1. President Bush and others in his administration have stated on several occasions that these warrantless wiretaps have been conducted on those having discussions with Al Qaeda members. President Bush has stated, “if someone from Al Qaeda is calling someone in the United States, I want to know about it.” (paraphrased). Can you provide evidence that the government has only been conducting warrantless wiretapping on Americans conversing with known Al Qaeda members?

2. We have heard a lot of talk about “data mining”, or the monitoring of large numbers of domestic and international phone calls for keywords such as “bomb”, “Al Qaeda”, “jihad”, “attack”, etcetera. Can the administration confirm that the telephone conversations of thousands (or more) of Americans are not being monitored – only those conversation with known Al Qaeda members are being monitored?

3. We have learned that many of the warrantless wiretaps were conducted prior to 9/11. How many inidviduals were being monitored? And why did these not prevent 9/11?

4. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and members of the Bush administration have said that if they were able to conduct warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11, they would have been able to prevent the terrorists from their attacks. Can you provide some evidence of why warrantless wiretaps – conducted without prior OR 72-hour retroactive FISA paperwork filed – would have prevented the attacks?

5. The FISA law allows the government to conduct surveillance (such as wiretaps) in emergency situations, as long as the paperwork requesting approval is submitted within 72 hours. How many wiretaps were conducted without FISA approval, and why was paperwork never submitted within the 72 hour window?

6. FISA requires ‘probable cause’ that a crime may be committed for wiretaps. Can you provide evidence that there was probable cause that crimes were being planned or committed on all wiretaps that have been placed without FISA approval?

7. On “Meet the Press” a few weeks ago, conservative writer William Safire explained how his home phone was wiretapped for over a year. He described how he had worked with Bush on a Medicare reform speech, and President Bush asked him to leak the story to the press so it would be well covered in the media. Safire said he was having a telephone conversation with a journalist whose phone was already being wiretapped, and after Safire said, “do you want a leak? I have a leak for you”, Safires phone was tapped. Can the administration explain why they are tapping the phones of journalists?

8. Can the administration confirm that they have not recorded and/or monitored any telephones, email or other conversations of Christiane Amanpour of CNN (who is married to a legal advisor to the Clark and Kerry presidential campaigns)?

If the American people could just get some of those questions answered (and some proof that the answers are accurate), it would be nice.

BSR – You seem to be a bright individual until your lips move, or in this case you type. Regardless of what you think, the president MUST FOLLOW THE LAW.

Ummm, here’s where you’re wrong. The RW sycophants and apologists are spinning themselves dizzy trying to convince themselves — and anyone else who will listen — that indeed the Preznit doesn’t have to follow the law.

As His Emanence Limbaugh said on his radio show yesterday, in reference to Democratic criticism of Dubya and his actions, and attempts to hold him to account, “you haven’t got rid of the king.”

See, that’s all well and fine for this myopic crowd, too blind to look at the big picture, and too stoopid to look into the future. They want a king … as long as it’s their king … and they’ve forgotten (if they ever knew) why the colonies had a real war, with the necks of the entire nascent country on the line, to throw off the king. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” And we’re not just talking the eighth graders here being held back a year.

Cheers,

The Executive branch is subject to a lot of congressional oversight, especially in administrative areas relating to commerce, health, education and the like. But Congress’ power is at its absolute lowest in those military matters which the Constitution delegates solely to the President (see, for example, Justice Jackson’s analysis in the Steel Seizure cases).

If you’re talking about the Steel Seizure case, I think you’re mighty confused. Matter of fact, I suspect you have some things completely bass-ackwards: Jackson was talking about the power of the executive there and discussing when it was at its “lowest ebb”. And FWIW, despite the nonsense that seems to be emanating from the RW “spin” machine, the Steel Seizure cases ruled against the president. Hardly a point in favour of what you’re trying to pawn off here.

Cheers,

Comment by G.Gordon Giddy #89

Thanks for that post Giddy, I sadly remember the incident…

…and so many more just like it…

Another Bushite LIE unfolds regarding Katrina…

Seems the White House was warned (a couple of days before Katrina hit) that the levees wouldn’t hold, the streets would be flooded and people drowned…

Post Katrina Bushiva in an interview on one of the news shows claims, “No one could have known that the levees would break…”

Shades of 9/11…

Time to run these co*ksuckers out of town and into the Hague…

…and their supporters too…

It smacks of the good old days of vigilante justice….

Glad to see you come clean about your “legal philosophy” here. Do the words “strange fruit” ring a bell? I doubt it.

Cheers,

Ummmm, not so clear that it was “aimed … at monitoring communications by known terrorists”. If so, then there wouldn’t have even been a question as to whether “probable cause” was sufficient, instead of “reasonable basis to believe”…. If they’re “known terrorist”, it’s … pardon an expression mangled beyond recognition … “a slam dunk” for establishing “probable cause”.

HTH to clear up your attempted elision of terms, equivocation, and muddling the issues here in defence of the law-breaking of Commander Codpiece.

Cheers,

Comment by I-RIGHT-I #201

Irrelevant-Repugnant-Insect,

…Actually, chances are excellent that a racist inbred like yourself is probably going to have some bi-racial grandchildren you can disinherit, (if the trailer isn’t destroyed by some act of nature), somewhere down the road…

“I hate the French, they pretty much invented the Filthy Left.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
Hey, what does a Mexcian know about ethics anyway?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 25, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
I think the lesson here is that if you can’t say something nice about the Negro in New Orleans, don’t say anything at all.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 7, 2005 @ 9:43 am
[Mexican corruption] is a problem but nothing a little Puritan Fundamentalist Christianity couldn’t cure. Ever notice that everything the Catholics touch turns to shit?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 22, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Left wing non religious Jews are the problem. Period. I wonder if the Germans had the same problem with y’all?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 20, 2005 @ 4:04 pm “

http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/01/canada-in-reverse_24.html

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Comment by TerrytheTurtle

You are either a liar or woefully and pitifully ignorant of that issue. Or I guess it’s possible that the reason you never saw a white bad guy hanging around is that “they” never showed you one. I imagine “they” must have a reason because there were almost as many whites hung as blacks. I guess “they” didn’t want you to know that for some reason.

Old Terry the Turtle always ready to poke his head out and get it shot off.

This is something that I haven’t been able to understand.
What does it matter what the public supposedly thinks about this ‘program’?
As if it’s okay with the public, then it doesn’t matter if it is illegal? WTF? Twilight zone insanity.

Furthermore, i think Cheney knows this, and that’s why they got rid of the lawyers leading congress, and put patsies like Frist (a doctor), Delay (an exterminator) and Hastert (a wrestling coach) in charge. They wouldn’t have qualms about ignoring congresses’ constitutional DUTY like someone with a law degree would.

Also, recall that neither Cheney or Bush have law degrees. Their respect for the law is nil.

Kind of a motley crew, actually. Like the leaders of the Third Reich: von ribbontrop was a champaign salesman, goering a former flying ace turned playboy, himmler a chicken farmer, and Hitler a former corporal who moved into politics as a lifeline from a failed career as an artist.

But maybe that analogy goes too far for some.