BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.

Subject: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:36 AM

Keep an eye to the window and an ear to the door, neighbours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?hp&ex=1134709200&en=0a4739ca3ab6d63b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:47 AM

Sounds like common sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:49 AM

for those who can't get into the NY Times article, here is the first page..

Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say; By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

more here

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:57 AM

All I got was a Buick ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:12 AM

in the right hand corner of the car image there's a little icon to click to get rid of it! good luck!

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:21 AM

We don' need no steenking laws.
We don' need no steenking constitution!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:27 AM

If it were "common sense", flamenco ted, why the big secret?

How can it make sense if the common people don't even know its happening?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:24 AM

Secrecy is in the nature of espionage surely!!!! What do you want your Government to do about possible moles and insurgents??? Write them a nice letter? Do bugger all?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:50 AM

Yup, that's the good old U.S of A.: "DEFENDING FREEDOM". Shades of my favorite psychotic racist transvestite, J. Edgar.

Gimmie a fu$king break.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 02:53 PM

The problem, Flamenco Ted, is not with secretly spying on American citizens. The problem is that Bush secretly gave the NSA written permission to do the spying without a warrant or any other system of checks and balances.

Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI said, "I would say generally, they [the NSA] are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens." President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation.

John Yoo, a Justice Department lawyer noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

See, Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Well, at least he didn't get a blow job in the oval office.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 04:00 PM

Wires do it
spyware do it
even presidential liars do it
lets do it
lets spy on you

stores do it
FBI do it
even emails left ignored do it
lets do it
lets spy on you

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 04:08 PM

I just recorded Bush telling a reporter that sic "the question regarding domestic spying is not to be discussed EVER."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 07:18 PM

Hot diggity dog- have we turned a corner?

Legislators Howl

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:25 PM

Ho hum. This kind of spying is world-wide. Anything communicated electronically is open to eavesdropping.
Of course the really dangerous ones use simpler and more confidential means of communication (personal contact).

Israel is expert in using cellphone and other communications 'ears' and satellite observation to locate and direct rocket attacks on 'troublesome' Palestinians. All 'advanced' countries have the capability.
It is done whether admitted or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:28 PM

"What do you want your Government to do about possible moles and insurgents???"

If they infest the lawn, get rid of 'em. As to the detergents, make sure they break down in the ecosystem so's they don't pollute.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: InOBU
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 08:21 AM

Yes, we need to keep down those moles and insurgents, like the members of the Religious Society of Friends, ( Quakers ). Makes me a little embarassed we built Philadelpia where the Constitutional convention took place... we should have founded a little bit of Canada.
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM

For those who haven't been following the "Bush and Torture" thread there is an ammendment, the GRAHAM-LEVIN-KYL AMENDMENT, that would suspend habeas corpus claims that the Bushites would love seen attached to the defense appropraitions bill...

Hmmmmmm?

(Well, who cares about the hokus pokus stuff anyway, Bobert???)

Well, you should... If habeas corpus claims are dismissed then, in essence, every American woman, man or child will be vulnerable to arrest, ***unlimited*** detainment, no chanrges and no contact with attornies, family or friends...

And with this current crop of Supremes does anyone really think they would rule against Ruler Bush...

If GRAHAM-LEVIN-KYL passes then we will all look back on the days when Bush could snoop thru our stuff as the GOOD OLD DAYS!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 08:57 AM

Damn, I hate having to agree with you Bobert on such dark and dire probabilities. But that is where my prediction that history will repeat itself...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/breadcircus3.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM

Q dazzled us all with this pithy insight:

"Ho hum. This kind of spying is world-wide."

Which is precisely why the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights saw fit to add this little ditty:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Can you name that tune off the top of your head, Q?

Sure that kind of spying goes on world-wide. But here in the US of A, we enshrined in our Bill of Rights and Constitution that we DID NOT WANT IT TO HAPPEN HERE.

But of course, even enshrining such principles in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are never enough, because the price of freedom in a democracy is constant vigilance regarding what the government is doing to it's citizenry. Which is why in 1978, when government spying upon citizens had created such a public uproar that Congress was forced to close a so-called loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The loophole concerned secret spying authorized by the president on grounds of national security.

On Friday, many in Washington were surprised to learn that despite the 1978 law, the US president and his advisors, yet again, had claimed the power to authorize secret spying within the United States. And now they shall reap that whirlwind.

I find those who bleat loudest for "freedom and democracy" these days, know precious little about either.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:09 AM

The "analysis" given on one TV newscast early this morning (Saturday) was that a specific Federal Law prohibits the recording of anything said by "US Persons¹" without a court order. A specific citation for the law was given, but unfortunately I wasn't where I could record it.

1. "US Persons" obviously includes citizens of the US, but has in many cases and for some but not all purposes been extended to include aliens legally in the US, so the concept is a bit fuzzy.

In the case of a conversation between a "US Person" and a "non-US person" that law has been interpreted to mean that an agency or agent of the Federal Government could record anything said by the "non-US person" but needed a warrant to record the other half of the conversation - what was said by the "US Person."

It does rather defy logic that if, as in an example given (paraphrased from recollection), a foreign national calls a "US Person" it is legal to record the question "where do you strike next?" asked by the foreign person but is not legal to record "we're going to nuke Boston next Thursday" in the reply by the "US Person;" but that has been(?) the interpretation of the specific law cited.²

2. No reference to judicial decisions on this interpretation were made, so it has to be taken as an "unverified" interpretation.

Since the "permission" was given in a secret document that has not been released, the report on it's content and on how it may have been used is pure wild-assed guesswork.

The Constitutional bar on covert surveillance (especially wire-tapping or other covert listening) would appear to come from the IV amendment:

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The courts have taken a very strict interpretation here, that the intent is that there shall be no search and/or seizure in the absence of a Warrant. Exceptions are generally limited to cases where there is credible evidence that a crime is in the process of being committed³, and in some cases where there is "open visibility" of a clear cause.⁴

3. The phrase "clear and present danger" is frequently cited as justification for a warrantless search here, and includes the lawful "pat down" if a law enforcement officer suspects a reasonable possibility of a weapon. A pat down search for drugs would be a different matter.

4. A law enforcement officer who stops you for a traffic offense cannot ordinarily search your vehicle without valid reason, but if you left the bong visible on the seat where it is easily seen when he/she approaches your vehicle, a search would probably be upheld.

The only statement from the Executive Department has been that "no laws were violated." Since the Patriot Act gave any "person of specific level of authority"⁵ in the FBI and several other "security agencies" the power to authorize wire-taps on personal recognizance without judicial approval (i.e. without a warrant), it likely may be claimed that the Presidental instruction merely extended this authority⁶ to the NSF.

5. EVERY agent of the FBI who is authorized to conduct "field investigations" is "of that specific level of authority" and is not required to account for cases in which he/she decides to listen in on someone.

6. The Patriot Act has not been subjected to judicial review and many people believe that quite a few things therein are significant violations of Constitutional rights of citizens (and others).

There is a substantial body of case law supporting the appropriate existence of "secrets" in the "national interest." Some precedents may (or may not) support the "reasonable search and seizure"⁷ that is asserted as being authorized in the "secret instruction." Recent legislation, specifically the Patriot Act but included some earlier stuff, may support what is claimed to have been done as "legal."

7. Listening is search. Recording is seizure. Both are implied in what is reported.

Most of what I've seen thus far on this incident seems motivated more by politics than by concern about the health of the nation, although it does appear that there probably is a cause for concern and quite likely for adjudication. A court review of the legality of what's apparently been done is unlikely, and certainly won't occur in any timely fashion.

Pending further information, about all one can do is "have an opinion." I do have one, but I'll have to wait a bit to see if it's a good one.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:09 AM

Due process is what you want. I'm sorry but every time one of our liberties gets eroded bastards like Osama bin Laden win another victory against us. Just another instance of this administration trampling the rights of the people in my opinion. You want to defeat them? Hit the bastards where it hurts, in the wallet. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:33 AM

See John, the problem I have with interpretations like yours, is that it makes it seem reasonable that we all give up our 4th amendment rights in the name of national security, because if we don't, the government won't be allowed to spy on "US persons". Nothing could be further from the truth. The US intelligence agencies spy on "US persons" all the time--within the boundaries allowable by law. Which means, simply, that they must prove to an independent branch of government, the judical branch, that they have probable cause.

Also John, why is it when people like yourself and other Bush Republicans invoke the need to spy on US citizens, you always invoke terrorists instead of the constitutionally protected political dissenters the government illegally spys on, hmmm???

John wowed us with:

"A court review of the legality of what's apparently been done is unlikely, and certainly won't occur in any timely fashion."

It is not within the courts' remit to review the legality of what has happened, actually. It is within Congress' remit. Which is why former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the time the eavesdropping program was launched, raised the homeland security alert level when he said in an interview Friday that he was never told about the program during his time on the committee.

"I didn't learn about it until well after I was off the Intelligence Committee," said Graham, whose tenure as chairman began several months before the Sept. 11 attacks and ended in January 2003.

Graham's statement raises questions about whether the Bush administration provided timely notice to congressional oversight committees, as is required by law.

And which is why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he would call congressional hearings as soon as possible. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is "wrong, and it can't be condoned at all," he said on Friday.

And these are the conservative, pro-military, hawk type guys John. Not the bleeding heart liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:20 AM

See, folks like John and Q, who claim to be all about "freedom and democracy" seem to know very little about how it actually works.

Q can't understand what the big deal is about spying on US citizens, and is apparently pig ignorant of what it actually says in the Bill of Rights and US Constitution about said proclivities of despots, tyrants, and dictators (like Saddam Hussein, for instance) to spy upon the citizenry.

John doesn't agree that we should demand accountability and oversight of the extra-constitutional intelligence agencies, because it might mean we'll get attacked by terrorists again. Which we will, no matter how much spying, legal or illegal, our government does. Folks like John and Q argue as if the reason why the terrorists got through was because the NSA was waitin' on a warrant from some lily livered bleeding heart liberal judge.

But that was most certainly not the case, as FBI whistle blower Colleen Rowley uncomfortably pointed out to anyone who would listen. The 9/11 Commission actually backed her up, when they found one of the main reasons the 9/11 terrorists got through was because of widespread incompetency of the US intelligence infra-structure to do it's fucking job. And as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, creating another bloated bureaucracy, the Homeland Security Agency, didn't exactly fix the problem.

So I would love to hear from John and Q just how giving up our 4th amendment protections to speak truth to power, is gonna stop the terrorists from attacking us again, hmmm?

The scariest part of all of this, is that the Bush/Cheney cabal decided to overturn the 4th amendment and subvert the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "because they said so" and so many Americans from all walks of life accepted that at face value!

All US intelligence agencies, which are directed by the executive branch, must be held accountable by the judicial and legislative branches by law FOR VERY GOOD REASON. Because despotic tyrants like the Bush/Cheney cabal can always be counted upon to turn US law on it's head when they believe it is to their advantage to do so. It's because our nation's founders understood the nature of power corrupting absolutely that we the people MUST PROTECT OURSELVES AGAINST THE TYRANNICAL REACHES OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!

When you heap this scandal on the Bush administration plate, adding to the torture policy, the ignoring of habeas corpus, detention without trial, etc etc that this government has been engaging it, a rather damning pattern does begin to emerge. It's just that the Bush Republicans don't want to acknowledge it, because they know the US voters will realize the time has come to stop ignorning the man behind the curtain, and silence the great and powerful Oz.

I guess the Johns and Qs of this world would rather see we the people take all this lying down, shutting up, and up our constitutional we the peoples' ass.

I don't think so.

Which is why I'll be voting for this guy in November 2008. The only one who had the guts to stand up for our most important freedoms in the US Senate, in the post-9/11 hysteria that gave the Bush/Cheney cabal free reign to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM

Guest, getting the attention of gullible American voters is precisely why all this crap is going on.
When I read that the Patriot Act turn down was a blow to the Administration, my feeling that it was more like deserting the overall welfare of the citizens.

2006 is a major election year and the wags in Washington will do anything to curry your favor.

The 4th Amendment was written over 200 years ago when the only method of intrusion was knocking down a door. Do we not think that things have changed somewhat since then? While not in defense of anything, "wiretapping" has gone on forever, with or without warrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 12:10 PM

No, I absolutely DO NOT THINK the 4th amendment is obsolete, as you are suggesting Guest A. Why? Because of the lawlessness of the Bush administration, and their imperial reach.

It's the citizenry's ONLY check and balance on the power of the government operating against them.

Let's have an open, honest public debate on the relevancy of the 4th amendment if you feel so strongly we ought to just throw the thing out, Guest A.

Do you also favor making the presidency an imperial, above the law institution without any checks and balances on it's powers and authority too, Guest A? I mean, why stop at the 4th amendment? Let's throw out Articles I, III and IV while we're at it. And then when we are done "amending" the Constitution, we can throw out Articles V & VI to be sure no one can ever amend it again, and we can declare the Bush family the Holy Imperial Rulers of the Land.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 12:55 PM

Aw, Guest--you say the sweetest things. Why didn't I think of that??!!                Tw

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM

A little touchy today, are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:50 PM

Nah, but are you this stupid everyday?

Have a nice day!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 02:45 PM

Guest A is not at all stupid; neither are you Guest. Thing people seem to be missing is that the interpretation of the Constitution (and the first ten amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights) cannot be left in the hands of one man. Especially if that man is George Bush. Whether or not Bush referred to the Constitution as a Goddamned piece of paper or not, interpretation of that noble document should take many heads working together, considering ramification, etc. Somehow, Canadian that I am, I always thought that was the prerogative of the American Supreme Court. I stand to be corrected. (I am aware of the function played by Congress, btw.)

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 03:04 PM

This is a story that is unfolding bizarrely, and very quickly. Why just since I sat down at my computer a couple of hours ago, I have learned that:

1. The Defense Dept has a J Edgar type spy program going on too.

2. The NSA was spying domestically immediately after 9/11, and prior to the executive order authorizing it by Bush in early 2002.

3. The NY Times, after meeting with White House officials to discuss the national security aspects of the report, has been sitting on this story for a year.

4. One of the reporters who co-wrote the NY Times article has a book on the subject due out in January (the Woodstain syndrome of holding back information the public needs to know, in order to keep it for your book).

5. Bush's White House counsel (Harriet Dearest?) is apparently as stupid as he is, for advising him to publicly admit in his weekly radio address this morning that he actually authorized the surveillence. No wonder he wanted his White House counsel on the Supreme Court. Harriet might have had a hand in protecting him, as this case is surely on it's way there.

6. That both judges who run the national security spy court (officially known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, is housed in the Justice Dept, and the court that reviews all requests for domestic spying) balked at the Bush administration claims that it's warrantless searches, with one of them actually shutting the program for a time until she received assurances that the NSA would never bring a case before her which used evidence of probable cause discovered as a result of the warrantless surveillance.

And that was just in a couple of hours time. This breaking scandal is breathtaking in scope.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 03:13 PM

Monitoring of electronic communication is available to governments and businesses with the ability and will to gather it. And they all do it.
Recording of telephonic conversation was common long before Bush. A court order is needed in the U. S. to use the information.
We use programs like Spybot to keep commercial tracking down to a reasonable level. I can obtain credit information on individuals easily by subscribing to a service (search?). Spying is easy. Don't put unshreaded personal information in your garbage if you have secrets to protect (seizure?). Many people are looking over your shoulder.

'Listening in,' however accomplished, may be search, but the effect of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent the USE of unauthorized information in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 03:17 PM

See John, the problem I have with interpretations like yours, is that it makes it seem reasonable

I did not say anything about my own beliefs or about any "side" I might take on this. My only intent was to summarize what has been reported, and what may be the arguments others are likely to present. The dangerous thing here is that they may be able to "make it seem reasonable" and those who don't agree should be prepared.

people like yourself and other Bush Republicans

I have NEVER said anything about any party or political affiliation or about what I believe is right, proper, moral, or correct and you have no idea what my political beliefs are. You have no basis for an attempt to gratuitously SMEAR me with such an accusation. That is an unfounded personal attack that I find offensive. I'll note in passing that the alternative smear "bleeding heart liberal" would have been just as incorrect and almost as offensive.

It is not within the courts' remit to review the legality

ONLY THE COURTS AND THE JUDICIARY have the authority under the US Constitution to review the Constitutional legality of anything. It is within the authority, and is the responsibility here, of the Congress to investigate, to determine if laws have been violated, and to submit questions of legality to the Court. It is very difficult for the Courts to do anything unless, and until, a question is submitted to them.

John doesn't agree that we should demand accountability …

Where did you get THAT INANE conclusion?

If you want my honest and personal opinion, I believe that recent politics in the US, and the recent responses of the general population of this country are exactly and dangerously parallel to the events transpiring in Germany in the period from about 1930 and immediately thereafter. We are currently at about 1932 or so, and are at very high risk of continuing along a path very similar to what transpired there.

Step 1: Invoke fear of a foreign enemy to unite sufficient votes to elect a "Conservative Party" that promises safety and security for the nation. The Germans believed "socialism" was an incredible threat. We lost the USSR, but invoked "Islamic Fanaticists" (with a little help from those fanatics.)

Step 2: Pander to Religious "Fundamentalism" to obtain sufficient "swing votes" to get a free hand to "social engineer" politics. Catholicism was essentially the only religion in Germany ca. 1930, and "Liberal Catholics" were the only significant opposition to the establishment of policies offensive to the Weimar Constitution in 1932 Germany, but were largely unorganized as a political body. The Concordat of 1933 was the FIRST INTERNATIONAL TREATY to recognize the new German government, and established "Conservative Catholicism" (i.e. Vatican politics) as the official religion of the country. Without the international "authenticating" by this treaty, there is reasonable doubt that the party assuming power would have been able to do what later transpired. The pandering of a majority(?) of the Administrative and Legislative officials to the "Fundies" in the U.S. is, IMO, purely political on the part of the politicians and is mostly, if not entirely, for political purposes. The belief by the "Fundies" that they're "saving the religious principles of the nation" is naive and is clearly dangerous to anyone of real faith – any faith, and to anyone who supports and believes in our Constitution.

Step 3: Intrude religiosity into law, to establish that "non-believers" and "non-conformers" may be freely denied civil rights. For some unfathomable reason, the shipping of certain "social undesirables" to work camps seemed to fit Vatican policies, and allowed the German government to include large numbers of "political undesirables" right along with them. The same "social undesirables" have been attacked here by 23 states that have passed amendments to their State Constitutions to deny eligibility of "certain undesirables" for the same Civil Rights available to "good people." An additional 26 have written new laws or "reinterpreted" old ones along the same lines. Suspension of habeas corpus guaranteed by the Weimar Constitution was an early step in Germany, and appears to be pending and perhaps effective here.

Step 4: Declare a national emergency to permit the Executive to use extraordinary powers that skirt around the very foundations of the nation's principles. The authority of the Executive to do this was quite clearly defined in the Weimar Constitution, and has been assumed to be implied by the enumeration of the responsibilities of office in the US Constitution.

Step 5: Recruit core members of the military from the most "Fundamentalist" religious believers - because they will obey most readily without question. This was a stated and widely implemented policy in Germany, and it appears from reports about the U.S. Airforce Academy that some there believe you must be "born again" in order to graduate and become an Air Force officer. It seems also to work quite well for some of the Islamic political factions.

Step 5: Purge the courts by accusing them of "radicalism," eliminating judges who "don't go along" and appointing new ones willing to "make the right decisions." Done in Germany – apparently in process here. At least six states that I've heard of have proposed changes in how members of the states' judiciary are selected, largely to eliminate elective judges and make all judicial assignments by appointment. Some states where judges are appointed but must submit to popular vote to retain their position have proposed eliminating the vote. This is not necessarily an entirely bad thing, but is apparently being proposed now in the belief that an appointed judiciary will "be less radical," especially if appointment is by the legislatures. The apparent intent by some to seek U.S. Supreme Court replacements who will follow religious doctrine (or "popular opinion") in preference to the law is (IMO) exceedingly dangerous.

Step 6: Withdraw social welfare programs in the name of "economic necessity," and ship the "worthless" off to jail or to labor camps. Germany solved their extremely high unemployment problem by what amounted to "criminal prosecution" of the unemployed. (If they were in jail, or in a labor camp, they weren't unemployed.) We seem to have a leaning toward simple jailing, as we have the highest per capita prison population of any significant, let alone "major" nation. Germany was more efficient, since some estimates say that 30 percent of those sent to work camps died in them (a best guess, and not really a confirmable percentage). We have to support prisoners (for now) indefinitely. [Note to GUEST: last two sentences are sarcasm.]

Step 7: Go attack somebody, because "we deserve more" and a good war lets you keep the people occupied shouting political/nationalist slogans. No comment required.

All in the name of "what's good for the country." And of course, "what's good for our religion." All, in fact, to satisfy the lust for personal power, authority, and enrichment of the few "leaders" and their sycophants (certain "ministers of the gospel" not excluded from either category).

The good Germans who followed without due attention voted in good faith for, and supported, those who destroyed Weimar Germany. We have a splendid opportunity and a good start at doing the same to the US.

Axioms of politics:

"No government can stay in power without a credible foreign enemy to keep the people united."

"The easiest way to get a coherent block of voters sufficient for reelection is to give them permission to hate something."

Axioms seem to be working.

Now I'll wait for GUEST to proclaim that I think all this is a great idea and we should all be good Natzis?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 03:37 PM

Q, because electronic surveillance is pervasive and widespread, doesn't make it right or acceptable, and it certainly doesn't mean we should allow the government to do it in order to destroy the lives of it's political enemies.

Just ask Bill Moyers, who said when he spoke at the National Security Archive's anniversary:

"Because of the Freedom of Information Act and the relentless fight by the (National Security) Archive to defend and exercise it, some of us have learned more since leaving the White House about what happened on our watch than we knew when we were there. Funny, isn't it, how the farther one gets from power, the closer one often gets to the truth?"

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

John, you are putting the cart before the horse by claiming the courts have a remit to review the revelation that the law may have broken by Bush and others. The judicial branch can't just leap into the fray and presume a crime has been committed, so begin a review.

At the federal level, an investigation must first take place, a grand jury be sworn in (federal cases require a grand jury, states cases don't always require one), etc etc a la the Plamegate procedure.

The remit of the judicial branch in an instance where wrongdoing is alleged to have been committed by the president, is to first allow Congress to investigate, or a Special Prosecutor be appointed by the Justice Department, or both. Then, and only then, can the courts become involved in the adjudication of the case.

It is quite different when it is a sitting president who is the target of a criminal investigation.

This is just shocking. Or as the NY Times reports today:

"William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the N.S.A. revelation came as a shock, even given the administration's past assertions of presidential powers.

"I was frankly astonished by the story," he said. "My head is spinning."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:26 PM

I wondering what other wrong doings of the Bush administartion the press has uncovered that it's sitting on????

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:30 PM

Far be it for the press to report.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM

On last night's Washington Week in Review, they agreed that what is happening is that for a long time, espectially after 9/11, Congress allowed the Bush Administration great latitude in implementing or enforcing their ideas or pushing the walls farther out but that suddenly Congress is collectively saying: Wait a minute. You are going too far. And are pushing back.

Read what Senator Patrick Leahy had to say:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051217/pl_usnw/reaction_of_senator_patrick_leahy_to_the_president_s_saturday_radio_address_on_the_usa_patriot_act101_xml

Hmmmmmm. Perhaps the URL is too long? The link won't let me complete it- ends at "to the-" so if you're interested, copy and paste it.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:50 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is the reaction of Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) (D-Vt., ranking member, Senate Judiciary Committee, chief Senate sponsor of the original USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and a former prosecutor) to the President's Saturday radio address on the PATRIOT Act and on efforts led by Leahy and others in the Senate to make improvements in the proposed rewrite of the PATRIOT Act, which is now pending before Congress:

"Many of us who want improvements in the PATRIOT Act worked hard to help write and enact the original law in 2001. We want to make sure these tools are used against terrorists and not abused to undermine the hard-won rights that are the heritage of every American. Why not go the extra mile for a PATRIOT Act the American people can fully support, knowing that it has sufficient safeguards for their liberty?

"Threats to our freedoms are as current and as disturbing as this morning's headlines. Chairman Specter has pledged hearings on the domestic eavesdropping that the President has authorized, and I support his determination to examine these revelations. Electronic surveillance is an important law enforcement and intelligence gathering tool, but it can and must be done lawfully, in accordance with our laws and Constitution.

"Fear mongering and false choices do little to advance either the security or liberty of Americans. Republican and Democratic senators joined together this week to say we can do better to protect Americans' liberties while ensuring our national security is as strong as it can be. Every single senator -- Republican and Democratic -- voted in July to mend and extend the PATRIOT Act. That bipartisan solution dissolved when the Bush Administration and Republican congressional leaders rewrote the bill in ways that fall short in protecting basic civil liberties and then tried to ram it through Congress as an all-or-nothing proposition.

"I have joined with senators of both parties in an effort to enact a short-term extension so that we can keep working to improve the bill. For the Bush Administration and Republican congressional leaders to allow the PATRIOT Act to expire would be irresponsible. Instead of playing partisan politics and setting up false attack ads, they should join in trying to improve the law. We ask the President and Republican leaders to reconsider their opposition to briefly extending the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act until these improvements are made.

"Most importantly, our government must follow the laws and respect the Constitution while it protects Americans' security and liberty. The Bush Administration seems to believe it is above the law. It is not and neither is any administration. Our nation is a democracy, founded on the principles of balanced government. We need to restore checks and balances in this country to protect us all and all that we hold dear."

No pressure, Eb.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:58 PM

Time to ready the Legions to march against the Senate and people of Rome.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:21 PM

GUEST 17 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

Thank you for repeating in such fine additional detail what I thought I said:

It is within the authority, and is the responsibility here, of the Congress to investigate, to determine if laws have been violated, and to submit questions of legality to the Court. It is very difficult for the Courts to do anything unless, and until, a question is submitted to them.

No argument at all. There are of course procedural steps that must be followed for an investigation by, or at the direction of, the Legislature, and a Special Prosecutor and/or Grand Jury may or may not be the course chosen if/as a meaningful investigation proceeds.

Not a recommendation or advocacy of any kind, but a prediction:

"It is very unlikely that the politically driven investigation that the Legislative branch is likely to conduct will ever send a question to the Court."

It would be comforting to think that they might, but politics is involved.

It's remotely possible that a resolution (consistent with Constitutional principles???) may be achieved by investigation alone, but politics is involved.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:28 PM

Sen Leahy's Comment

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM

Thanks, guys. Evidently I gave up too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:57 PM

Not every day, Peace. But thanks for asking.

My simple way of looking at things tells me if you are not connected with any terrorist organization, then one should have no worry and the 4th Amendment is there to protect you.

Unless, of course, there a question of paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM

Sorry Peace, I meant "Guest". I am still savoring your Christmas wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:05 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:50 PM

Nah, but are you this stupid everyday?

Have a nice day!"

GUEST A, that was NOT my post. When I am tempted to toss insults, I have the decency to do so under my 'name'.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, looks like Patrick has laid the ground work fir another Cheney "Fu*k you" at this years Christmas Party...

But, seriously, I just heard Bush on the news with his patent "My job is to protect the American people" in defending SpyGate...

Hmmmmm, seesm to me that he was so gol danged interested in "protecting the American people" he wouldn't have bailed on Katrina...

Tell ya what folks... This guy ain't up to the task... All he does is roll over to any lobbiest with a handfull of dough or to Dick Cheney when Dick wants to get his jollies having other folks mess with his adversaries...

Tell ya what, I know I challenged Bush to fist fight but I'd rathetr have three rounds with Cheney... He's the sneeky little jerk who is ordering this crap up... He's ***Toture Man*** and I'll guarentee you that he's ***Spy Man*** as well...

Bush, I'm beginning to think, is ***EatUpDumb Man***...

Hey, you all want a laugh... On the G.W. Parkway west of Washington, D.C. there's an exit for the "George Bush Center for Intellegence"??? Yeah, I thought you'd all get a kick outta that one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:09 PM

At some stage Americans will look back and realise that those guys who flew in to the towers destroyed more than anyone could possibly have imagined at the time, and they're still destroying the basis of American society every day. British too. I'm sure they had no idea that that one act would have led to the complete destruction of the rules of civilisation we've built up over so many years, leading to spying, arrest without charge, unlimited times of detention, torture, the complete alienation of the Muslim world, massive national debt, paranoia, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:38 PM

"Drunkard's dreamm if I ever did see one..."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

Amazing!! I have been saying those things the Guest above posted since about 6 months after 9-ll. The constitution has been diminished, civil liberties are under the strongest attack ever, George Bush stole the election that put him into his first term, and now, from what I've read recently, I gather he actually said that "the constitution is only a scrap of paper!"-------- After I made my posts, I was attacked as being on the borderline of treason in this forum. And every day we must hear and absorb more about the nearly unthinkable un-American activities being foisted on us all by this administration.

Rexford G. Tugwell wrote a book a while ago called The Roosevelt Revolution. It detailed that first year of Franklin D. Roosevelt's time in office. If that was a revolution then, one that took us out of the depression and gave us some actual social security, then what I've seen going down now is certainly that--and much more. The robber barons are back in charge though---and they are running with the $$$$$$$$$$ ! It will be up to the young generation to stop, or at least slow down, these abuses. But all they want to do is make their killing in the stock market.

It is terribly sad.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 08:40 PM

WOOOOHOOO looks like a little spying on the FDIC and Halliburton's unbid contract has exposed that the Katrina relief fund is really a $3 Trillion slush fund for Cheney and friends.
It is so convoluted you will have to look for yourself.
This story is multi sourced.
http://www.blacknews.com/pr/fdic101.html