Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (51206)	1/24/2006 6:48:35 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

More changes to wiretapping strategy - hehe DJ US Gonzales Offers Legal Arguments To Back Wiretap Program . WASHINGTON (AP)--U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered additional defenses of President George W. Bush's domestic spying program on Tuesday, as the administration tried to redefine the warrantless surveillance in a way that undermines critics. The reasonable basis standard for such surveillance, said Gonzales, "is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard." Speaking to students at Georgetown University law school, Gonzales said a 15-day grace period allowing warrantless eavesdropping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demonstrates that Congress knew such surveillance "would be essential in wartime." Gonzales was supplying legal arguments to the president's comments Monday that the effort should be called a "terrorist surveillance program." Confronting Gonzales during his nearly half-hour speech were more than a dozen young people in the audience who turned their backs to him and held up a banner for television cameras. The banner, loosely based on a Benjamin Franklin quote, read: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Before his appearance at Georgetown, Gonzales said in a television interview that some congressional leaders told the administration in 2004 that it wouldn't be possible to write legislation regarding the warrantless surveillance effort without compromising its effectiveness. "We did go to certain members of the congressional leadership a year and a half ago," Gonzales said on CBS's "The Early Show." During his remarks in a packed law school lecture room at Georgetown, the attorney general also said the legal standard the administration uses in deciding whether to carry out surveillance on people with suspected al-Qaida ties is equivalent to the standard required for complying with the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures. Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said that Gonzales' comments don't explain why the administration doesn't go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants. "If they are using a probable cause standard, they would have no problem going to the FISA court," said Saltzburg. "The executive might think there's a reasonable basis. Courts might not agree." Georgetown University law professor David Cole said the reasonable basis standard is not equivalent to probable cause. Moreover, said Cole, Gonzales' comments seem to conflict with those on Monday by Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. Hayden said that when weighing whether to proceed with surveillance under the president's program, "the trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is" with FISA. Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said there is no conflict between the statements of Gonzales and Hayden and that "it is really just a matter of speed; as the AG said, the standards are essentially the same." In his address, Gonzales said, "I keep hearing, 'Why not FISA?' Why didn't the president get orders from the FISA court? "It is imperative for national security that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with al-Qaida enter or leave the United States." Gonzales told his audience: "You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime." Sharply disagreeing, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said FISA's purpose "was never to grant warrantless surveillance for the war." "While Congress saw some need to loosen the standard in the initial days of a war, it wanted the president to comply with FISA in carrying out surveillance in the United States," Turley said. (END) Dow Jones Newswires January 24, 2006 18:36 ET (23:36 GMT)

To: mishedlo who wrote (51206)	1/24/2006 6:56:59 PM
From: ohyeah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Mish, then why are energy prices in the CPI at all? I think the point is that "core CPI" excludes food and oil because they are supposed to be too volatile. The recent trend doesn't seem to be volatility but rather a "permanent" increase in price. To me it is laughable that computers are in the CPI. In what possible circumstance would they ever increase in price LOL. If you want to make the argument that the CPI/core CPI is a joke I'm with you. I think the inflation/deflation debate is not central anyway. I think the issue is a lack of fear and accountability.