Who shall we name that one after?

it’s the “I’M YOUR MOTHER” rule

BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT’S WHY

half the population of the planet is guilty of this particularlly odious form of despotism

but it usually don’t work on adults and smart children

*disclaimer, I’m not being sexist here, Pop’s rule usually involved the words “Because I can kick your ass”, not “because I said so” (an Pop’s rule works on adults and smart children too)

Guys like Hayden will rabbit on and on about how dangerous it is to release documents that might let teh enemy know about teh techniques … when what they are talking about, what they are calling “technique,” is sheer brute force that any Cro-Magnon could have thought up all on his lonesome and would have predicted from others.

My apologies to Cro-Magnons, who I understand were actually very nice people.

Rooney: Strike changes made to criminal pen registers and trap and trace devices. Federal criminal code has provided since 1986. Requires specific and articulable facts in statement to Court. Says police opposed.

[...]

Rooney: Without any evidence or proof that current standard being abused, I don’t see the need to modify. I’d like amendment to stand on its own.

How would you know that those trap and trace and pen register powers aren’t being abused, Mr. Rooney, seeing as how Congress is now careful never to do meaningful oversight of an Executive Branch that’s allowed (by Congress) to hide its activities behind a National Security Secrecy blackout curtain?

But, much more to the point: Has anything changed in, say, the world of communications, and digital technology, since 1986 that just might have enormously expanded the powers of pen register and trap and trace ["PRTT"] collection? Collection, as Rooney himself briefly pointed out, that now permits internet site IP addresses and email address routing information to be collected for both outgoing and incoming data on someone’s account, equally with the old-fashioned, now-ancient 1986 phone-number-detail technology of the original PRTTs.

That intrusive power to spy on our private use of the internet and email is what Issa got away with claiming to be the equivalent of law enforcement on a public roadway writing down the license plate numbers of passing cars, or standing outside a known mob club to write down details about those entering and leaving… Got away with, because of the obvious ignorance about the law and technology, and their real-world effects, exhibited by those privileged few who condescend to intermittently attend this markup, where they, as members of this judiciary committee, are charged with understanding, debating, and reforming the law. This at a legislative markup session that – as the health care legislation journey makes all too obvious – is their last chance (as non-chairs and non-Party leaders) to have any effect on the final form of the legislation, now that genuine House floor amending and debate are ruthlessly stifled, via the Rules Committee, by the majority Party in the House.

Lungren: Revises standard by which FISA will review govt cert of nondisclosure of business record. Existing legislation strikes conclusive [deference, per a parallel 2nd Circuit Appeals Court First Amendment-based opinion on National Security Letter gags]. Substantial weight rather than no weight at all.

So how did the uninformed debate on Lungren’s amendment wind up (ahead of the current break for more floor votes)? With Lungren implying that the Congress needs to adopt a nationwide “deference” standard for the court so that the 2nd Circuit opinion voiding as unConstitutional the “conclusive deference” standard of the non-FISA-based National Security Letters would apply across all circuits…

Yes, that’s right, silent Democrats, isn’t it? Because we all know that the secret FISA court sits IN EVERY CIRCUIT in the nation, not just in a special wing of the federal court, in one circuit, in Washington, D.C. Correct?? [A FISA court whose decisions can only be appealed, by the government, to the Supreme Court.] And we all know, too, that there’s some sort of meaningful adversarial process in the Executive Branch-driven secret FISA court hearings, that would somehow make the FISA court disregard “due deference” for Executive Branch certifications under the PATRIOT Act’s Section 215 (where the court is already limited to lifting the gag order on government Section 215 spying to when they can say that “NO” unwanted side effects will occur because of that lifting). Agreed??

In this case, the Democrats’ Party-line votes happened to go the right way – but obviously only by pure happenstance. [Though I thought I heard Bobby Scott, as Acting Chair, say "the Ayes have it" on an amendment that he'd just argued against, without asking for a roll call vote - that was on the second Rooney amendment with regard to loosening the FISA trap and trace limitations in the new bill.]

Lungren: Stunned that Chair would talk about torture, this has nothing to do with this.

Clearly Lungren is not following along at home.

Who shall we name that one after?

Well, there are a lot of candidates, but I kind of favour the Hayden gambit.

Chaffetz: My understanding is that DOJ is in favor of keeping this in place.

BTW, can I just say that in addition to the “9/11″ Giuliani Syndrome that we also define another Tourettes-like variant for “sources and methods”? That phrase only seems to appear when they have no other defense for their unconstitutional preferences. Who shall we name that one after?