 sj |
||
|
||
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:02 AM I heard that Bush wants to build two walls one with Mexico and the other with Canada, Closing your Borders I mean what next? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:39 AM GUEST - How we gonna close the Canadian border? They're our No 1 supplier of imported oil aren't they? (They probably think we're so nice them 'cause we like them. "Suck up" can have lots of meanings here.) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 18 Dec 05 - 12:41 PM Problem with these Republicans is that they just HATE THE CONSTITUTION. Tricky Dick had problems with the rule of law (Watergate), The Gipper ditto (Iran-Contra) George the First (Gulf War BS) and now George the Second's serial offenses against the Constitution and the law of the land. Despite all this, them boys & girls jus' keep votin' Republican. The U.S. absolutely has the government it deserves- a majority of the population is evidentally every bit as ignorant as their Prez! God Help America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: DougR Date: 18 Dec 05 - 12:56 PM Oh my Lord! I hate to say it but I feel I must ...the sky is surely falling! Get out of the way! Yep, Greg F., no doubt about it. The only intelligent Americans are folks who think like you do. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:02 PM How do you explain America's stupidity, Doug? *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:34 PM "The only intelligent Americans are folks who think like you do." You got that right, doug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:17 PM JohninKansas - You say, "They probably think we're so nice them 'cause we like them." Quite the contrary. The U.S. isn't so 'nice' to Canada. The U.S. fouls our air, refuses our beef exports, steals our salmon, does not honour trade agreements, demands our energy resources and bullies us into military defense and intelligence co-operation. The U.S. does not 'like' Canada but needs our co-operation and depends on our energy and other resources. We have many friends and family in the U.S. and do not wish to see our borders closed. We want to be friendly neighbors but its hard to be friends with the Bush administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:18 PM That would be one long freakin' wall, BTW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:19 PM . . . but if we asked real nice, could we have it painted in mauve? Heaven forfend it should clash with our decor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:07 PM Hmmm, domestic spying and building walls against neighbours, anyone else reminded of East Germany ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Dec 05 - 04:01 PM dianovan - sarcasm needs explanation? I can't say I understand all the complaints, but I do know enough of them not to expect anyone in Canada to believe it when our politicians say "we love you." And re the why are we so stupid: I don't know why, but I doubt if more than about 10 percent of the US population knows we get any oil from Canada. They think it all comes from "Omaria" or something like that. I'd guess that ten percent of them couldn't name the nearest U.S. city that's half as big as the one they live in, unless it's where they have to go to buy their beer (Coors Lite, of course). John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 05 - 04:02 PM "The U.S. isn't so 'nice' to Canada. The U.S. fouls our air, refuses our beef exports, steals our salmon, does not honour trade agreements, demands our energy resources and bullies us into military defense and intelligence co-operation. "The U.S. does not 'like' Canada but needs our co-operation and depends on our energy and other resources. " dianavan One more time: What's YOUR excuse? One cannot have a victim without its cooperation of some kind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM Jeeze, ease up on the Yanks, will ya? The ones here are our friends (for the most part). HOWEVER, I INSIST on a mauve wall. (Mauve is a kinda green, right?) I do NOT want the wall to clash with our forests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:30 PM Oh, dear. Bruce, how do I break it to you? Mauve is- well, it's not really kind of - well, it's more like - it's kind of a dusty - well, hell. It's a kind of green. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: DougR Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:30 PM I assume all the U. S. Mudcatters will be listening to our president tonight, right? 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time in the event that Air America hasn't notified it's listeners. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:41 PM Thanks, Ebbie. That's what I thought. However, once, years ago I painted a room chartreuse at the insistence of a friend (it was his place and he was going out of town for a week). Anyway, how as I supposed to know that chartreuse wasn't a deep red colour? Sheesh. Put on two coats BTW. I couldn't figure out why he wanted the room so dark, but people have their preferences and who was I to disagree? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 18 Dec 05 - 06:51 PM Ya shoulda Googled it, man! "The green-yellow color that is common among trees that have poor fall coloration of their foliage." www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestry/Education/ohiotrees/glossary.html" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 06:53 PM Oh. Hey, BRB. I am gonna google mauve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 06:57 PM "Mauve is the product of serendipity and imagination. The Oxford English Dictionary's (OED) first record of the word's use is from 1859. yourDictionary.com defines it as "a moderate purple, violet, or lilac color" and adds that it is also "a dyestuff that produces a mauve color." The term is a loanword from French, in which it means "the mallow plant" or the color of its flowers." I have never known the OED to err before. But there is a first for everything. OED--Ebbie, OED--Ebbie. Ebbie wins. Green it is. See where it says "a moderate purple, violet or mauve color"? They mean to say, and could have for the sake of clarity, 'purple, violet and green'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 07:00 PM Notice the beautiful green glass and scarf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 05 - 07:08 PM Proof: The colour green. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM DougieR, No, I won't listen to him... It's nuthin' put one more desperate PR push to save his presidency... Heck, he's allready leaked to Tim Russert that there woh't be anything new in so, like, what's to watch??? More proclaimations of just how concerned he is about "protecting the American people"??? Man, after 9/11, where he was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel and then Katrina, where he was again asleep (or drunk) at the wheel, I don't have any faith left in me that this man is capable of protecting anyone... Might of fact, he isn't even samrt enough to understand that thou he is presiodent he has to obey laws... You all jumped all over Bill Clionton because, you say he didn't obey laws in lieing under oath about his relationship with Monika Lewinski but here you have a guy who0 has absolutely thumbed his nose at written law and he's yer hero?????? Like what is that all about??? No, don't tell me... I allready know... They call it hypocrisy... Now come on over here an' get a big hug, Big Guy... I still loves ya' even if you is a knothead... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:24 PM DougR: "Our" President? I do not consider him a legitimate leader for the United STates of America. And his time-hooured propensity for sheer mendacity does very little to make the prospect of listening to his homey little subliterate twang very inviting. If I thought he would say anything honest, I'd be right there! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:35 PM "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" That's EXACTLY what they wanted to destroy - and was the whole intent - or didn't you listen to "Bin Laden's Declaration of War on the USA and Allies"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:45 PM Peace - Was that link at 18 Dec 05 - 07:00 PM just to prove how effective secret stuff is. I got a "You are Forbidden to Have Access to..." Very effective illustration. And appropriate! John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:10 PM gulp Ah. Bruce. Ah, I have something to tell you... but no hurry- it can wait. You're doing fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:44 PM then why did you vote for Bush, Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 18 Dec 05 - 10:25 PM Ebbie, you said, "One cannot have a victim without its cooperation of some kind." I'll remember that when the Bush administration taps your phone, monitors your e-mail, detains you indefinitely and denies you a lawyer. BTW - Mauve is a dusty purple that is popular in Quebec. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 05 - 03:08 AM TIC, dianavan, TIC. Mauve is what mauve is- and neither Peace nor I was born yesterday. But don't be silly. If and when we get to the place where you can say "I'll remember that when the Bush administration taps your phone, monitors your e-mail, detains you indefinitely and denies you a lawyer.", I'll agree - cheerfully or not so cheerfully - that in some fundamental way I and my fellow countrymen have cooperated in our victimization. Wouldn't you, if it happened to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:32 AM Some facts for Bobert Amos and the other whiners and scared rabbits: If you read to the end of the same NYT article you will find these facts to ponder: "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority." "Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications" A secret program? No one knew? "Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program" "Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program" If you are not communicating to a foeirgn country such as Afghanistan and if you are not on a terrorist watch list you have nothing to worry about so all of you scared rabbits can dry your eyes disassemble and go back in your individual holes and feel safe again due to the dilligence and laedership of the Bush administration. Your asses might have already been saved by such operations and you would never know about it. But still your neurotic personalities gives you the need to complain about something. Complain about the asshole that just got elected president of Bolivia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: curmudgeon Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:58 AM Hey, Old Guy, read this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:26 AM This thread seems to have two schools of thought: 1) Mauve is green 2) The US is good or bad I am with the former school. FYI. Thanks, Ebbie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:37 AM Yep, Greg F., no doubt about it. The only intelligent Americans are folks who think like you do. Sorry, Douggie, but I said nothing about intelligence. I said ignorance. Look 'em both up in the dictionary, why dontcha, and report back to the group. [ Its not about conformity of thought, its about engaging the process critical thought PERIOD. ] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:33 PM I don't think that we have had a great deal of information on this story yet. But, on the face, it sounds horrific. If Bush is found to have authorized illegal survalience of american citizens, I would be infavor of impeaching him. In illegal wire tap is no different than an illegal search and seizure. From the Bill of Rights "Amendment IV 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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM So lead the charge, hero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:51 PM I agree with rarelamb; we don't have a lot of information just yet. On the one hand, we were hit by a horrific terrorist attack due (in part, at least) to the failure of federal officials to either obtain or process information that might have prevented it. I want our government to recognize its failure, and redouble its efforts to gather the information that might help prevent the next attack. And some of the constraints on them, at least as they have been interpreted thus far, are asinine; it's silly to say that they can listen to a conversation, but only use the half of it that wasn't spoken by a US citizen. On the other hand, the Bush administration has shown such disregard for human rights, and for reasonable limitations on Executive authority, that they don't have a lot of credibility left on questions of this sort. In times of national emergency, I'm prepared to allow our government a certain amount of latitude (temporarily, at least), if it seems that they need it. Lincoln's transgressions against the Bll of Rights were much greater than this, as were FDR's, and yet they are regarded as perhaps our greatest Presidents, principally because they saw this nation through times of great danger. But based on the Bush administration's track record, I am skeptical that they are using their real and/or assumed authority judiciously. I think we need a full investigation. I am prepared to withhold judgment for now, provided that I have confidence that the facts are forthcoming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 19 Dec 05 - 02:07 PM Regardless of whether or not they are thought well of after, the suspension of Habeas Corpus and threatening to pack the courts are rightfully black marks on their presidencies. They had the result that it was found unconstitutional by the supreme court and congress placed term limits. The accusations thus far represent very dangerous grab of power by the executive branch. To be fair though, it looks like some members of congress may be complicit. I think we are in the early stages of this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:08 PM Ebbie - Are you agreeing with the following statement? "They probably think we're so nice them 'cause we like them." My reply was in response to someone saying that the U.S. likes Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:42 PM "Countries do not have friends; they have interests." I believe that was said by Kissinger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:38 PM dianavan, I think we're getting caught up in some kind of convolution. Your citing 'They probably think we're so nice them 'cause we like them' from JohninKansas 9:39AM confuses me further. You must be able to understand that sentence better than I do. My answer below is responding to your statement above. And when I asked, What's YOUR excuse, I was referring to the fact that your take on it is how awful the US is for what it does to Canada- my question iz, Why does Canada allow it? She must benefit in some way, a way that is not necessarily an obvious way to some of her citizens. You said: "The U.S. isn't so 'nice' to Canada. The U.S. fouls our air, refuses our beef exports, steals our salmon, does not honour trade agreements, demands our energy resources and bullies us into military defense and intelligence co-operation. "The U.S. does not 'like' Canada but needs our co-operation and depends on our energy and other resources. " dianavan I responded: One more time: What's YOUR excuse? One cannot have a victim without its cooperation of some kind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:50 PM When you have the big bully, son of the Principal, in the schoolground, you can fight back, or leave the school. It's a bit hard for Canada to pick up her skirts and leave... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:00 PM I am of the opinion that Canada should begin making nuclear bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM Again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:10 PM Yep. Again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:13 PM "Canada - Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base and large uranium reserves. While Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is no hard evidence they have done so, nor has Canada ever shown the intention to join the nuclear club outright. Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program. Canada accepted having American nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in 1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon free country in 1971, and the last American warheads were withdrawn in 1984. Before this time Canada also carried a compliment of AIR-2 Genie nuclear tipped air to air missiles." But this time they would be under OUR control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:17 PM We've been lots like OZ in that regard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:17 PM "Australia – Following World War II, Australian defence policy premised joint nuclear weapons development with the United Kingdom. Australia provided uranium, land for weapons and rocket tests, and scientific and engineering expertise. Canberra was also heavily involved in the Blue Streak ballistic missile program. In 1955, a contract was signed with a British company to build the Hi-Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR). HIFAR was considered the first step towards the construction of larger reactors capable of producing substantial volumes of plutonium for nuclear weapons. However, Australia's nuclear ambitions were abandoned by the 1960s, and the country signed the NPT in 1970 (ratified in 1973). [21]" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:19 PM Ahhhh, just fir the record Old Guy, the Consitiution does not allow the president to spy on US citizens... If you don' think so, go read the danged thing... No where in it does is say that a president has this right... Don't agree with me??? Find it anywhwere in the Constition... Might of fact, I think the Founding Fatehrs would take you an' yer hero, drunk frat boy, out back and give you both a good whuppin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:20 PM Figure it this way. We build a few hundred nukes. The US invades. We set off the nukes in our oil and natural gas fields; seaways; prairies; major cities with ports. The Americans could then have the place. Should be fit for habitation in a few thousand years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:22 PM Just a passing thought, BTW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:33 PM What would Sun Tzu say about that strategy, Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM I believe he advocated scorched earth given certain conditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:41 PM "All warfare is based on deception." We don't have to DO it; we just have to convince the 'enemy' that we WOULD do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:45 PM Scorched earth is one thing nuclear annihilation is an other order of magnitude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:46 PM Yes. You are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM "We don't have to DO it; we just have to convince the 'enemy' that we WOULD do it." Well there goes that plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:54 PM The thing is, much like MAD (which IMO was responsible for there being no nuclear war back when), they'd just never know for sure. Any other way of 'scorched earth' would allow them to rebuild--and we know how they love doing that. So, nukes. In a fight we'd be decimated very quickly. Our military could buy us enough time to detonate. Let 'em know that if they insist on playing, we're gonna pitch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM Is Canada not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:09 PM To quote Bush (most likely): It's just a God damned piece of paper! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:11 PM Good one Bruce, we can throw that back into his face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:14 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:42 PM bobad - The U.S. is the biggest violator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is a close second. But funny you should mention it... ...thats the justification the U.S. will use for waging war against Iran. What hypocrites! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM Bobad: I've had a change of heart and mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:44 PM . . . let's make it thermonukes and stop foolin' around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:54 PM 12 ways of better living thru thermonukes: 12. SeaFair needs more noise and louder explosions. Those Blue Angels are real wusses. Get a couple of detonations and mushroom clouds going. That ought to stop traffic on I-90, the 520 bridge, I-5, and 405! And if the spectacle doesn't stop 'em, the electromagnetic pulse will! # 11. The University District Chamber of Commerce could purchase a couple of thermonuclear-powered leaf blowers to clear the annoying street youth from sidewalks and make the area more conducive to commerce. # 10. Why irradiate food when you can irradiate the land used to grow it? That'll protect our produce from micro-organisms. And imagine those awe- inspiring, glowing fields of microwave popcorn! "Kansas: Land of Majestic Sunsets." # 9. Dental hygiene. # 8. Use one to destroy the Kingdome. Save millions now! (Why wait for the Mariners to leave?) # 7. Impress chicks. # 6. Removes stains thousands of times faster than ordinary detergent. Gets clothes, buildings, and everything within miles of the epicenter whiter than white! # 5. Skateboarding with a difference. # 4. Provide energy so cheap and plentiful it won't even have to be mete-- whoops, never mind. # 3. Washington voters took vital weaponry last fall out of the hands of our state's bear and big cat hunters. It's time to give some meaningful weapons back. # 2. REAL clearcutting. No underbrush, no second growth. # 1. Seattle can't build those annoying little traffic circles in the middle of intersections fast enough. Miles-wide craters would do a much better job of slowing down traffic. And landscaping would be a cinch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:30 PM Bobert: Read the NYT for facts and then cry me a river. Do you have known liks to Al-quaeda? are calling foreign countries? If not then you have nothing to worry about. Does your neighbor have known links to Al-quaedaand is he calling foreign countries? would you like to know if he is planning a terrorist attack? Well tough shit cause tha constitution protects his right to plan a terrorist attack in private according to you. Maybe a mind reader like yourself should be in charge of anti terrorisim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:33 PM Did Israel ever sign and ratify the Treaty? For that matter, did the US ever ratify it? We Can Do It- 'Cause We's BIG In France they used to sniff for romance. With US, it's the money... "The US has always been somewhat impatient with international non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium, in the past six years the States has conducted 19 nuclear tests, dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable. "But the Bush administration has upped the nuclear ante considerably. It plans another sub-critical nuclear test for 2004, and has authorized the nation's weapons labs to resume full-on nuclear testing with as little as six-months' notice. "And that's bad news for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The UN-sponsored organization was set up in 1996 to ban nuclear-test explosions and to establish a corresponding global monitoring system. But there's a catch - the treaty can't go into effect until all 44 of the nuclear-capable countries that joined in 1996 have ratified it, a prospect looking increasingly unlikely as holdouts point to US intransigence as justification for their own burgeoning nuclear weapons programs. "Take Iran, which as one of the original signatories, permitted five monitoring stations to be built on its soil. In January 2002, soon after the US began withholding funds from the CTBT's on-site inspection program, Iran began withholding monitoring data from the international community, thus rendering its stations useless. "With America pulling back from the CTBT, other countries have been expected to join Iran in withdrawing their support as well. According to Daryl Kimball of the US-based arms Control Association, "The US is risking that possibility, and that may indeed be what the US wants." "After all, Armageddon is big business stateside. The US budget for nuclear-weapon activities in fiscal 2004 tops $6 billion, over half a billion more than in 2003. Expenditures for nuclear-test readiness alone surged by 39% in the same period, and in a major policy shift, the Bush administration is poised to seek Congressional authorization for "usable" nuclear weapons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:53 AM Bobert, you are sounding more amd more like a moron. Give examples, not YOUR conclusions. Greg F, you find fault with all the Repub Presidents. Any opinion on WJC when he bombed the crap out of the Falklands WITHOUT any approval from Congress or the UN? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Teribus Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:12 AM India, Pakistan and Israel are not bound by the NPT as they are not signatories |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM Ah, yesss- One More Time!- the tried and true NeoCon/Rebub "Mommy Mommy, but look what Johnnie did" defense. Lo siento mucho, pal, but this ain't about Bill Clinton. Don't you folks ever tire of employing the arguments and "debating tactics" of eight-year-olds? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Donuel Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:27 AM Toles, as usual was ahead of the curve. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/toles.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:21 AM Greg F, its' about the actions of all Presidents. I neither agreed nor disagreed with your post. I was just curious as to what you would eliminate a Prez who is as guilty as the ones you mentioned. I am not a "rebub" and am starting to think that perhaps a lot of the minority are ignorant also. Why not reply to the inquiry? Oh yes, you still may include the insulting behavior. I don't have a problem with that as your posts would dimnish in quantity without them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:50 AM I have been sitting here thinking about the Costitution; 1. Have you ever given thought to the present Congress, BOTH sides of the aisle, coming up with a similar document. Heaven (or whatever) help us. 2. Bobert, the Constitution is not as definitive as you would like to believe. It is an outline and a dam'n fine one at that. Maybe the phrase "He (meaning the Prez) shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necssary and expedient. Soooo, he did not consider some things necessary which is the Prez perogative. He do go to a select group 12 times about the subject so as to keep them apprised. 3. The Constitution also stipulates that the "the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday of December". Later amended to the 3rd day of January. Wll, they are meeting at least that. Show me where it says the Prez can't do what he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:23 AM Where did I miss the historical information that Bill Clinton bombed the Falklands? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:28 AM I have the same question Ebbie has. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: DougR Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:33 AM I don't believe Bill bombed the Falklands. He bombed a baby food factory or some such in Afghanstan as I recall. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:47 AM Hmmnnn - have no idea how the Falklands showed up there. That was about 17 0r 18 years before Serbia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:53 AM It happens. The world has been so filled with war that keeping the 'who did what to whom' straight is almost impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: PeteBoom Date: 20 Dec 05 - 03:55 PM "...do solemnly swear... to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..." "Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seaches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describling the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X. THe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Seems some folks want "original meaning" and "strict construction" only when it suits their purposes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 05 - 05:05 PM "...have no idea how the Falklands showed up there." Guest/A That's some typo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:15 PM Ahhhh, toi both A and Old Guy, I think the 4th Amendment purdy mush stops the president from spying on Americans... Ain't no read 'um and weep about it... Purdy straight foraward language... Now to Wit" Bush says that the 4th amendment don't count in times of "war"... Well, he and Gonzalez are both lawyers so did it ecver occur to either of them that techincally and legally, the United States is ***not*** actually at war... The Conngressional Resolution authorized Bush to use force, if all other remedies failed but did not issue a declaration of war... Hmmmmmm? Bush claims that he can violate the constitution because he says we are at war yet no war has been declared???? Tell you what, folks, this is one danged slippery slope that Bush is taking the country down... It has hurt our reputation around the world... Now, not only can Bush have anyone in the world kidnapped and rendered (tortored) but he can snoop on any one he wants to... And I have sickening feeling that there's another shoe gettin' ready to drop... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:15 PM in a climate like this, Top Secret becomes about covering up mistakes, violations of people's rights, offensive blunders and corrupt liaisons with war criminals. Top Secret conducting illegal and unfounded investigations, following the whims of people who are unaccountable and vindictive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:16 PM I have the same feeling, Bobert. Who knows what else he/they have been up to. Now that some people are developing a bit more backbone it is getting safer to speak up. I would guess there are people out there who have not dared to reveal various things before. So we may be in for even more scandal and embarrassment and further loss of credibility. However, better the devil you know than the one you don't- so the sooner everything gets publicised the better. Did you see the story today about Tom DeLay's lavish lifestyle? All funded by election campaign donors, lobbyists and ultimately, taxpayers. If the president is as dumb as I suspect, my guess is that only now is he beginning to wonder what in the world is happening to his safe little life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:58 PM Did you hear Bush in his Saturday press conference, Ebbie??? He was like a spoiled kid chastizing his piers... The "King George" references that some have made are startling accurate... What scares me is that enough bonehead Amercians will buy into this "tough talk" to not realize that Bush has broken the law, or if they do realize it, they will give him the benefit of the doubt because Bush declares that the U.S. is at war... Problem with this logic is that the U.S.Constituion does not allow the executive the freedom to declare war... Only Congress can do that!!! Yeah, this is purdy scarey because the United Sates is no longer and educated and enlightened society so there's more folks who know about car racing than they know about our Consitution so if Bush wants to pump out his chest and say "I'm not a crook" then there are fewer folks around who last heard those words who would have any idea if Buish is a crook or not a crook... Thomas Jefferson warned that the future of our democracy was dependent on an informed electorate... I don't htink he meant knowing who just won the NASCAR points race... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:20 PM I'm not surprised that the USA is spying on its citizens. But I am surprised that Bush admits that he authorized that spying. But I pray that this blatant disregard for our constitution causes folks to finally wake up to the danger we have of losing our nation built on laws and protected by laws to neocons whose only interests are money and power. I hope that more and more people join me in singing {to the tune of "Day-O": "Bushie Bushie-ie Impeachment's comin and it won't be long. Finally Finally Impeachment's comin and it won't be long." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:27 PM For those interested in how this story of domestic spying is being covered in papers throughout the USA, see this dailykos thread by BarbinMD Spying: How's it playing in Peoria? Here's an editorial from the [Bergen] Record {New Jersey} which was quoted in that thread: "President Bush has ignored a bedrock principle in his decision to spy on people in the United States without search warrants: This nation is governed by the rule of law. Not the whim of whoever happens to be in the White House - but the law. The revelation that this administration has spied without search warrants on perhaps thousands of people in this country since Sept. 11 is only the latest example of its willingness to skirt the law and even the Constitution. Its indefinite detentions of people without formal charges or access to attorneys is another prime example. But in spying on American citizens, residents and visitors without court approval, the administration is pushing the limits of the law further than we've seen. Congress must conduct an investigation of the surveillance program, as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and some of his Democratic and Republican colleagues have demanded" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bill D Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:51 PM John Dean, Nixon's lawyer, said today that Bush is the first president (that he knows of) to ever admit to an impeachable offense. Senators (democrats, so far, of course) who were privy to some of the briefings which were supposed to make all this spying legal are saying that nothing that THEY heard made clear what Bush was actually authorizing. There are procedures for getting a court order for surveillance, but this was essentially an end run around court orders and Congressional oversight, defended by little more than "we need to use every means at out disposal to 'protect ourselves against terrorism'." Watching (press secretary) Scott McClellan tap dance around a reporter's questions about 'exactly' how congress had 'oversight' in the matter would have been pretty funny if it was not so serious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:14 PM Published on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 by the New York Times F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show by Eric Lichtblau WASHINGTON - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show. F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities. But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest. One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored. The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002. The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes. Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities. "Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau. "The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said. "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules." A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration. "It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U. "You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology." The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests. In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat." In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage. When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division. But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations. "The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that." Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files. "It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bill D Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:41 PM freda...(and some others) would it be too much to ask for something other than LONG copy & pastes? Give a synopsis and a **LINK**...if it is worthy and interesting, I'll go read it! Big glops of someone else's words are not much of a discussion. I understand the temptation....but I'd like to hear from YOU. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM Ebbie, I never suggested it was a typo. (Falklands) All the battles seem to run together. Of course, that one did not involve the US. And thanks, Bill D. I NEVER read those long posts. In the case of the NY Time, I have probably already scanned it and with the bias of a single source, it is not worth discussing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM sorry Bill, i've been getting a little carried away by the breaking news!! fred |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:09 PM Here's another dailykos thread that focus on the issue of Bush's administration spying on US citizens: The Emerging Story Behind the Wiretaps by remove office Check out this comment from that thread: "How many are personally affected? (none / 0) If it turns out that what we're really talking about is a massive data mining program--like Carnivore or Echelon, but bigger, more state-of-the-art and more invasive--the list of targets could include most Americans. Think about it. How many Americans have visited made overseas calls or engaged in electronic communications with other countries? At first, folks might assume this covers only Arabs e-mailing Riyadh. In fact, it might include senior couples booking anniversary trips to England...right-wing bloggers checking up on Al Jezeera...bank customers transferred to call centers in Bangalore...who knows? The panic suggests the net was cast very broadly indeed. If it weren't, they'd be rushing to leak the identities of the targets, whether the revelations compromised security or not. by Smallbottle on Tue Dec 20, 2005" -snip- Well, if the net is that broad, since Mudcat is a [largely progressive] international forum in which political issues are discussed, I've no doubt that we're probably being spied on as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:13 PM Explanation: The "none / 0" that appears in that quote is part of the dailykos rating system. As to the question "How many people are personally affected by the warrentless domestic spy program-the estimate is in the thousands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM Does the thought that if one is not associated with a terriost group, domestic or foreign, one has nothing to worry about mean anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM ask the Quakers that one..! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM Guest, that has been definitively shown NOT to hold true. Here is some stuff on Tom DeLay's lovely life: Live Like a King - On Someone Else's Dime It's an ABC report and it starts out with: WASHINGTON Dec 20, 2005 — "As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire. "Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests. "Public documents reviewed by The Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM I'd rather put my trust in the USA's Constitution than in the "judgement" of Bush and his cronies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM Well, MiziAzizi, having been tailed for 3 years in the 60's by 2 F.B.I. agents, I know that everything I write here is going into some file... I'd like to think that I won't get arrested and sent "rendered' to one of Bush's secret torture camps but when one considers that various peace groups were on the Bush/Cheney radar screen, there is no assurance... What I don't like, however, is that without habeas corpus, I wouldn't have any chance to be charged or to have an attorney or even the Red Cross.... And, I'm not even a terrorist... Just a professed hater of Bush ***policies***, which all seem to be corrupt.... I would hope that my stand, as rector of VCU's Radical Student Union, against burning VCU's president, Warren Brandt's house the week of Kent State would get me a reprieve but, hey, Bush the chickenhawk, is a purdy vindictive feller, so you never know.... But, unless they have started a new file on me, the F.B.I. knows what I stood for that night... They have the RSU infiltrated... Plus I knew the two guys aassigned to me and my friends... Weren't no secret... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM In other words, it depends what the definition of "terrorist group" is and who is doing the defining. Are Quakers, Vegans, Catholics, and PETA terrorists? Apparently Bush's administration thinks so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:57 PM Yeah, Mizi... Like maybe if there are enough dumbass people who are more interesting in shopping than letting their governemnt turn into a dictatorship then maybe it could just come down to having the military march into the Capitol building and remove most of the Democrats... Hey, think this is impossible??? Study history!!!! Every concievable bit of dumbass stuff has happened... Ahhh, ost of it in the last 100 years, come to think about it??? Hmmmmmmm? Maybe an epidemic of dumbass stuff... Heck with the chicken flu... We got Bush to worry about... An' there ain't one drop of vaccine fir him... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: number 6 Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM Good luck guys ... the more I hear about this stuff ... the more content and greatful I am to be a Canadian.' sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:02 PM grateful here too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:31 PM If Harper is elected, we may not feel so smug but I agree that its good to live in Canada. At least we have a fairly well educated population. I hope thats enough to save us from the neo-cons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: number 6 Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM Even if Harper is elected (yikes, God Help us) we would never get ourselves into such a compunded mess as the U.S. is in now. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:16 AM This story has just gotten even more explosive. Check this out excerpt: "A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work"... -snip- Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Azizi Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:20 AM Sorry, I meant to write "Check out this excerpt." But you knew that, right? {or "eh?" as the Canadian Mudcatters say}. [See what you can learn online!] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:58 AM Azizi - My guess is that Robertson's resignation was a long time comin. Last year he declared the military commission trials for terror suspects from Guantanamo, to be unlawful. He was also getting ready to release two men from Guantanamo which has meant opposition from the Bush administration. Its pretty clear where he stands. Seems to me that he did as much good as he could and has decided to get out while the gettins good. I'm sure he received a little push from Georgie Boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:27 AM Ebbie, your post on Tom Delays life style, how does that fit in with Domestic Spying in the U.S.? Just another example of denigrating. They all live like that. Some are more flambouyant than others. Check on some of the Dems as well as more of the Repubs. Little Hawk is one of the few who understands what the people in DC are up to. As i have said elsewhere, the citizens of the US, over the past 40 years, are becoming more like Serfs of the old days back in Europe. There still remains, however, the opportunity to rise above it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:23 AM and with the bias of a single source, it is not worth discussing. OK, I understand now- you mean like your postings? And you're right- they're NOT worth discussing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:45 AM Greg F, thanks for your opinion. I will not, however, attack your posts like you do others. I do read the Times and the Post every morning BUT I also read the other side to get a somewhat basic idea of what is going. It is still not enough but it is as balanced as I can get. You should try it sometime. Ebbie, I reread your 10:20 Pm post and am wondering what time frame that covered. 3 years, 5, 7? I could look back over my career and come up with about the same scenario. Although financed by a private corporation, it was a consequence of my employment with them and simply considered as the cost of doing business. And I, by no means, was at the top of the heap. While we all know Delay is employed by the voters in his State, we also know that the money influence in government is ugly. Until we do something to change it, I don't see a helluva' lot of difference between todays government and private enterprise, or between Repubs and Dems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:57 AM SLate Magazine comments: Whopper: George W. Bush The president crosses his fingers behind his back. ByTimothy Noah Posted Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005, at 2:19 AM ET jjj Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. —President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004. Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts? A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. —President Bush, at a press conference Nov. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders. Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act." In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:12 AM Either Bush knows what is going on and therefore he's a liar or he doesn't know what's going on and therefore he's an idiot. Either way, the US is in deep shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:18 AM Amos, I still think that the 30+ year old Executive Order gives GWB the lattitude he needs. I still have not seen a reply to my question as to what law has been broken. It is not a situation of whether I think it is right or wrong, it is simply trying to find what law so many here are saying was broken. It is not the case of one liking it or not, simply was a law broken and if so, which one? "Law", noun; the collection of rules imposed by authority. Comments? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM Forget all that fuzzy lawyer stuff. It's simple. Just Trust Me. Thats all there is to it. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushconstit.jpg you will awaken feeling rested and refreshed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:30 AM I demur about the Executive Order; the Constitution is the senior guiding policy; and the provisions of FISA require warrants, easily obtained, a requirement Bush chose to ignore. Why should an Executive Order setting aside the requirements of the Constitution to protect citizenry from invasion of person even be considered? More "ends justifying the means" double-talk? His justifications are superficial and of little merit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:06 PM Christian Science Monitor, excerpted, 12-20-05: Instead of following the safeguards established by Congress under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Bush administration lawyers concluded that the White House could sidestep the warrant requirements while conducting the espionage operation. Critics say the secret spying is illegal and an abuse of the president's constitutional authority. Supporters say Bush is well within his power to protect the nation from terrorists. Disclosure of the NSA operation by the New York Times last Friday surprised many members of Congress and is said to have complicated efforts to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings to look into the NSA operation. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been warned to prepare for close questioning on the matter in his upcoming confirmation hearing. And there is talk of the possible appointment of two special counsels, one to look into the legality of the NSA operation, the other to investigate the disclosure of the classified project to the Times. In addition, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California has asked legal scholars to research whether Bush's authorization of secret spying is an impeachable offense. President Bush and other administration officials have sought to blunt the barrage of criticism by emphasizing the exigencies of protecting the nation from terrorists. They stress that despite the highly classified nature of the operation, the White House briefed key members of Congress about the ongoing covert effort. But some members of Congress say they were given few details and were unable to effectively exercise oversight responsibilities after being sworn to secrecy. Administration officials also notified the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is empowered to authorize warrants for such spying. One section of the foreign intelligence law, FISA, authorizes warrantless surveillance under limited circumstances - but it does not appear to apply to the NSA operation as described by administration officials. Neither President Bush nor Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is claiming the secret operation was conducted in compliance with FISA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:08 PM Amos, specifically where in the Constitution? And stop ignoring the fact that the EO stipulates that no warrant(s) are required for this process. That is being superficial. The courts have been giving ongoing approval for the process every year. There was one hitch when some private citizen tapping was done in error about a year ago. The court(s) took care of that. Still waiting for the Law some say was broken. Otherwise, the hopes for impeachment are a moot point. Once again, A fact is needed rather than a feeling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM Bobert: The facts in the NYT that you choose to Ignore are: "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority." "Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications" Bush is a leader. You are acting like the spoiled teenager who rebells against authority. If you don't like him just vote in a wimp so you can be happy when you are forced to follow Islam under threat of death. Or just get the hell out of America and leave us real Americans to our rotten country. 'Course once all the crybaby assholes leave it won't be so rotten. You can accuse me of shooting the messenger but you don't have a message other than "Boo Hoo Hoo, I am unhappy" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:16 PM Guest/ A, you might try reading the text. It quite clearly states: "Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates..." This, you might note, is during the period that DeLay was House Majority Leader and therefore in a position to dispense favors. And therefore was courted. Or did you think it was because of his winning personality? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:41 PM "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." that is from here. Callin' a sheep a dog ain't gonna make it bark, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:23 PM The EO sets aside the COnstitution and this makes it legal? Please. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:41 PM >>Monitoring of electronic communication is available to governments and businesses with the ability and will to gather it. And they all do it.<< First Q, you need to present evidence when you say "they all do it." Secondly, whether they all do it or not is beside the point of whether it is legal. You can do it all you want until you get caught and then you'd better hope the law is on your side because "everybody does it" won't considered a valid defense. >>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.<< Those many people are crooks and conmen. I expect that from them. I shouldn't have to expect from the govt that is supposed to protect me from them. I don't what the reason is. >>'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.<< Just do like Bush does with everything he disagrees with and just do it anyway. Courts? Ignore them. Hold your own trial or dispense with them altogether. Fourth Amendment? Ignore it. Just throw them in jail and no matter what the courts decide, don't let them out. That is the reality of Bush's "legal" system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:47 PM >>Does the thought that if one is not associated with a terriost group, domestic or foreign, one has nothing to worry about mean anything?<< Sure and let's plant cameras in your house and watch everything you do. You shouldn't have any objection to that--unless, of course, you have something to hide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:58 PM Okay, here's the deal... The Clinton EO authorized the Attorney General to "certify" a wire tap... Hey, this is a cabinet level presidential appointee and thou I don't like the AG haviong that power, hey, the EO was issued for all the world to see, and complain, or love, or whatever... The big difference is that in Bush's case, who really knows who can go on a wire-tapin' fishing expedition... Memebers of then NSA??? Like which members??? Low level clerks??? And were the Amercian people told that Bush was doing this??? Sid Clinton hide the fact that he signed an EO in '96??? No, he didn't... Bush did.... No to WIT: Given the restrictions placed on spying outlined with in FISA, even given the Clinton EO, there was some control and some public knowledge of the order... By keeping it it secret, even from most of the Congress (with the exception of a few trusted few, I feel that Bush certainly fired a shot at the the 4th amendment.... I believe that the American people deserve to know if their privacy is being invaded and if so, why... And they need to understand their rights to due process... What Bush has done here violates those basic rights... He he wanted to circumvent FIAS he should have made an effort to change the laws, rather than sneakily break them... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:05 PM Most people feel FISA would not have stood in his way and would have sanctioned his activities. He could have tapped first and then gotten a warrant and so there would have been no delay as Dubby's supporters claim. He simply decided, for some reason, to skirt the law. It's inexplicable really. Apparently, he really believes his power is limitless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:31 PM Good point, GUEST AR2822... Yes, there were in place provisions for retroactive warrents... Heck, that should have been enough... Why Bush thought he would just open up the flood gates for NSA personael to purdy much have their way with whomeven they wanted in terms of spying on them and intercepting communication, is beyond logic... Sometimes I think that Bush just wants to grap as much power as he can...Doesn't matter what it is, he just wants to have control... He a pathological conrol freek with deep seated psyhological problems... I mean, the existing provisions of FISA, especially with the Clinton EO, gave the executive branch a lot of power... More power than any executive has enjoyed going back over 30 years... This is what Clinton handed Bush yet Bush just had to push the envelope... Well, look where Bush;s envelope pushing has gotten the country... Unprescedented debt and and quagmire in Iraq... And a 9/11 attack which Richard Clark has plainly stated could have been avioded if Bush had been more concerned with the possibilty of a terrorist threat.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM From a correspondent: In April 2004, President Bush made a seemingly direct and unequivocal statement regarding U.S. wiretapping policies in the fight against terrorism. We now know that he spoke these words after authorizing the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. You can hear his comments for yourself in this very short video: http://www.vortex.com/bv/wiretaps.wmv (Windows Media) The White House explanation for this seemingly gaping discrepancy is that the President was supposedly (we're now told) only talking about "ordinary" secret wiretaps under the PATRIOT Act, not about what we might call "Double Secret" NSA wiretaps (legal or not). Newspeak is alive and well. Dean Wormer of "Animal House" fame would be proud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:22 PM BRuce S. of Salon writes: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/surveillance/ Uncle Sam is listening Bush may have bypassed federal wiretap law to deploy more high-tech methods of surveillance. By Bruce Schneier Dec. 20, 2005 | When President Bush directed the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens, he transferred an authority previously under the purview of the Justice Department to the Defense Department and bypassed the very laws put in place to protect Americans against widespread government eavesdropping. The reason may have been to tap the NSA's capability for data-mining and widespread surveillance. Illegal wiretapping of Americans is nothing new. In the 1950s and '60s, the NSA intercepted every single telegram coming in or going out of the United States. It conducted eavesdropping without a warrant on behalf of the CIA and other agencies. Much of this became public during the 1975 Church Committee hearings and resulted in the now famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The purpose of this law was to protect the American people by regulating government eavesdropping. Like many laws limiting the power of government, it relies on checks and balances: one branch of the government watching the other. The law established a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and empowered it to approve national-security-related eavesdropping warrants. The Justice Department can request FISA warrants to monitor foreign communications as well as communications by American citizens, provided that they meet certain minimal criteria. The FISC issued about 500 FISA warrants per year from 1979 through 1995, and has slowly increased subsequently -- 1,758 were issued in 2004. The process is designed for speed and even has provisions where the Justice Department can wiretap first and ask for permission later. In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever rejected: all in 2003. (We don't know any details, of course, as the court proceedings are secret.) FISA warrants are carried out by the FBI, but in the days immediately after the terrorist attacks, there was a widespread perception in Washington that the FBI wasn't up to dealing with these new threats -- they couldn't uncover plots in a timely manner. So instead the Bush administration turned to the NSA. They had the tools, the expertise, the experience, and so they were given the mission. The NSA's ability to eavesdrop on communications is exemplified by a technological capability called Echelon. Echelon is the world's largest information vacuum cleaner, sucking up a staggering amount of communications data -- satellite, microwave, fiber-optic, cellular, and everything else -- from all over the world: an estimated 3 billion communications per day. These communications are then processed through sophisticated data-mining technologies, looking for simple phrases like "assassinate the president" as well as more complicated communications patterns. Supposedly Echelon only covers communications outside of the United States. Although there is no evidence that the Bush administration has employed Echelon to monitor communications to and from the U.S., this surveillance capability is probably exactly what the president wanted and may explain why the administration sought to bypass the FISA process of acquiring a warrant for searches. Perhaps the NSA just didn't have any experience submitting FISA warrants, so Bush unilaterally waived that requirement. And perhaps Bush thought FISA was a hindrance -- in 2002 there was a widespread but false believe that the FISC got in the way of the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui (the presumed "20th hijacker") -- and bypassed the court for that reason. Most likely, Bush wanted a whole new surveillance paradigm. You can think of the FBI's capabilities as "retail surveillance": it eavesdrops on a particular person or phone. The NSA, on the other hand, conducts "wholesale surveillance." It, or more exactly its computers, listen to everything. An example might be to feed the computer a transcript of every conversation that mentions "Ayman al- Zawahiri" and monitor everybody who uttered the name, as well as everybody contacted. This type of surveillance was not anticipated in FISA and raises all sorts of legal issues. As Sen. Rockefeller wrote in a secret memo after being briefed on the program, it raises "profound oversight issues," and it is unclear whether FISA would have approved this activity. It is also unclear whether Echelon-style eavesdropping would prevent terrorist attacks. In the months before 9/11, Echelon noticed considerable "chatter": bits of conversation suggesting some sort of imminent attack. But because much of the planning for 9/11 occurred face-to-face, analysts were unable to learn details. The fundamental issue here is security, but it's not the security most people think of. James Madison famously said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government. Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully thought out system of checks and balances in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no single branch became too powerful. After watching tyrannies rise and fall throughout Europe, this seemed like a prudent way to form a government. Courts monitor the actions of police. Congress passes laws that even the president must follow. Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the executive branch. It's time we brought back the security system that's protected us from government for over 200 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:32 PM An opinion from an Associate Professor of Law at GWU: ...Did Bush Have the Legal Authority to Authorize NSA Surveillance? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/so_whats_bushs.html >From the post: In engaging in the surveillance, the President may have ignored the legal procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The FISA allows the government to engage in electronic surveillance if it obtains a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which meets in secret. The government must demonstrate probable cause that the monitored party is a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1801. If the monitored party is a U.S. citizen, however, the goverment must establish probable cause that the party's activities "may" or "are about to" involve a criminal violation. Id. FISA even provides procedures for surveillance without court orders. Such surveillance, however, must be "solely directed" at gathering intelligence from "foreign powers" and there must be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a). The surveillance authorized by the President, however, involved U.S. citizens, thus making § 1802 unavailable. FISA also has § 1844, which provides that "the President, through the Attorney general, may authorize the use of a pen register or trap and trace device without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence for a period not to exceed 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1844. I don't know many details about the timing of the surveillance, but regardless of timing, the surveillance appears to have far exceeded the limited authorization in § 1844. The NY Times article suggests that the NSA may have engaged in wiretaps or other forms of electronic eavesdropping extending far beyond pen registers or trap and trace devices, which merely provide information about the phone numbers dialed. Thus, it appears that the President brushed FISA aside. . . . Daniel J. Solove Associate Professor of Law George Washington University Law School |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM Anybody Surprised? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM As a former wiretapper, pen registers went out shortly after high button shoes. Remember the 'Nixie lamp' displays from the 60s, anyone? We need reporters who are more current, not just in this area but all areas. It sometimes gets embarrassing when reading acounts of all types, not just this. Makes one think they have education from nothing but from outdated text books. With todays technology, thousands of 'messages' can be monitored every minute. With the old stuff, a suspect had to be identified ahead of time so a physical coonection could made to their line. Not enough agents to do that today. An example of the bulk of calling, if all Long Distance calls were still placed thru operators, the Telecomunications industry estimates every female from the age of 18 to 62 would have to have the job of operator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:54 PM The uninformative hyperlink above leads to a front-pager story (covered by the NY Times and the WP), to wit: Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN Published: December 24, 2005 WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM Mr. Amos, no one is disgreeing with what you just posted. "Thousands of messages can be monitored every minute", Is that not about the same as your "large volumes"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 24 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM Amos, this is the subject (also found there) that I was alluding to: "The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: pdq Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:55 PM This is just another attempt to discredit a duly-elected president. It is not working any better than the last 50 trumped-up issues. Most Americans respect George W. Bush and fully support his administrations efforts to improve national security. Here is the latest poll on the subject: (RASMUSSEN POLE) Survey of 1,000 Adults December 26-27, 2005 "December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party. Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information. The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeTM Premium Service for Election 2006 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election. We will poll every Senate and Governor's race at least once a month. Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:29 PM The invasion of citizens' privacy is scarcely a trumped up issue. And your numbers are surprisingly at odds with the general disapproval ratings Bush is getting these days. Is it possible you and your pollster pal are living in a Dream Universe, where heros always wear white hats and the President is always right? Because in the real world, he is not. He is a reckless, and dangerously under-informed, self-serving eejit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 28 Dec 05 - 04:50 PM Personally, I don't know anybody who loves Bush. Even those who support his agenda and believe that he means well (don't we all) do not approve of the way he is going about it. And I do not believe his ratings have rebounded for a second. Nothing has happened to justify it. We are every bit as badly off as we were before they allegedly rose. His ratings were so dangerously low, I believe Rove and his ilk started a propaganda campaign. They hope if it is repeated enough, people will believe it. That's called the availability heuristic. If it works, it will only be temporary. He MUST produce results. He gets no high marks from me for dropping the rosy-outlook spin ploy because it implies that he's been lying to us all this time and it reveals just how bad things really are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:42 PM From the NY Times Week In Review Private Lives The Agency That Could Be Big Brother By JAMES BAMFORD December 25, 2005 Washington DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour. Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country. A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment. According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret. Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and other spy organizations. But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM From a list correspondent: Subject: [EPIC_IDOF] The Whitehouse Web site is bugged Hi, The Whitehouse.gov Web site is bugged! Apparently the Webmaster for the site has hired Webtrends to track visitors around the site using Web bugs and permanent cookies. Here's the Web bug that I found on the home page of the Whitehouse.gov Web site: (Test of javascript code removed) Similar Web bugs can be found on other Web pages at the Whitehouse Web site. Before 9/11, the Clinton administration said this kind of Web tracking is a no-no for U.S. government Web sites: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-13.html Because of the unique laws and traditions about government access to citizens' personal information, the presumption should be that "cookies" will not be used at Federal web sites. Under this new Federal policy, "cookies" should not be used at Federal web sites, or by contractors when operating web sites on behalf of agencies, unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous notice, the following conditions are met: a compelling need to gather the data on the site; Richard M. Smith http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Wolfgang Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:32 PM This president has done more damage to the international reputation of the USA than all others before him. We look in amazement at that mess and we do so (except for the very left and the very right fringe) with sadness, for Europe is interested a strong USA which can serve as a role model for democracy. The US government can ignore international approval ratings safely now, but first goes the admiration and the support and then the strength goes as well with a delay of some decades. Just to give you an idea, president Kennedy had a roughly 80% approval (even more at times) in Germany, nearly independent of political leanings. All later presidents had a more than 50 % approval rating (except Nixon at Watergate time and Reagan when he placed the Pershings into Germany) throughout all parties, usually more so in the conservative party, independent of the political orientation of the respective president. Last time I read a survey the approval rating for Bush was about 6 %, among German conservatives, and lower in supporters of other parties. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM Amos, I thought we did not care what others said. ("no no in Clintons years") I guess after the last 30 years, My main concern is not those countries who either like or dislike us. I remember reading a post where the individual suggested that his and other countries could take the position of isolationism with regard to the US. Go read the aid given annualy to the world by the and then decide who would be most affected by this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:01 PM I'm not sure why this remark is addressed to me. But le tme remind you that one of the motivating factors in writing the Declaration of Independence was a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". I don't believe in catering to opinions, but that is not the same as treating them as trash in the style of Dick "Fuck You" Cheney and he colleagues. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:04 PM Bush is both stupid and dangerous which is a lethal combination. He doesn't realize or doesn't care what he is doing to our freedoms. The idea that he had the CIA go to communications and media giants and demand access to calls and emails which were then handed over without argument is frightening. This basically turns the media and the communications corporations into nothing more than extensions of the American intelligence community. They are now their eyes and ears. I am shocked none of the corporations resisted the CIA's demand. Couldn't one of them have said, "Sorry, you're asking for privileged information about our customers who expect and deserve their right to privacy. Get a warrant." Congressional republicans must be wringing their hands. They don't want to impeach one of their own but if Bush doesn't knock off with his law-breaking and bullying, they will have to reign him in. Bush has already indicated that he will not stop. He complained that outing his law-breaking has ruined the nation's intelligence-gathering and then turns around and says he will continue with it. What for if it has been ruined? Because it hasn't been ruined, he was just trying to protect himself from being outed for breaking the law. And the administration continues to do it as if nobody else matters. This can only go on so long before something has to be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Sissy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:36 PM How have we survived this long with such a stupid dangerous president? Would rather have had Gore or Kerry for president even if means multiple terrorist attacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:40 PM "Would rather have had Gore or Kerry for president even if means multiple terrorist attacks?" The problem is that so many Americans now think that Bush IS the terrorist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:50 PM Got any facts to support your claim Peace or is that your personal grudge speaking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:53 PM Personal. Now, go take a walk, kid. Facts don't mean a damned thing to you. Your self-appointed job here is to troll on behalf of your Republican masters. Facts/bullshit--all the same to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:10 AM I think some posters here are becoming delusional. "Would rather have had Gore or Kerry even if means multiple terriost attacks." I have a friend in upstate New York whose son was killed in the number 2 Trade Center Tower. Sissy, would you like to tell him that and then discuss your position with him? I sure as Hell hope you are putting us on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM ..or is it possible you are mocking one of the more delusional ones here who says GWB is "stupid and dangerous" and thinks our rights are being poured down the drain. Paranoia accounts for that type of thinking. While I am so tired of our government and have been for years, has anyone given any thought as to what might have caused the annual terriost attacks against us to halt. Ones like the Saudi barracks, the Kuwait barracks, a couple of our Embasies, the USS Cole, etc.? Not far from wjhere I live, all this "illegal" spying caused a truck driver on the Interstate to be stopped subsequently admitted to his part in a plot to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. Of mideastern descent and was driving East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Sissy Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM Yes I was putting you on. the purpose is to blatantly state what these anti-war, anti-Bush ninnies are leading to with their twitter about how things are so bad and how stupid and dangerous Bush is. For one thing they could not say the things they say if the totalitarian sate that they claim to exist really exists. If Bush is so stupid, how com personal income, the economy and jobs are on the rise and how come we have had no other terrorist attacks? If he is so hated, how come his job approval is rising? Personally I am glad he is president. He is not doing perfect but he is doing doing a thousand times better that Clinton did and Gore or Kerry would have been able to do under the same circumstances. There are a few people posting here who have the integrity and honesty and take the time to tell these whiners that they are wrong. Of course that puts the whiners up in arms and trying to strike back belligerently which is exactly what they accuse the Bush administration of doing. Lurkers please take the time to compare the coherence of the arguments that both sides of this debate present and decide which side is more credible. No doubt there will be several immediate, knee jerk posts here by the ones with the negative attitude to try to drown out any shred of intelligence presented by this post lest it put them in a bad light. Those posts reveal the true vicious nature of the Anti-Bushites and anti-war faction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:33 PM >>Yes I was putting you on.the purpose is to blatantly state what these anti-war, anti-Bush ninnies are leading to with their twitter about how things are so bad and how stupid and dangerous Bush is. For one thing they could not say the things they say if the totalitarian sate that they claim to exist really exists.<< Oh, I see! We're supposed to wait until we are living in a true rule-by-terror regime BEFORE we're allowed to do or say anything. Of course, by then, we'll be killed if we do. So, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather say something now. Just in case things might be headed in that general direction. I believe it was Ben Franklin (look him up) who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." But then he was a liberal hindu commie. >>If he is so hated, how come his job approval is rising?<< So is the American death toll in Iraq. >>Personally I am glad he is president. He is not doing perfect but he is doing doing a thousand times better that Clinton did and Gore or Kerry would have been able to do under the same circumstances.<< Clinton invaded another nation of false pretexts, changed his reason for doing so once he couldn't prove his original reason and then got 2200 Americans needlessly killed and then had his VP right hand man get indicted for obstructing justice and committing perjury? Clinton watched Enron, Worldcom, Ford, GM and Delphi slide into bankruptcy? Clinton's FEMA did nothing while the Missippi flooded in '93 and left thousands homeless? Did Clinton's people ever out a CIA operative and scream like stuck pigs about the need for strict national security after it was discovered that he ordered a massive spy program on his own country without telling Congress or the courts thereby subverting governmental checks-and-balances required to run a democracy--you know, that stuff Bush claims he's trying to spread in Iraq. >>There are a few people posting here who have the integrity and honesty and take the time to tell these whiners that they are wrong. Of course that puts the whiners up in arms and trying to strike back belligerently which is exactly what they accuse the Bush administration of doing.<< Oh, but you're merely lurking in the background and staying out if it and being all aloof, are you? >>Lurkers please take the time to compare the coherence of the arguments that both sides of this debate present and decide which side is more credible.<< Yes, lurkers, please do. >>Those posts reveal the true vicious nature of the Anti-Bushites and anti-war faction.<< Grrr! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,D Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:37 PM Sissy, I feel an apology is due you although I did recover somewhat. The possibility that I am getting somewhat of a thin skin is probably true and hence the reason I jumped. I am so tired of the bashing without anyone offering just a simple but plausible reason for GWB impeachment. While registered as a Repub, I was a Dem for a long time until I realized how much of my and your tax dollars were being wasted due to the 'Great Society' and came to my senses around 1980. Not due to who was President but due to the taxes and laws being heaped on my person. Truth be known, I am both a Conservative and part Libertarian. Now since the Dems have no practical solutions to the problems of our country, they are in the attack mode. It has gotten ugly and I dearly hope that attacks such as Condi Rice experienced (comments and cartoons) totally back fire on them. And I am covinced it will - it would appear it already is. The attacks on Ms. Rice were as racist as I have seen in my years, including a couple marches I participated in during the early 60s'. I am caucasion and was brought up not knowing a difference. I can't decide if this vileness and hatred I see here is due to the 'poor loser' syndrome, a belief in the Democrat party that is blind to all other potential, people unhappy with their own plight in life, some of the guys having control freak type wives and this is their only outlet (couple gals also), jealousy of some type or maybe just having a President who has the courage to make decisions and stick with them. The last one always did polls to decide what to do. Like the public could tell him! However, there are some in the audience who read what they want to hear and base their commentary on part of the scene and come up with declarations that they feel are correct and should be carried out. The key word, feel, is the problem. Allowing feelings to decide is a major mistake. While some of the conduct in carrying out the Iraq war has bugged me. (too much protecting of Mosques to the detriment of our troops) I am so behind what this President is doing. And I see where people here say he should be impeached, I see others asking for a reason, like, what law has he broken, and the former never coming up with an answer. Instead, they insist the economy is bad while ignoring that economists who say it is great. Losing jobs overseas is another of their false jabs at Bush, ignoring the fact that Congress passed a major bill in 1974 to provide for job growth and job retraining due to Technology change and the globalization of our economy. I guess I am going to stick with the idea that WJC was such a do-nothing President and was into the party scene, (the reason for the two hugh tents on the grounds of the Whitehouse during his tenure - WJC had more state dinners in his first 5 weeks of office than GWB hosted in his 5 years), that many are embarrassed and find their only recourse is to try to discredit this President. The DC press corps has gone on record that the party scene in DC is almost nil since WJC left office and even thought they are left leaning, perhaps the lack of free booze has caused them to be even more cynical. The outcome of this Presidents policies and actions cannot be measured in such a short time. I wonder what the present naysayers will think in a few years? Of course, some will instantly reply that they know now. May you have a good and safe Year, Sissy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:00 PM You folks are getting a bit het up here. You're mixing up "whining" with criticizing. Bush's war may end up with some positive side-effects, or it may not. But if a man with brains had been handed the same problem, back in 2001, he would have come up with a better solution. What y'all are missing is that inspired by his lackadaisical and summat bloodthirsty thinking, he has brought about more deaths than the Cole and the 9-11 attacks combined. And a large per centage of those deaths are of people no more guilty of crimes than those in the WTC towers were. The day will soon come when the US service deaths alone will outnumber all of 9-11's. You need to confront exactly what it is you are supporting when you accuse anti-war voices of being "whiners". The lust of war is obscuring your powers of reason. Death-mongering is not a rational answer to international situations, regardless of whose extremism is sponsoring it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,G Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:08 PM D was G. AR282, can you tell me how many indictments WJC had in his administration versus GWB. I think GW has one indicted. Now, go on to the convictions during the WJC reign and add up the years spent in prison by them. We will simply ignore the mysterious deaths of several in the WJC gang. Where did you read that Ford and GM have filed bankruptcy? Enrons' Ken Lay worked with the Clinton Department of Commerce in revising/rewriting many of the laws governing businesses such as his. By the way, what are you doing to stop this 'headlong rush into oblivion'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 31 Dec 05 - 02:39 PM >>AR282, can you tell me how many indictments WJC had in his administration versus GWB. I think GW has one indicted. Now, go on to the convictions during the WJC reign and add up the years spent in prison by them. We will simply ignore the mysterious deaths of several in the WJC gang.<< Dear Mr. G. I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. Clinton's reign is over and has been over for more than 5 years now. Everything this country is currently facing was brought about by the man who been there for 5 years and still owes us 3 more. Maybe you need to think about him rather than reliving the glory days of your Clinton-hating years. I'm beginning to think that what you really hate is that he's gone. >>Where did you read that Ford and GM have filed bankruptcy?<< Oh, they'll call it by some other name because the public has already stated that they won't buy automobiles from companies that are filing for bankruptcy but that is what it boils down to. And it was caused partly by your president's brilliant decision to invade Iraq which disrupted the global oil supply and partly the car company execs to vest their whole future in gas-guzzling, oil-hungry, fat, weighty pieces of SUV shit. >>Enrons' Ken Lay worked with the Clinton Department of Commerce in revising/rewriting many of the laws governing businesses such as his.<< Oh, I see! Clinton and Ken Lay caused the downfall of Enron. The fact that Bush's tax cuts and deficit-widening policies that blatantly favor the wealthy were entirely unresponsible. >>By the way, what are you doing to stop this 'headlong rush into oblivion'?<< That's like asking somebody what he's going to do about that car hurtling off a cliff. Watch it hit bottom, I suppose. Can't start cleaning up or helping until that part of it is over. Sorry, but I did the most I could for this country at the polls in 2004 but I guess most of the people weren't ready to admit the truth about Iraq and the president that started it. They're getting ready now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Buddy Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:15 AM Bush To Increase Funding For Hope-Based Initiatives November 23, 2005 | Issue 41•47 WASHINGTON—President Bush announced today that he will sign a bill providing an additional $2.8 billion for private organizations that emphasize the importance of hoping for change. Enlarge ImageBush To Increase Funding For Hope-Based Initiatives Bush presents his plan to fund organizations that hope for change. "This bill acknowledges the immeasurable role of hope in envisioning a better world for everyone," Bush said during a press conference. "Starting today, I ask all Americans to hope together as one nation that the difficult problems that grip our nation will go away someday." The president's move will help direct federal funds to such groups as the National Hope Foundation, which has been hoping for a cure for cancer for nearly two decades. "There are many in our country who are without hope," Bush said. "Yet there are many respected organizations in America that are actively hoping things get better. This program will assist these organizations in obtaining government grants, which will allow them to continue the important hoping that must be done." Among the programs likely to receive funding is Project Hope You Don't Get Sick, a non-profit organization hoping that over 45 million Americans receive the proper health care they need. Dream Job United, another likely recipient, is a widely acclaimed program in which the ill-prepared and uneducated are trained to hope for job interviews at top companies. Another project slated for assistance in is a Louisiana-based teen-pregnancy reduction program, in which volunteers hope teens abstain from intercourse. Under the bill, wish-based initiatives will also be eligible for increased funding. Dozens of independent wishful-thinking foundations, such as America Wishes Things Were Better, expect to receive grants to fund distribution of pennies, wishbones, and birthday candles. Those with wishes and hopes applauded the president's move, saying that faith alone cannot rectify the nation's social ills. "Faith-based problem-solving is noble, but we should not discount the power of hope," said veteran hoper Howard Thorndike, who heads the Please Oh Please Institute, a Houston-based wish tank. "'Hail Mary' strategies, for example, are a part of the fabric of our nation, from the football field to the boardroom, and our government ignores such traditions at its peril." Bush echoed Thorndike's sentiments. "As your president, I have seen firsthand what hoping can do," he said. "I have heard stories of decent people trapped under piles of rubble, and I have hoped that they would be rescued. And eventually, many were. Recently, powerful storms and destructive hurricanes ravaged some of our great cities. I hope that you will join me in wishing that we do not get hit by any more of those." Bush added: "Laura and I hope every night that good things will happen for our great country. My fellow Americans, I call on you to do the same." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:54 AM DB says: "And I see where people here say he should be impeached, I see others asking for a reason, like, what law has he broken, and the former never coming up with an answer. Instead, they insist the economy is bad while ignoring that economists who say it is great. Losing jobs overseas is another of their false jabs at Bush, ignoring the fact that Congress passed a major bill in 1974 to provide for job growth and job retraining due to Technology change and the globalization of our economy." Interesting that YOU have decided that bush has not broken the law, that the economy is not bad, that the cynical outsourcing of jobs is good - when that investigation and report is not completed. Get a big towel because you may need it to wipe that mud off your face. DB says: "I guess I am going to stick with the idea that WJC was such a do-nothing President and was into the party scene, (the reason for the two hugh tents on the grounds of the Whitehouse during his tenure - WJC had more state dinners in his first 5 weeks of office than GWB hosted in his 5 years), that many are embarrassed and find their only recourse is to try to discredit this President. The DC press corps has gone on record that the party scene in DC is almost nil since WJC left office and even thought they are left leaning, perhaps the lack of free booze has caused them to be even more cynical." That argument is plain silly. Clinton made connections with world leaders - and garnered respect from them. Clinton held press conferences- the bush is afraid of them. (No real surprise there- his handlers are scared of letting him wing it. With good reason. The man can't put five sentences together and have four of them make sense.) Take a look at how often the bush has gone home to the "ranch" (you won't find animals there, folks) in these five years in comparison with what other presidents have done. As for booze swilling- how many of our presidents have been dry drunks? You are silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Sissy Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:34 PM Guest D is a voice of reason. I agree 100% Although he or she gets into politics a bit far. I can see some good things Clinton did and some bad things and some things he should have done he did not do. I can say the same for Bush. Some of the vileness is due to the poor looser syndrome and some of it is truely heartfelt. There will always be two or more opposing opinions. The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority. They can make concessions for the purposes of peacefull coexistense. This was the case several years ago but since the Vietnam war people worldwide have increasingly been taking sides and being less willing to just "get along" There are several things in the world I don't like but I can tolerate them if it makes the overall quality of life better. To make my statement short, the world is falling into a mind set of complaints and "I am a victim of such and such". No one wants to admit personal responsibility for their situation. This is accompanied by a failure to recognize their true state of well being. I realize that my problems are the result of my actions and any corrections need to be done by me. I realize that if I am not as well off as I think I should be, there are oppoertunities by which I can make improvements. A person can take on the attitude of a looser / victim or one can take on the attitude of a winner and someone who can take care of themselves. Which person is the better off? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AK47 Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:13 PM "Everything this country is currently facing was brought about by the man who been there for 5 years" Stinkier horseshit cannot be found. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:38 PM >>Some of the vileness is due to the poor looser syndrome and some of it is truely heartfelt. There will always be two or more opposing opinions.<< Sissy,there is something wrong when people defend their president from criticism by saying that the subject should not be open for debate or discussion. Characterizing people who would prefer to debate because they see serious wrongdoning being openly committed by their president as sore losers is the very thing you are complaining about. You call the anti-Bush people vile and vicious but that is exactly the behavior you are exhibiting. >>The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority.<< That's the core of slavery not civilization. Good lord! The purpose of civilization is that people can work together to achieve great things as a race as well as indiviuals!! My god, for the last 12,000 years, the only real achievement of civilization in your mind is that the minority bow to the majority??? That's rich. >>They can make concessions for the purposes of peacefull coexistense. This was the case several years ago<< Yeah, we call them The Indian Wars. >>but since the Vietnam war people worldwide have increasingly been taking sides and being less willing to just "get along"<< This is completely assinine. We've had much larger, bloodier wars in the world before Vietnam. For you, only the wars that Americans were in actually matter. >>I realize that my problems are the result of my actions and any corrections need to be done by me. I realize that if I am not as well off as I think I should be, there are oppoertunities by which I can make improvements.<< Right. So when this lawless president got reelected and his party, unwilling to stop him, got an even tighter grip on Congress, I realized that corrections have to be made by me. That if my country is not as well as it should be, and the world as a whole, there is an opportunity by which I can make improvements. I can write my congressman. I can write any congressmen right through email. I can debate the issue in online forums where people curious to hear both sides can come and learn and participate if they so desire. I can vote in the midterms in November. >>person can take on the attitude of a looser / victim or one can take on the attitude of a winner and someone who can take care of themselves.<< Right. >>Which person is the better off?<< |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:21 PM Once you decide to be a person who takes care of himself, do you then decide not to try and correct injustice? To be quiet rather than speak sooth? Is that your version of personal responsibility, Sissy? 'Cuz it ain't mine. I don't know who you are referring tom, but neither I nor those I know around here consider themselves victims of anything, and I am sure we all understand that our own conditions come from our own decisions. It is in order NOT to be a silent victim that I write and forward the writings of others. Thanks for your Grand Psychological Insights. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:54 PM Hmmmmmm??? The "personal responsibility" card hasn't been played in a while... (Well, Bobert, that's because alot of the folks who a couple years ago were pounding that drum have now been caught with their hands in the cookie jar...) Oh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 06 - 03:43 PM Name the "cookie jar, can you? It has always been a case of "personal responsibility". Some simply don't get it. That has greatly discouraged by the so-called "Great Society" which really encouraged some to coast by. Thank you, LBJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:01 PM Sissy says, "The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority." Since when? I thought the measure of a civilized society was the way in which they treat the less fortunate. Or was it the way in which they treat those who are imprisoned? Either way, I have never heard anything about bowing to the majority. Unless you can sight a reputable source, I can only imagine that this idea was formed by an uneducated and uninformed person who has absolutely no compassion for others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:50 PM What is Amos a victim of besides Scientology? Did he inlist or was he drafted? We have a government to take care of the less fortunate. And to provide security. Because a few dissagree and are not willing to be part of a civilized society, they want anarchy just like the Islamic extremists. Here is perfect example of such extremism: To his credit, President LB Johnson had money allocated, $60 million, to build flood gates like they have in the Netherlands, that could be closed to keep lake Pontchartrain from flooding New Orleans in the event of a bad hurricane. A minority of "environmentalists" (read left wing nutcases) did not want the floodgates built because they claimed it would harm the environment. The minority won by filing lawsuits and tying up the project. I wonder if any of them got flooded out of their homes and are whining about the Bush adminstration? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Sissy Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:52 PM Like I said, vicious rhetoric reveals the true nature of those that can't get along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:26 PM In response to a RW extreme accusation about the inherent "treason" of revealing the President's illegal wiretaps, acorrespondent offers these remarks: ">> revealing an ongoing intelligence operation *in wartime*. (emphasis added) Here we see "The Essential Big Lie" repeated yet again, asserting that we are somehow "at war". (NOTE: This is not to single-out Mr. Bray per se but rather to note how pervasive this collective misapprehension has become.) Unless the Congress took a vote which somehow went unreported, *THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE US CONGRESS* The US Constitution is extremely specific as to what is required for the United States to "go to war". Congress has the sole power to declare the United States to be "at war", quite specifically to counterbalance the powers of the President. President George Bush did not seek nor did the US Congress grant an official Declaration of War; therefore the US is not "at war" and there is no condition of "in wartime". No Declaration of War, no "war powers" - it's just that simple; anything else is an attempted "end-run" around the Constitution. There is no Constitutional recognition for "kinda sorta like war", and the continued reliance on this non-condition is particularly ironic given President Bush's preference for Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution "as written". Congress complicitously repeating the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" fiasco after 9/11 doesn't make the current situation "war" any more than it ensured success in the Vietnam "conflict". From the historical record, it seems to be immensely useful for the suppression of dissent that this central assertion be pounded into a populace again and again, that they are indeed "at war" with A Great Enemy, thereby lending credence to assertions that critical thinking about that government's behavior is even more dangerous than usual. The legal facts, however, are transparently clear: there has been no Declaration of War by the US Congress, therefore the US is not "at war". Claims to the contrary are simply untrue, innocently or otherwise. My larger point is that it is hard enough to have reasoned discourse about something this emotionally charged (and with such immense political spoils at stake) without allowing the conversation to be subverted by an erroneous premise extremely convenient to one participant." It is an interesting question how Congress can grant war powers without declaring war. Hmmmmmmmm? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:55 PM Amos the war expert: When was the last time war was declared? All wars after that date were illegal according to you. Go back to the first illegal war and start bitching about that one instead of skipping over all of them until you get to the one you want to use to discredit the President that you have a personal grudge against. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:00 AM "Go back to the first illegal war and start bitching about that one instead of skipping over all of them until you get to the one you want to use to discredit the President that you have a personal grudge against." I see you've been let out again, OG. You are really hung up on this 'personal grudge' thing. Please find a new expression. You are beginning to sound like a record that skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM OG: Senility at its best. But you hang in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:15 AM Old Guy - The point is not whether a war is legal or illegal. The point is whether it is a war, an invasion or an occupation. The president can have war powers granted by Congress only if they have declared war. No war - no war powers. The president is not granted extraordinary power during an occupation. Sissy - Instead of spouting "vicious rhetoric" please cite the source of your information regarding civilization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:35 AM Old Guy (I hate to think that your advanced age has anything to do with your stances), if I recall correctly the Lake Pontchartrain proposal was dropped by Reagan. Further, the project proposal was flawed- if it were to work it would have had to encompass a much wider area with many facets. I don't remember any more in just what way but it involved the wetlands. One major reason for the inundation of New Orleans was the despoliation and exploitation of its wetlands; instead of leaving it fallow to accomplish its natural purpose, developers have drained it, built on it, extended the city upon it. Every place I have lived in these last 20-30 years has been mindful of and - often in bitter protest - been guided by federal laws and guidelines concerning its management. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:42 AM Even if we were officially at war, I don't know where Bush is getting the idea that he can do anything he wants--including lying to Congress, deceiving the people, subverting checks & balances, taking money from the treasury, and violating the 4th amendment--but is not accountable to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:08 AM In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project planned to build fortifications at two strategic locations, which would keep massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city. An article in the May 28, 2005, New Orleans Times-Picayune stated, Under the original plan, floodgate-type structures would have been built at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes to block storm surges from moving from the Gulf into Lake Pontchartrain. The floodgates would have blocked the flow of water from the Gulf of Mexico, through Lake Borgne, through the Rigolets [and Chef Mentuer] into Lake Pontchartrain, declared Professor Gregory Stone, the James P. Morgan Distinguished Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University. This would likely have reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into the Lake Pontchartrain, Professor Stone told Michael P. Tremoglie during an interview on September 6. The professor concluded, These floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina. The New Orleans Army Corps of Engineers and Professor Stone were not the only people cognizant of the consequences that could and did result because of the environmental activists. Former Louisiana Congressman and Speaker of the House Bob Livingston also referred to environmentalists whose litigation prevented hurricane prevention projects. Why was this project aborted? As the Times-Picayune wrote, Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system. Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped. SOWL stated the proposed Rigolets and Chef Menteur floodgates of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Prevention Project would have a negative effect on the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. Further, SOWLs recollection of this case demonstrates they considered this move the first step in a perfidious design to drain Lake Pontchartrain entirely and open the area to dreaded capitalist investment. On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr. issued an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project, demanding the engineers draw up a second environmental impact statement, three years after the corps submitted the first one. In one of the most ironic pronouncements of all time, Judge Schwartz wrote, It is the opinion of the Court that plaintiffs herein have demonstrated that they, and in fact all persons in this area, will be irreparably harmed if the barrier project based upon the August, 1974 FEIS [federal environmental impact statement] is allowed to continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:15 AM Is Amos so feeble that he needs protectors? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:24 AM Old Guy: I didn't write that. It was submiited by someone smarter than me, and much smarter than you, to a discussion list. I suggest you take a break. All these personal insults are beginning you make you sound as dim as Martin. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,G Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:03 AM AR282, com'n on, get a life! Don't you realize that if GWB had lied to Congress and the Dems were fairly sure it happened, that they would have Articles of Impeachment filed long ago? Rather, they just do the political lip service stuff such as Conyers is doing. I was fairly non-commital with WJC (yes, I know he is out of office!) but I never scrounged around for untruths about him. Allowed him to run out his term, wasting his intellect (what a shame) and knowing that his party attitude regarding the Presidency and ignoring then current problems/situations would be cleaned up by someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:54 AM Hmmmm. That's a new thought: I wonder if the bush ever wonders who is going to clean up after him, and how they will do it. Nah. Anyone who is willing to mortgage not only our children's future but our grandchildren's isn't concerned about pesky details. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,B Date: 03 Jan 06 - 02:37 PM Amos submits political satire as the "Truth" He can't tell satire for truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Ebbie Date: 03 Jan 06 - 05:07 PM Like many other exaggerations, satire bears more than a smidgen of truth. But trust me- Amos is in no way confused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 03 Jan 06 - 05:25 PM Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Old Guy - PM Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:08 AM Old Guy--why didn't you credit your source in that post? It is NOT your writing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 06 - 06:21 PM I have never failed to see the difference between satire and sober reality, although Bush has had me going a few times. A coorespondent on another list issues the following heartfelt diatribe on this topic, and signs his name to it. "Did my ancestors eke out a bare existence on Plymouth Rock to practice their faith for this? Spying on ourselves as the Russians only could have in the most fevered dreams of the KGB. Did my ancestors fight and die for the American Revolution for this? Calling it necessary to stop terrorist attacks when all that was needed to stop 9/11 was strong doors and locks in cockpits. Did they fight and die on the battlefields of the Civil War for this? Even Lincoln suspending habeaus corpus was at least done in the open. Did my grandfathers fight in Europe and the Pacific for this? Inherant power under the Constitution to do this is beyond laughable. Has the entire last 400 years of struggle of my ancestors been utterly in vain? Has America forgotten utterly what it is? Have the darkest nightmares of George Washington and the dangers of party politics finally been realized? Why is all of the debate about the NSA spying revolving around it's legality? How is that even possible here? Can anyone see right from wrong anymore in America? Can anyone remember what it means to be an American? Where is the Spirit of America? Do not vote for any incumbent, Democrat or Republican, in coming elections, or it will be the worse for us all. They are both corrupt parties, fighting over power that they are loathe to give up. We The People are Sovereign here. The Republican and Democratic Parties are not Sovereign, and have no inherant right to exist. We The People ARE the Government of this Nation, and it seems to be long past time that we administered a refresher course in that lesson at the ballot box, to both of those old and corrupt parties. How is it that the rules to stand for office in this nation are so convoluted and nearly impossible to meet for anyone not personally wealthy or backed by the Republicans or Democrats? Does either of those parties truly even remember what those words MEAN? Have we truly become the worst in what we hate? How is unquestioned rule by one or the other different from unquestioned rule by one party? Does anyone understand what this program means? It WILL lead to abuses of personal power that make the 47 year rule of the FBI by it's first director seem tame and pale, and whomever grabs the reigns of such an apparatus will not easily give them up. Who in the Democratic party has already been blackmailed by data gathered by this program? If they haven't yet, give it at most one more election cycle. How would electing another batch of Democrats truly make things any different? What excuse would they grab hold of to do the same, and how long would that temptation of power take before they gave in to it? My God, what ever happened to the plain meaning of the text of the 4th Amendment? What ever happened to the plain meaning of the law being what it meant? What ever happened to individuals actually running for office and truly representing the interests of those around them in their communities? When was the last time that the outcome of elections for the House of Representatives was not almost entirely a foregone conclusion? It no longer matters if any individual candidate means well personally, if they are a member of one of the two major parties they are supporting a corrupt apparatus. Would you sell your birthright for a mess of potage? Do not vote for major party candidates if you still know what the Spirit of America is. If it still lives, prove it at the ballot box. Start write in campaigns for independent candidates, and do not donate to the two major parties. Vote with your wallet as well. Vote the two parties out of power while you still can, as electronic balloting will soon make anonymous voting a dream of the past, and it will then be too late. Ask these difficult questions, forward and post this message, and do not take excuses for an answer. -David Mercer Tucson, AZ This essay is public domain and may hence be distributed in any media with or without attribution, in whole or in part." Those are difficult questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers, although I don't know whether we will be able to provide them here.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 06 - 08:08 PM From an ACLU representative: The ACLU has just posted a number of materials on our web site aclu.org and the new nsawatch.org that we hope will add to the debate. Those items include: 1. A new ACLU ad calling for a special counsel to investigate the President's illegal surveillance of U.S. Citizens.The add appeared in today's NY Times, as well as the web site along with related materials at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/. The text of the ad compares the words of President Nixon and President Bush, both of whom denied allegations of illegal spying. Next to the image of Nixon, the advertisement says: "He lied to the American people and broke the law." Below that is an image of President Bush, with the words, "So did he. 2. The Updated NSA Watch site (formerly known as Echelon watch): http://www.nsawatch.org/ which contains a wide variety of materials and links documenting the NSA's extraordinary communication interception capabilities ("sigint"), which are part of an international arrangement sometimes referred to as "Echelon". 3 A new piece explaining how the "NSA Spying on Americans is Illegal" at http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html Since the Administration has sought to cast its unprecedented and lawless spying on American's as "legal", I have included the text of our piece below. You are, of course, free to use as much or little of it and the rest of this message as you would like. Have a good New Year, Barry Steinhardt ACLU Technology and Liberty Project |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Woody Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:13 PM Encarta: The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. U.S. presidents after World War II have assumed most of the authority to send U.S. troops into battle. The Korean War (1950-1953), for example, was regarded by the U.S. government as a police action rather than as a war, and President Harry S. Truman never sought a declaration of war from Congress. And in 1964 Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which effectively ceded to President Lyndon B. Johnson the ability to wage war against Vietnam. Congress passed a similar resolution on January 12, 1991, authorizing President George H. W. Bush to use force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. There was no declaration of war for any of these: 1950 Communist North Korea invades South Korea. President Truman sends American troops to defend South Korea. The U.S. goes on to lead forces from 15 other nations in the Korean War (1950–1953). 1950 Puerto Rico. Jayuya uprising crushed in Ponce Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola were sent to assassinate President Truman. Torresola was killed and Collazo was critically wounded in a shootout with capital police and Truman's bodyguards. 1961 Bay Of Pigs Cuba. Ustrasined troops invade Cuba to overthrow Castro. Kennedy withholds promised air support. 1964 The U.S. Senate passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution at the request of President Johnson. The Resolution approves U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict. 1966 Guatemala. Green Berets intervene against rebels. 1973 President Nixon orders a halt to offensive operations in North Vietnam on Jan. 15 and representatives from all sides sign a peace pact, ending the longest war in U.S. history. The last American troops depart by March 1973. 1983 President Reagan orders an invasion of Grenada to establish order on the island and eliminate the Cuban military presence there. A U.S. peace-keeping force remains until 1985. 1986 Raid on Tripoli Libya following a bomb attack on a West Berlin discotheque. 1989 President Bush sends troops to Panama to depose and capture Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted for drug trafficking. 1991 Persian Gulf War—the U.S. leads a coalition of 32 countries to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which it had invaded. 1993 Mogadishu Somalia A U.S.-led multinational force attempts to restore order to war-torn Somalia so that food can be delivered and distributed within the famine-stricken country. 1994 After Haiti's democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide is ousted in a coup in 1991, a U.S. invasion three years later restores him to power. 1994–1995 Bosnia During the Bosnian civil war, which begins shortly after the country declares independence in 1992, the U.S. launches air strikes on Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing. It becomes a part of NATO's peacekeeping force in the region. 1998 Afghanistan, Sudan: American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. !998 Iraq President Clinton said "adm (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. "I think you give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt," said George W. Bush, governor of Texas, on August 20, 1998, the same day as the U.S. counterstrikes. 1999 Kosovo Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo erupts in war in the spring of 1999. A U.S.-led NATO force intervenes with air strikes after Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces uproot the population and embark on a plan of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population. 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom—the U.S. invades Afghanistan and deposes the Taliban, who had sheltered terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. 2003 The U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom, an invasion of Iraq, as part of the war on terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:25 AM Did those presidents spy on U.S. citizens without warrants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,G Date: 04 Jan 06 - 05:40 AM Dianavan; Yes, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. What is your point? Amos, your 03 - 6:21 PM post bears several readings. Probably I will surprise some when I say I do agree with you on many things. However, not when it comes to blaming one person as I perceive you to be doing. However, that is simply my perception of things and I can be wrong many times. Well, not many, but some. I am pretty much convinced what this president is doing will ultimately be decided as correct. Give it some years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:20 PM Johnson spied on Goldwater |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Woody Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:33 PM June 07, 2005 (before NSA gate) Johnson's "Watergate" LBJ vs. Goldwater. By Lee Edwards It was a political scandal of unprecedented proportions: the deliberate, systematic, and illegal misuse of the FBI and the CIA by the White House in a presidential campaign. The massive black-bag operations, bordering on the unconstitutional and therefore calling for impeachment, were personally approved by the president. They included planting a CIA spy in his opponent's campaign committee, wiretaps on his opponent's top political aides, illegal FBI checks, and the bugging of his opponent's campaign airplane. The president? Lyndon B. Johnson. The target? Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate. Here are three examples of a presidential abuse of power for political purposes that constitute an even graver offense than Watergate. In the fall of 1964, the White House turned to the CIA to get advance inside information about the Goldwater campaign, although the senator could hardly be described as a "domestic enemy" (the only valid excuse for agency action). E. Howard Hunt, later convicted for his part in the Watergate break-in, told a congressional committee a decade later that he was ordered to spy on Goldwater's headquarters. He said that President Johnson "had ordered this activity" and that White House aide Chester L. Cooper "would be the recipient of the information." CIA Director William Colby admitted that Cooper prepared campaign material for Johnson and obtained advance texts of Goldwater speeches through a "woman secretary," clearly suggesting that the agency planted someone inside the Goldwater campaign organization. The Democrats constantly used the covertly obtained information to undercut Goldwater initiatives. In early September, for example, the Goldwater campaign announced the formation of a Task Force on Peace and Freedom that the AP described as one of the most "unusual tactics in the history of American politics." Three hours before the Goldwater task force was unveiled, the White House announced that President Johnson had created a 16-member panel of leading authorities to consult with him on international problems. The White House announcement trumped the Goldwater plan. Democratic campaign speechwriter John Roche revealed that he and his colleagues got advance texts of Goldwater's major speeches. "When I innocently inquired how we got them," Roche said, "the reply was 'don't ask.'" Goldwater's regional political directors were convinced that the telephones of the Republican national headquarters in Washington were bugged. At one private meeting aides discussed the possibility of a campaign stop by Goldwater in the Chicago area. Midwest director Sam Hay called the Republican chairman of Cook County, who agreed it was a good idea but promised to keep the trip confidential. Within the hour, a reporter called to say that he had heard Goldwater would be coming to town and wanted the details. Senator Goldwater recalled that two correspondents once questioned him about a proposal not yet made public: that if elected, he would send Eisenhower to Vietnam to examine the situation and report back to him. Goldwater insisted he discussed the Eisenhower mission with only two members of his personal staff, but the two reporters swear they heard about it at the Johnson White House. Most disturbing of all was the FBI's bugging of the Goldwater campaign plane where the senator and his inner circle often made their most confidential decisions. The bureau's illegal surveillance was confirmed by Robert Mardian, when he was an assistant attorney general in Nixon's first term. During a two-hour conversation with J. Edgar Hoover in early 1971, Mardian asked about the procedures of electronic surveillance. To Mardian's amazement, Hoover revealed that in 1964 the FBI, on orders from the Oval Office, had bugged the Goldwater plane. Asked to explain the blatantly illegal action, Hoover said, "You do what the president of the United States orders you to do." William C. Sullivan, the bureau's number two man, confirmed to Mardian the spying operation against the Goldwater campaign. Why did President Johnson order the Anti-Goldwater Campaign and illegally use both the CIA and the FBI as his personal political instruments? All the polls agreed he would win and by a handsome margin. But Johnson wanted the mother of all political landslides, eclipsing FDR's record presidential victory in 1936 and at the same time burying six feet deep Barry Goldwater and American conservatism. Johnson nearly succeeded in the first objective, receiving 61.5 percent of the popular vote, but miserably failed in the second. Of all the men who have run for and lost the presidency in modern times, only Barry Goldwater and the central themes of his campaign were vindicated so quickly. Reviled and rejected in 1964 as no other presidential candidate in the 20th century, Goldwater was easily reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 while the president who had won by one of the largest margins in presidential politics dared not seek reelection. Just twelve years later, the Great Society was exposed as a trillion-dollar bust and Ronald Reagan, an unabashed conservative, became our 40th president. — Lee Edwards is distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation and the author of many books, including the just published To Preserve and Protect: The Life of Edwin Meese III. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: bobad Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:57 PM "Lee Edwards is distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation " "the Heritage Foundation is running the most effective media operation in American politics. Heritage has succeeded with a savvy strategy: Raise a lot of money from rich people with a right-wing agenda. Hire writers, commentators and out-of-office politicians who share that agenda, and call them "fellows," "policy analysts" and "distinguished scholars." And, always, back them up with a public-relations juggernaut that's second to none." http://www.fair.org/extra/9607/heritage.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:59 PM Wal, I don't really think it is all attributable to one particpant. Just as, when a lookout falls asleep, it is not really the fault of the Captain, usually; but RHIR, RHIP; and leaders have to bear tyhe burden of responsibility for what goes on on their watch. Whether Rove, Cheney, Rummie, or some other neocon was behind any individual decision is ambiguous and not to be known by the likes o' me! All that aside, he wants the glory and legacy of the Presdency and its place in history. He also needs to wear the shame and embarassment of the stupidity thereof. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM Today's New York TImes opines: When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law. Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that. Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:16 PM Well, LBJ is really kind of irrelevant to this discussion, thanks. As for the Congress giving up its war powers, that's as may be. What i want to know is how do we know when "Terrorism" wants to sign a treaty of surrender? There is a huge semantic kafluffle going on here, of the kind Bush's henchmen are so good at. A state of war, legally and logistically and every other way, is a very different thing than a campaign to exterminate a condition, such as the war on drugs is supposed to be. They are really two different words that happen to use the same root word and The Bush Klan takes advantage of this overlap by intimidating people with the "we're at war card". If they had done it right they would have declared war on Al Queda, and its leader, instead of haring off to Iraq because the Bushies were pissed at Saddam Hussein. He was obviously a minor contributor at best, but a personal or commercial agenda led the Klan to choose him. Besides, with Saddam, there was at least a known nation involved. Funny how said nation has not surrendered yet, though. Oh, but we weren't at war with Iraq, were we? Wait...who were we at war with? I forget... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 06 - 05:59 PM From Politechm, a discussion list: Pelosi's Declassified Letter on NSA Activities Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today released the following letter, which she wrote four years ago when she was Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and was recently declassified at her request. The letter to Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, then National Security Agency (NSA) Director, expressed concerns about NSA electronic surveillance activities and the authority for those activities. Pelosi also released the response letter from Hayden. Both Pelosi's letter and Hayden's response were redacted when they were declassified. The text of letters follow and copies of the declassified letters are in attached documents: October 11, 2001 Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director National Security Agency Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755 Washington, D.C. 20340-1001 Dear General Hayden: During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions. Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression, [redacted ] being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information [redacted ] without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis [redacted ] I believe you have a much more difficult case to make [redacted ] Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned. Sincerely, NANCY PELOSI Ranking Democrat 18 October 2001 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence H-405, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pelosi: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting. [redacted] ] Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN Lieutenant General, USAF Director, NSA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 06 - 06:42 PM As fir the Heritage Foundation, it was originally organized by a bunch of former Nazis and Nazi symphathizers who were wooed by the Republican Party after WW II... Ain't changed much over the years... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 05 Jan 06 - 01:02 AM Woody asks, "Why did President Johnson order the Anti-Goldwater Campaign and illegally use both the CIA and the FBI as his personal political instruments?" I have no idea. Johnson was wrong to do that and also wrong to mastermind the assassination of ........... Oh, never mind. Just more Texas politics. The point is, just because you are president doesn't mean you are above the law. If anything, constitutional law, Congress and the Judiciary should be guiding forces and he should be accountable to all citizens. Whatever happened to positive role-models. The scum rises to the top. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,Woody Date: 06 Jan 06 - 12:33 AM I didn't ask why. I would like to know how people can claim anything that happened before Jan 1 2001 does not matter unless it suits their agenda. War has not been decalerd since WW2. America has been involved in several wars under Democrat and Republican presidents so why is there so much emphasis on "was was not declared" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,B Date: 06 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM I guess this thread will die without an answer from the Liberals about why they keep yelling "War has not been declared" "It's illegal" when this has been the policy for decades. Is it because they don't want to enforce the "LAW" when a Democrat president breaks it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 06 - 03:03 PM Has zip to do, IMO, with whether or not war has been declared. It has everything to do with 'this is a bad war'--a bullshit war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 06 - 03:14 PM All wars are bad. This one may turn out to have some very positive results, however. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Old Guy Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:16 AM Bobert likes to go back in history only when it suits his agenda: As fir the Heritage Foundation, it was originally organized by a bunch of former Nazis and Nazi symphathizers who were wooed by the Republican Party after WW II... Ain't changed much over the years... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 21 Jan 06 - 07:42 AM and speaking of domestic spying.. While Yahoo and other search engines have been giving information to the US government, Google has refused to give over the information and is fighting a subpoena from the US govt in court. Congress is debating an extension of the Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the government's ability to obtain private data. The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., the most-used Internet search engine, fought its subpoena. AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo also had been subpoenaed. Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose seeking to force Google to comply. Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to turn over potentially useful data — even about people who aren't suspected of wrongdoing — while being barred from disclosing those requests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 05 Jul 06 - 06:23 PM py Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages. ``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.'' The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists. ``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail. U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment. More at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:06 AM "seeks money" explains it all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 06 - 07:37 PM Claim: NSA began monitoring AT&T calls in Feb. 2001 Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against AT&T and other phone companies have filed an amended complaint with some startling claims. The lawsuit concerns the companies' allowing the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls of their customers without the customers' knowledge or consent. Among the claims in the amended complaint filed June 23 (taken verbatim from court documents): * Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven (7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA. * The center was put into development by ATT following a proposal by the NSA for the construction and development of a network operations center identical to ATT's own network operations center located in Bedminster, New Jersey for the exclusive use of the NSA. * The NSA proposal sought construction of a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the exclusive use of the NSA with the capacity to monitor all calls and internet traffic placed on the ATT long distance network, as well as ATT's wide area, fiber optic, T-1, T-3, T-5 and high speed data networks. * Such a data center would also enable the NSA to tap into any call placed on the ATT network and to monitor the contents of all digital information transmitted over the ATT network. * Said data center would enable the NSA to tap into any phone line and to monitor any digital transfer of information on ATT's networks including voice telephone calls, facsimile transmission and all internet traffic. * The NSA program was code-named Pioneer-Groundbreaker and was also known at ATT Solutions division as GEMS (Groundb (Groundbreaker Enterprise System). * International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was one of the parties working with ATT and the NSA to develop the monitoring center and IBM personnel participated in meetings with ATT and NSA officials in the development of the monitoring center. * Among the purposes of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project was the storing and monitoring of all phone call information coming across ATT's networks; by means of this program NSA sought to duplicate all of the phone call information that came across ATT's networks for real time, contemporaneous analysis or, alternately, for downloading and later use by the NSA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:29 AM During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:38 AM http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml Ex-Snoop Confirms Echelon Network NEW YORK March 1, 2000 (CBS) Everywhere in the world, every day, people's phone calls, emails and faxes are monitored by Echelon, a secret government surveillance network. No, it's not fiction straight out of George Orwell's 1984. It's reality, says former spy Mike Frost in an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 27. "It's not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there," Frost tells CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft. "I was trained by you guys," says the former Canadian intelligence agent, referring to the United States' National Security Agency. The NSA runs Echelon with Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand as a series of listening posts around the world that eavesdrop on terrorists, drug lords and hostile foreign governments. But to find out what the bad guys are up to, all electronic communications, including those of the good guys, must be captured and analyzed for key words by super computers. That is a fact that makes Frost uncomfortable, even though he believes the world needs intelligence gathering capabilities like Echelon. "My concern is no accountability and nothing, no safety net in place for the innocent people who fall through the cracks," he tells Kroft. As an example of those innocent people, Frost cites a woman whose name and telephone number went into the Echelon database as a possible terrorist because she told a friend on the phone that her son had "bombed" in a school play. "The computer spit that conversation out. The analystwas not too sure what the conversation was referring to, so, erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady," Frost recalls. Democracies usually have laws against spying on citizens. But Frost says Echelon members could ask another member to spy for them in an end run around those laws. For example, Frost tells Kroft that his Canadian intelligence boss spied on British government officials for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. "(Thatcher) had two ministers that she said, quote, 'they weren't on side,' unquote...So my boss...went to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two ministers," claims Frost. |"The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anythingWe did it for them." America politicians may also have been eavesdropped on, says Margaret Newsham, a woman who worked at Menwith Hill in England, the NSA's largest spy station. She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago. "To my knowledge, all (the intercepted voices)...would be...Russian, Chinese... foreign," she tells Kroft. The exposing of such possible abuses of Echelon will surely add to the growing firestorm in Europe over the system. On Feb. 23, the European Parliament issued a report accusing the U.S. of using Echelon for commercial spying on two separate occasions, to help American companies win lucrative contracts over European competitors. The U.S. State Department denies such spying took place and will not even acknowledge the existence of the top secret Echelon project. Rep. Porter Goss (R.-Fla), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which has oversight of the NSA, does acknowledge that the U.S. has the capability to pick up any phone call, and that even his own conversations could have been monitored. But Goss says there are methods to prevent the abuse of that information. "I cannot stop the dust in the ether...but what I can make sure, is that...the capability is not abused," he tells Kroft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jul 06 - 04:18 AM And in recent news, a "hacker" hired to test the FBI computer systems' security reported that he made four separate "penetrations" of the system (using different methods in each) and presented the FBI with the personal passwords of 60 top echelon persons at FBI headquarters, including the passwords of the Chief, and of two of his "direct reports." And in the ancient news category, it has been revealed (nearly a year ago) that the FBI's primary record system has no way to delete, correct, or alter anything once entered. So if they screw up a report, it's screwed up forever. It's also been reported, perhaps less convincingly, that the system is unable to link "related information" so a query that doesn't bring up all information on a subject likely will not get the latest news that everything more than 30 minutes old is a bundle of shit. But we trust them, 'cause they're doing it all to protect us. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 07 Jul 06 - 01:12 PM I assume that Echelon is paid for by tax dollars since its a government surveillance network. In the meantime, citizens need healthcare and better education. The money used for surveillance of innocent citizens should be used to serve the citizens, not spy on them. Its disgusting to think that people actually pay others to invade their privacy. I hope, I hope, I hope that the citizens of the U.S. will rise up against this tyranny. I know they have it in them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 02:35 PM Or bask in the security knowing that if they have nothing to hide there is no problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:14 PM Boy, Guest, you don't see problems very clearly, do you? The question is not whether citizens have anything to hide. The question is whether governments have the power to abuse, invade privacy, or undermine the right of citizens to enjoy security int heir homes and possessions, communicate freely, and exercise personal privacy. Twisting the rights and privacy issue into "something to hide" is perverted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,George Bush Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:21 AM Neat that the guest who thinks everyone's life should be open to all posts as a guest. We'll be keeping an eye on you henceforth. Be warned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:57 PM Are you hiding something Amos? What is it you don't want the Government to know about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:26 AM Are you hiding something, GUEST? If not, why don't you use your real name like Amos does? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:48 AM I don't see where a name is required here. Seems to me it is optional. If you are so concerned about not having any privacy look here: http://www.zabasearch.com Who is responsible for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Jul 06 - 07:27 AM Reports surfaced briefly a week or so ago about an "investigation" by a vaguely identified Congressional panel who had discovered some surprisingly large payments to commercial "investigating services" by the Federal spy agencies, and collateral information indicated quite common use of the same or similar sources by multiple state and local police agencies. The information obtained appeared to be mostly the common stuff like name, address, phone number, credit reports, social security number, drivers license number, etc. The real point of the "discovery" was testimony attributed to at least one operator of one of these services who openly and freely admitted using illegal methods in obtaining the information being sold. The testimony appears to have delved into descriptions of methods, and presented an extremely poor view of the level of respect for personal information by sources who might have such information legitimately but are obligated to prevent such release except under specific conditions. This was especially true at public agencies (courts, utility companies, etc.) who might have legal cause to have information but who easily and readily "handed out" information with little regard for existing restrictions on such release, often based on obviously false/fraudulent identification1 of the recipitents and fraudulent justification for the requests. 1 "I tell them I'm her mother and I haven't heard from her, and they'll nearly always give me what I ask for." There also were discussions by several witnesses as to the widespread use of similar methods by "many such commercial investigation agencies," and the "very common appearances" of police departments as "customers." Testimony varied as to whether the police were charged the same as any other person who asked, with several agencies indicating they provided information "at no cost" when requested by law enforcement agencies or by individuals associated with2 an enforcement agency. 2 "I just make up a name and tell them I'm a cop on a local force, and they'll give me the stuff over the phone." The existence of such private snoop agencies, and the common use of fraudulent and sometimes criminal methods in collecting information should surprise no one. The purchase of information from them by law enforcement, without questioning the legality of their methods was questioned as a "moral issue" in the article; but most of the purchasers thought that a "don't ask" policy was sufficient. Original newspaper report(s) gave little "traceability" and I expected to see further comment; but none has thus far appeared. It does appear that people who "do it for money" may be even better at it, or at least at some aspects of it, than the government snoops. It also should be noted that with these agencies there is no verification of information and no recourse if false information3 is given. 3 Not much different than when a government agency collects it directly in secret? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:23 AM The domestic spying has been going on since the Clinton administration. The Bush haters just repackage it and pretend it is something that GWB started illegaly. http://www.endtimeprophecy.org/Content/Articles/Articles-Echl/echln-12.html July 28, 1999 Washington, DC - The Clinton Administration has formulated an anit-cyberterrorism plan to monitor computer networks in critical industries, raising concerns from civil liberties groups and privacy advocates, The New York Times reported today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 09 Jul 06 - 08:57 PM Doesn't matter who started it, GUEST. It will have to end and we're going to end it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:04 AM I heard about it when Clinton was president and I thought it was good. I would be dissapointed if the intelligence community was not doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: TIA Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:39 PM Actually, if you have nothing to hide, you still have a great deal to fear. Suppose that the NSA can actually (based on your telephone, banking, email, etc. records) identify terrorists. Suppose that the test is 99% accurate (pretty optimistic, no?). Nothing to hide? Nothing to Fear? Suppose there are 2000 secret terrorists in the USA. The USA population is currently about 299000000. At 99% accuracy, NSA will get 1980 terrorists, and only miss 20. Feeling safe? At 99% accuracy, the NSA will not take any action against 296010000 innocent Americans. At 99% accuracy, NSA will also render, or arrest (or something) 2990000 innocent Americans. This makes the odds that a person, who is arrested due to domestic spying, is actually a terrorist about 1 in 1500. Sounds just like the prosecution rate at Guantanamo doesn't it? No coincidence there - just simple conditional probability. So Nothing to Hide? Nothing to Fear? Hardly. More like naive, dumb, sheep-like, unpatriotic, un-American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:09 AM White House Asks For Dismissal Of NSA Wiretap Suit Arguing that defending the four-year-old wiretapping program in open court would risk national security, the Bush administration on Monday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program. In arguments before U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday renewed its call for a court order that would force the government to suspend its program of intercepting without a court order the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens. Lessee if we have the logic straight -- we have to be free to break the law, to do important work, and you can't ask us to talk about it because it would compromise the important work for which we are breaking it. One is led to deduce that the position of the Administration is that their work is so important as to be above the law, and should be free to be above the law at their discretion. What work, one might ask, could be so important in the affairs of men as to justify this risky posture as a potential dictatorial force? Why, of course, the work of promoting and defending freedom under the law. That's the most important work there is! Hell, anyone could tell you that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:04 PM We have the right to conduct terrorist activities without detection. The government does not have the power to detect terrorist activities. If this results in terrorist attacks and loss of innocent lives, tough titty. That is the price we have to pay in order to live in a free society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: TIA Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:16 PM So, is it worth potentially rounding up 1500 innocents per actual terrorist in order for the government to "protect us"? What say you King Draco? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:13 PM Is this 1500 number some sort of fact or fantasy? Can you equate one human life to 1500 arrests of innocents? Would you consent to being arrested in order to save a life or would you say that's tough bub but I didn't do anything and even if I did, my freedom is worth more than your life? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:21 AM End of thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Jul 06 - 07:44 PM Not quite dear. 1500 is not a fact, but certainly no fantasy. It is a mathematical prediction based on two assumptions. N: the number of terrorists hiding amongst the US population, and A: the accuracy of NSA's mysterious identification formula. I used N=2000 (wild ass guess), and A=99% (extremely generous don't you agree?). Now, do the math yourself, or follow it closely above. Substitute whatever numbers you think are reasonable for N and A, and you will arrive at a ratio of imprisoned innocents to imprisoned terrorists. Then don't try to spin the question. It's simple. How many imprisoned innocents are worth one imprisoned terrorist. Remember, you, your Mom, your daughter, your piano teacher...anyone could be yanked, even with nothing to hide. And your acceptable number is...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:02 PM Higher than yours. 1500 plus. I asked how many arrests are worth one human life. Remember your Mom, your daughter, your piano teacher could be killed in a terrorist attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Jul 06 - 12:06 AM "Higher than mine" is only a lower limit for your number. Is there an upper limit? Unless you want literally *everyone* to be imprisoned, there must be an upper number. What is it? I think we do not disagree that saving innocents is the point. But I also think we both realize that to make an omelette ya gotta...well you get the picture. So we seek the same goal. I am exploring the cost. Have you thought about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:01 PM The mathematical chances of any particular individual being killed or harmed in a "terrorist attack" in the U.S. are so infinitesimal as to be meaningless. You want to worry about REAL threats?- there's drunk drivers(17000 killed and 70000 injured a year)), automobile accidents in general, firearms(30,000 per year), accidents in the home......etc. hell check on the number of people are killed by dogs in the US every year. This pathological paranoid hysteria about "being killed by terrorists" is really getting old. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:23 PM Proposed Surveillance Bill Would Sweep NSA Spying Programs Under the Rug Bill Threatens Future of EFF Case and Other Legal Challenges San Francisco - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said today that he has negotiated a proposed bill with the White House regarding the NSA's illegal spying program. While the final bill is not public, a draft of the bill obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a sham compromise that would cut off meaningful legal review -- sweeping current legal challenges out of the traditional court system and failing to require court review or congressional oversight of any future surveillance programs. "This so-called compromise bill is not a concession from the White House -- it's a rubber stamp for any future spying program dreamed up by the executive," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "In essence, this bill threatens to make court oversight of electronic surveillance voluntary rather than mandatory." Although the bill creates a process for the executive branch to seek court review of its secret surveillance programs, it doesn't actually require the government to do so. The bill would, however, require that any lawsuit challenging the legality of any classified surveillance program -- including EFF's class-action suit against AT&T -- be transferred, at the government's request, to the FISA Court of Review, a secret court with no procedures for hearing argument from anyone but the government. The bill would further allow the government to prevent the court from disclosing any information about the government's surveillance programs to opposing counsel, regardless of the court's strict security procedures. "When the privacy of millions of Americans is at stake, we deserve more than a closed hearing by a secret court," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. For the draft of the Specter bill: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/specter_draftbill_071306.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:34 PM At present I fear my own government far more that I fear any terrorist. Spying on it's own citzens is only one of the reasons for my fear. I fear for my freedom of speach, I fear for my right to assembly, I fear for my privacy, I fear for my non religous freedom to not worship, I fear that my children may be sucked into a war that's against no enemy of their own making, I fear that my children will grow sick in a polluted enviorment, I fear that my government is self destructive & will self destruct, I fear that my children will become part of a slave society, I fear that I'm already becoming part of that slave society, I fear that no matter how hard I try I may not be able to find in the future water clean enough to drink. I fear not one thing of these things from terrorists. What I do fear from terrorists is that a government like ours will never stop giving them reasons to exist & will never stop giving us a reason to fear. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 15 Jul 06 - 08:42 AM My upper limit is the number evuivalent to one human life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:07 AM "I fear my own government far more that I fear any terrorist" Evidently you don't live in Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 19 Jul 06 - 11:50 PM WASHINGTON - President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday. Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April. "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales. (AP Wire) "The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM Nice work if ya can get it, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:33 AM Precisely the question. What is the number equivalent to one human life? What *number* (they're along the top of that keypad there...) is acceptable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:17 PM Tia: You tell me and then we can arrive at a cap for arrests. You are good for dreaming up numbers to argue about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 02:58 PM July 21, 2006 Judge: "Extremely Embarrassing" not the same as "Classified" The Bush administration is going to have to work a little harder if it wants to sweep the lawsuit over AT&T's alleged participation in a National Security Agency wiretapping program under the rug (see "AT&T. Your world, delivered (to the government)" and "Big Mother"). Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the government's motion for dismissal of the case or summary judgment, rejecting its claim that allowing the suit to proceed would compromise state secrets. "While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it," Walker wrote in his 72-page ruling. "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security." Ironically, it seems the administration's own big mouth is to blame for Walker's conclusions. In his ruling, Walker noted that the subject at issue in the case was "hardly a secret" since the government has itself been yammering about it in public for some time now. "The government has opened the door for judicial inquiry by publicly confirming and denying material information about its monitoring of communications content," Walker wrote. "Because of the public disclosures by the government and AT&T, the court cannot conclude that merely maintaining this action creates a 'reasonable danger' of harming national security." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Jul 06 - 04:09 PM The Washington Post article on the Judge's decision again makes note of the "agreement on legislation" brokered by Sen Specter that, if rubber-stamped by Congress, "allows the President" to request a decision on the legality of the secret data farming from "the government's secret terrorism and intelligence court" to review its legality. 1. The legislation would allow, but not require, a decision from the court. 2. Judges on the secret court are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with no participation or oversight by anyone else. 3. There are no known criteria that an appointee must meet to be eligible for appointment at the "whim of the Chief Justice." 4. Judges on the secret court are rotated on an obscure schedule and there is no public announcement that I've seen when they are changed. 5. The original secret court (at the time most people first heard of it, at least) told the administration that they would not approve similar programs. It is unlikely that any of those judges remain on the court. So the Chief Justice hand-picked by the President gets to select, in secret, the members of the secret court that will decide whether the president can do any damned thing he wants to, if the President decides he wants them to make a decision, and the answer will be a secret. I feel s.s.s.o.o.o.o.o...r.e.a.s.s.u.r.e.d. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 06:25 PM From the Electronic Freedom Foundation: EFF's Spying Case Moves Forward - Judge Denies Government's Motion to Dismiss AT&T Case In January, EFF filed a lawsuit against AT&T for collaborating with the NSA in its massive and illegal spying program. Today, a federal court denied the government's and AT&T's motions to dismiss the case, allowing EFF's suit to proceed. This is a huge step toward stopping illegal surveillance and holding AT&T accountable for these privacy violations. But it's only a first step. We need your help to finish the job and secure your rights. Please donate to EFF today and forward this message along to your friends and family. Join EFF today! http://secure.eff.org/att More info about the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:35 PM The Bush Administration Has No Defense for Illegal Wiretapping Now Tuesday, July 18, 2006 By Senator Russ Feingold From Daily Kos With the Administration doing so much to weaken our system of checks and balances, a lot of Americans were heartened to see the third branch of government - the judiciary - stand up to the Administration with the decision in the Hamdan case a few weeks ago. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear that all detainees have basic rights under U.S. and international law, and that the Administration has to scrap its plan to try some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in military commissions that lacked basic safeguards of fairness. As many legal thinkers, and some in this community, have pointed out, the Hamdan decision was a rebuke to an Administration that thinks it can make up its own laws. And this decision has ramifications far beyond the issue of detainees. For one thing, Hamdan completely undercuts the Administration's already weak legal argument in defense of its warrantless wiretapping program. It is clear that the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But Administration officials insisted unconvincingly that the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) from September 2001 had them covered - that this resolution somehow ok'd their warantless wiretapping, even though there is no such language in the resolution, and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. In Hamdan, the Court made it clear that the Administration can't hide behind the AUMF anymore. The Administration tried to use the AUMF argument in the Hamdan case too - claiming that it authorized military commissions for detainees. But the Court flatly rejected that idea, just as it rejected the idea that the President's inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief trumps the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The bottom line is that the Court was not buying the extreme theories of executive power put forward by the Administration in the military commissions case, and there is no reason to think it that it would buy those same theories when they are used to justify the illegal wiretapping program. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: 282RA Date: 22 Jul 06 - 10:56 PM What's funny is that 10 years from now, the history books will characterize Bush as a horrible president who broke the law numerous times and all these people who support him now will be denying that they ever did. Like McCarthy. He's reviled now and nobody ever claims to have supported him but obviously he had a lot of support from the public to have taken his commie hunt as far as he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:04 AM Bush changes NASA mission statement - no longer interested in protecting our home planet by John in DC - 7/22/2006 08:38:00 PM The Republicans are amazing. After having given the shaft to blacks, women, Latinos, gays, people who have Parkinsons and Alzheimers, the budget, the environment, the military, veterans, New Orleans, Iraq and oh so many more, now they're giving the shaft to the entire planet Earth. From ThinkProgress, citing the NY Times. NASA quietly had its mission statement changed last February by the White House, who deleted the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet." NASA scientists were surprised to learn of the change. "Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions." As we quoted Charles Barkley the other day, "I used to be a Republican, before they lost their minds." http://americablog.blogspot.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM "10 years from now, the history books will characterize Bush as a horrible president who broke the law numerous times" What did people say about Abraham Lincoln and what do the history books say about him? The people hated Andy Jackson even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 27 Jul 06 - 03:25 PM YEah, but look at RIchard Nixon. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM Rather not, if its all the same to you. Had enough of that pathological crooked bastard when he was president. And don't forget he was Tailgunner Joe McCarthy's right-hand man (no pun intended) |
