, which they work furiously at hiding from public view. Klein has merely pulled back a corner of the curtain exposing a glimpse of the disaster that is modern American journalism. Klein's whole column is factually wrong and unsubstantiated and he remains in a job while Dan Rather was factually correct and partially substantiated and was fired. Is it any wonder that nobody now trusts the media?

Markos points out that An intrepid reporter he's not, even though his entire [BLEEP] job is to write one column a week, a few blog posts, and the occasional book review for the New York Times.

The claim that Joe did not have the time to determine the substance involved here is clearly specious. The DFHs have worked out the substance in the spare time permitted by their day jobs. So if Vinny from the Bronx can figure this out in his basement, it doesn't seem reasonable that Joe could not.

Joe can save himself a lot of hassle in the future by working out the substance of the issue at hand. His column really was about the politics involved, but you do have to give readers an accurate precis of the substance of an issue.

Of course, part of the problem here is that substance doesn't support his conclusion. This is especially true wrt the subject he keeps treating as obvious and trivial--granting retroactive amnesty to telecom companies who broke the law, wiretapping Americans without a warrant. While nothing in the latest update to Joe's apparent inability to read simple English statements provides any new justification for allowing the telecom companies to break the law, it is still inexplicably a non-negotiable component of the president's demands.

It would, of course, be more useful to understand why this is a non-negotiable element of the dramatic expansion of the FISA law. The fact that these companies broke the law (and we cannot regard it as anything but a fact; an innocent party does not seek amnesty).

So what we've got here is a very feeble attempt at obfuscation. Feeble because, of course if the intelligence community really believes that this bill will shut down surveillance of foreigners, it needs to get on the record and get the bill fixed. And if it's really true that Chris Dodd is threatening to filibuster this bill in order to prevent any collection of SIGINT from foreigners without a FISA warrant, well then Joe needs to get him on the record on that position. He also needs to get "Democrats" on the record stating that the intention of this bill is to require Saudis running islamist madrassas be given the same rights as US citizens under the Constitution.

It's not enough to anonymously source claims about a bill that over what is not a small technical issue, but a complete renunciation of US surveillance practices of the last 70 years.

So Joe really needs to run this to ground, because if it is true it is an incredible scoop--that the Democrats have managed, via stealth language, to effectively disable the entire SIGINT apparatus.

If this is so, then his intelligence source is a hero, who should shed the cloak of anonymity, and speak out clearly on this issue.

Or, maybe, this really isn't so. And maybe it is time for Joe to reach some conclusions.

At the very least, he might want to consider carefully the next time he is tempted to recite hyperbolic, transparently false republican talking points.

I've spent the past few days nosing around in the ongoing dispute about what the House FISA Reform bill (The Restore America Act) actually says. I've reached no conclusions.

Joe, you are a liberal pundit. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can help you out. If Time has laid off all the people who would help you in-house, you should contact your friendly neighborhood progressive institution. Seriously. That's why they're there.

And stay away from the GOP crack dealers.

So you're saying you accused an entire party of being clueless on national security issues when the one who was really clueless was ... you?

I can't wait to see your retraction in the print version of Time.

Time, Inc. must fire him, no question. Klein is a total fraud! The only way for TIME to try to repair the damage that Klein has caused to its repuation is to hire Glenn Greenwald as his replacement.

Dear Joe, this is no longer funny. Your lack of professionalism; your peddling in disinformation and inneundo; your disturbing lack of accountability; your cavalier disregard for the facts and getting the story right; all of this is the sort of laziness and ignorance that shreds our Constitution and gets people killed. If you had a conscience and cared about your profession, you would hang your head in shame and demand your editors redact your lies and make a correction - in the print version. An apology wouldn't be oput of line, either, but getting the story straight should be your first priority.

Opinion journalism is the opinion or conclusion one person draws from following a set of facts.

The problem with Mr. Klein, is that he seeks to make his opinion journalism from what his opinion is of the facts. That he cannot correctly identify the facts about which he is opining is of grave concern.

The facts of what is in the FISA legislation follow from simple reading skills. Should Mr. Klein not possess these skills, or believe that he needs legal background to understand the facts of what the legislation contains, why not simply seek legal assistance, quote the source of the legal facts, and then opine from there?

What is equally disturbing, is that Mr. Klein simply continues to substitute his opinion of what the facts are (and tries to avoid responsibility for stating what the facts are, by stating that what he claims are facts, are only perhaps, maybe, might be facts), and then cannot be bothered, after writing several pieces, to ascertain what the facts are and set the record straight.

Now, to my mind, this business should be fairly straightforward. You state the facts, citing your source material, and then opine as to the implications of those facts. What Mr. Klein does and continues to do, is misstate the facts, then opine as to what the incorrect facts mean. He then goes on to again misstate the facts once again, by using the opinions of others about the facts, as a substitute for the actual facts, which are right there in the legislation itself.

Since the facts are in the legislation itself, there should be no debate whatsoever on what the facts are, only what they portend. But as long as Mr. Klein continues to either make up the facts, since he doesn't understand the actual facts, or use the unverified opinion of anonymous sources as to what the facts are, he will continue to be wrong.

Mr. Klein is certainly entitled to his own opinion. He is not, however, entitled to his own facts.

Klein doesn't have time? Time shouldn't have him! I will not be renewing my subscription: I get plenty of partisan propaganda already. SO tired of mainstream media.

OK There are three really disturbing points:

One -- the debate over the usage of "person" in FISA is VERY clearly a matter of public law; namely United States code title 50, chapter 36, subchapter I, section 1801 -- cunningly entitled "Definitions" which reads:

“Person” means any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power.

This is not that tricky, as it provides the agreed upon definition as used by the Intelligence community and accepted as a matter of public law. This question could have been answered by having any of the interns there in the office Google it for you. But I think it was done this way by design in an attempt to mislead the readership.

Which is my second point of contention:

"An intelligence community source who deals with the FISA court told me he believed the word "persons" could be interpreted by the court to mean individuals."

The source, later identified as a Lawyer, and distinguished from a democratic source hinting that the Lawyer is a Republican bold proclaims that "person" might be used to mean individuals? This person is not a member of the intelligence community, otherwise this statement would have never been made, even the lowest entry level positions in Intelligence agencies are taught the definitions and common parlance of the industry. The 'Intelligence community' soucre quoted above is either woefully stupid and thus should not have been interviewed to begin with OR is more likely a staffer or other political employee who has some minor level of exposure to the Intelligence community and sought to aggrandize the value of his statement, assisted by the negligence of the author, by claiming that affiliation. The point of this, given the context of the article, seems to be designed to make a reader believe the Democratic party is operating against the Intelligence community and is jeopardizing the national security without having to come out and say as much. Also, the quoted Lawyer is as much a member of the Intelligence community as Jeremy Shokey's agent is a member of the NY Giants...

Which leads me to point three:

The Intelligence community is intended by design to be apolitical. This administration more so than any other since the FISA act of 1978 has abused and politicized the Intelligence community and has placed the Security of the US in greater jeopardy by alienating Intelligence community leaders from the decision makers who are supposed to be their customers. The fact that the congress has taken up the reigns to provide the oversight that is their responsibility is a noble cause that should be commended. This is an issue which is truely vital to all citizens. Don't turn it into political fodder. The Bush administration has come very close to destroying the American Intelligence community, more than any other administration this one has abuse, cajoled, lied to and mistreated the members of the Intelligence community who would not twist the facts to support the lies the administration told. It has been shameful and requires new legislation to limit the influence the politicians can have over Intelligence. Congress is responsible for oversight let them do their job without attempting to muddy the waters with Yellow journalism.

This kind of distorted lying would not be tolerated on real blogs like the daily kos.

Shame on you Joe!

Time should NOT fire Joe Klein! Instead, they should re-label his print-edition column "Advice for liberals from inside the Beltway by a dishonest pundit who favors compromise over principal and who believes parts of the Constitution are now quaint." But, that would be honest, and Time, Inc. has proven that honesty in reporting is jettisoned if one does not have the time or legal background to figure it out.

I agree with skiddle and the other commenters who have said that it boils down to this: This Stuff Matters!

I honestly think Joe Klein is bewildered about the response he gets here, and throughout the blogosphere. His editors have never expected him to be accurate: simply mouthing off about his random opinions on politics has always been more than good enough for them. Suddenly, people are holding him accountable. Even on points that seem utterly trivial (when you couldn't care less about accuracy or policy or the long-term implications of what you write). He must be wondering: What is going on here?

Look at it from Klein's point of view. This is a guy who even lied about the identity of the author of his own most famous work, Primary Colors, and found his career took off after he told that lie. That must have been a formative experience to him: people just don't care about lies when you're talking about politics.

Now, suddenly, people do. They not only care about the truth, they have an opportunity to complain loudly when they don't get it. It must be really traumatic to be sitting where he's sitting.

The simple fact is: out here in the real world, we've realized we can no longer rely on editors at prestigious publications to do their jobs. We have to do those jobs ourselves, as best we can. And we're trying. Not always well. But in the case of Klein's work, as far as I can see, extremely well.

One used to wonder whether the editors of publications like Time had any shame. The real tragedy is: one rarely bothers to wonder that anymore.

I was a reporter. I wasn't perfect. I made mistakes. But at least I tried to get it right, and fix it when I got it wrong. I never said: "I don't have the time or expertise to figure this out, but I'm gonna write about it anyway." And I never assumed that actually making a passing effort to tell people what was going on would give them "more than they want to know." But then these people aren't trying to be reporters, are they? They just want to play 'em on TV.

Joe,

If you have neither the time nor legal background to understand this issue, why did you write about it?

And if it's an unimportant minor technical detail, why did you make it the centerpiece of your column attacking the House Democrats as out of touch and weak on national security?

There's a disconnect here. Your latest statement is completely inconsistent with your original column.

Why can't you just be a man and admit that you blew it?

And finally, I agree with the numerous other commenters who suggest that Time should fire you -- and your editor. This is a disgraceful, but unfortunately typical, episode in the continuing decline of the free press that was once the glory of our nation.

Hey guys -- let's get Olbermann to feature Klein as the worst person in the world for this trash!

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right

And I have neither the time nor inclination to read any future Joe Klein columns, or purchase any future issues of Time magazine.

Perhaps Joe Klein or Richard Stengel could suggest another publication for all of us to read, whose reporters do in fact have the time and expertise to write accurately about the subjects they choose to report on?

Everything has been said about why Joe Klein should no longer be employed by Time or ever again appear in print. He does not give up journalism standards because he is a pundit or columnist.

I have been a long time subscriber to Time and will not renew my subscription unless Time and Klein's editor Stengel are held to account for their hackery and unprofessionalism.

Hey, you know something, Troll4Tolerance?

Such lying wouldn't be tolerated at DailyKos. That's actually a large part of the point here.

Back in the days when the web was being defined, the mainstream media gods liked to say that their role was essential--that editors were needed to separate the good accurate writing from the bad inaccurate writing.

This has proven not to be the case--that the blogosphere is self-correcting because of open comment policies. And that the traditional media's editorial role turns out not to be that of separating good, accurate writing from poor, inaccurate writing, but rather the maintenance of story narratives.

So Janet Cook could pass off outright fabrication as Pulitzer prize material because it fit the story line so well. And Joe could state baldly that Democrats would "require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only" and not have an editor blink. The statement, completely false, fit in with the narrative of the "tone-deaf Democrats" who are "well beyond stupid" when it comes to acquiring intelligence.

The real question now is whether Time will tolerate the publication of this outright falsehood, and how it will undo the profoundly wrong column that was published under Joe's byline.

And, no, such a "mistake" could not remain uncorrected at DailyKos.

Joe, thanks for revisiting this. But as you can tell by the comments, there is a strong need and desire by TIME readers that accurate information be provided regarding FISA.

"More than you want to know?" Who told you that -- Bill Kristol or David Broder? Either way, they are dead wrong.

Oh man. And I can't believe Joe actually wrote this:

"An intelligence community source who deals with the FISA court told me he believed the word "persons" could be interpreted by the court to mean individuals."

Come on, you are being spun. What does this have to do with the "notwithstanding" provision flagged by Greenwald that demolishes the central premise of your original article? Identifying a remote circumstance where a chicken little sky-is-falling scenario can be spun out by your intelligence source hardly supports what you originally wrote about.

Please, don't take this the wrong way, but if you are not interested or qualified to learn the meaning of this proposed amendment, as you candidly admit, then please refrain from writing about it.

I have read Time for longer than I can remember. I've been a subscriber pretty much since college, where I studied journalism. I've just called to cancel my subscription. There was no option to tell anyone why. This is why.

Glenn Greenwald says:
This "minor detail" that Joe Kline now wants to dismiss as irrelevant was the entire basis for his smear of House Democrats: namely, he claimed that the FISA bill they passed "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court" and thus "give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans" -- "minor details" that Klein cited in order to call their behavior "well beyond stupid." The whole basis for Klein's column was false to its core, and -- in response to the avalanche of criticisms -- he has now claimed, in sequence, that his false assertions were: (a) true, (b) disputable, (c) too complex and time-consuming to figure out, and (d) just a minor, irrelevant detail. Is this conduct not completely humiliating to Time?

It's all about the story line.

Joe's problem is he comes up with the story idea first and then selects the facts around it. In this case one of the stories characters is the "feminized, antiwar, politically correct Democratic Party"

So in order to support the notion of weak-on-defense Democrats it become necessay to manufacture evidence to support the charge. Hmm, where I have I seen this scenario played out before? hmmm...

Oh yeah! I Remember! That's how we got into Iraq in the first place!

I am torn over this legislation because while I can see the need to monitor overseas calls, I am aware that there are liberties at stake here. I for one only used to care about people listening in on my calls when I was doing something wrong. Now I could care less if some bureaucrat was listening. As long as it can not be publicly distributed and a the monitoring person is the only one listening. I could care less. I find it amusing that some people have the audacity to think that they are so important the government would care about their private phone calls. Ok less opinion more facts.

The question is will they be monitoring just overseas calls and the definition of "persons". I believe that the language is purposely vague to be open to interpretation. It does clearly state outside the United States though so I find it hard to support the totally outraged people here. I also think it naive to think that people think their ca