Hannity Attacks Media for Calling Domestic Spying “Domestic Spying”
Hannity Attacks Media for Calling Domestic Spying “Domestic Spying”
Last night on the Fox News Channel, Sean Hannity and Mary Matalin attacked the “left†and the “news media†for correctly labeling Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program:
HANNITY:This is not about domestic spying, because that’s the way it’s being portrayed by people on the left and by the news media…
MATALIN: …And just using the words “domestic spying” is how the left frames these debates. I looked this up a couple of weeks ago when this argument first started. There are 104,000 hits on references to signals intelligence, which is what this is, electronic surveillance of terrorists. There was 1.5 million references to domestic spying. People hear, “Domestic spying.” It’s completely not that.
Actually, it is. The distinction between this program and previous legal spying programs is that it is directed at people in the United States without first securing warrants.
The right-wing’s new framing of the program as merely another “Terrorist Surveillance Program†is meant to do one thing: confuse the American people.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
267 Responses to “Hannity Attacks Media for Calling Domestic Spying “Domestic Spying””
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well ... the Supreme Court says that we cant push creationism on students so lets get out our wordprocessor and do a search-replace on creationism with the words "intelligent design". Ok now we are following the law... Now then we cant spy on our political foes with domestic spying so lets do another search-replace on "domestic spying" with the words "terrorist spying" ..there now it is all legal.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pmEver wonder what it looked like in Germany during the 1930's? You see photos of people standing on street corners listening to radio broadcasts. These broadcasts were, of course, government propaganda. It told many people what they wanted to hear. It stoked an entire nation to bloody occupation and war.
Folks, this is our modern day example of government propaganda. These idiots who shill for King George are simply telling people what they want to hear.
Which way will we go? The way of Germany? Seems like we're part way there already. Or will our 200 year old republic choose a different path?
We The People have a hand in this. So which will it be?
January 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pmThey are the hemroid and the spynchter as one.They are completely that. This is like picking on the mentally handicapped.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pmAnd how do you know you are spying on a terrorist unless you spy on them.....how do you know someone is a 'bad guy' unless you catch them doing something bad (and charge them and convict them in a court). And the answer is: 'because my president says so'. That is called the power of attainder. You can read it about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder The first paragraph sums it up.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI can understand why people get screwy about O'Lielly...he's such a doofus. But I think Hannity is more dangerous and it seems he doesn't get nearly the same scrutiny as O'Really. He's much more of a smooth operator.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI don't care what they call it. It's illegal!!! When will the American "Sheeple" wake up?
t-mac
January 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pm“The Healthy, Patriotic, Terrorist Surveillance Program and Clear Skies Poject†-- I pity the fools who oppose such a brave initiative on the Administration's part.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pmDidn't they just adopt the new term yesterday? And they are mad that people aren't jumping all over it? If the media had any left tilt whatsoever they'd stop calling this domestic spying and call it the president's Fourth Amendment Violation Scandal.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pmMary matlin was not chosen to be on the VP's staff for any other reason than she is the epitome of political. Fair warning to all who view her as anythign else. Sean Hannity is Rush L. from NJ that a pet homosexual to abuse.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:46 pmIn all the bloviating on this subject I have yet to see or hear any explanation of the following:
1. Why can't the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
It seems to me that surveillance on communications involving terrorists who have declared war on America should fall within what the Hamdi case called the "fundamental incidents of waging war." It also seems to me that terrorist communications with people inside the U.S. should be cause for increased, not decreased, surveillance.
Is there a respectable argument to the contrary that does not result in reduced national security?
January 24th, 2006 at 12:46 pmDenial. & I don't mean Egypt.
bushco is in denial.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pmexcuse me I meant to say HAS a pet homosexual to abuse.Sorry
January 24th, 2006 at 12:49 pm'...being portrayed by people on the left and by the news media…"
I'm so proud! What a good boy! Sean Hannity has acknowledged what we have known all along -- that he is not a part of "news media."
January 24th, 2006 at 12:51 pm~ AMERICA ~
Do not let the spin doctors leave you confused.
The rewording of their criminal deeds is an attempt to misinform the puplic.
Examine the facts. Measure their language.
AMERICA is not this dumb, are we?
The only point that the left and right share, in this age of servailence, is that there ARE programs run by our Government designed to collect DATA.
O.K. ~ what is called when you collect this DATA without your subjects knowledge. ~ SPYING ~
O.K. ~ what do you call the group of people that live in your country that which you collect this data on? ~ DOMESTICS ~
O.K. ~ what is it then, when on 04/20/04 your leader states that he will follow the law, he will go to the courts and he will obtain warrents, but doesn't; besides a lie? ~ WARRENTLESS ~
Put it togeather,
What does it spell?
Warrentless Domestic Spying Program.
Or better yet,
It flies,
Has feathers.
Lays eggs (some of them biggies)
Tastes good when roasted.
Give up?
Need another hint?
It also goes "QUACK"
WAKE UP AMERICA
January 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pmThis bed of lies that BushCo continues to make,
and invites his public to lie with and in,
Is not a bed of roses,
As BushCo would have you believe.
It is nothing but a pile of DO_DO.
SMELL THE COFFEE
Massive PR and Bull S**t do not make a lie the truth. The radical Bush right are scared of any one even asking questions. Their moto is to bury the citizens in debt and fill their heads with dictator tripe while wire tapping, holding and torturing people with out charges in obscure hide outs or foreign jails, stripping everyone of their rights and allowing their relegious and big business crownies to get total power. No accountability, secret one party rule and dismanteling all checks and balances in our country is our enemy with in and it's names are Bush,Cheney,Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Delay,Frist, Chertoff and Alito. Know there are more but need more coffee to remember.....Blessings
January 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pmImpeachment hearings are coming. They know it. Maybe even before the midterm elections. This crap pisses off real conservatives, like in Montana, where they opposed the Patriot Act. You have to understand, Bushco aren't real conservatives, they just play them on TV to get elected. Even Brown-eye said he was opposed to corporate welfare on an earlier thread. Funny how he voted for it anyway.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI can't for the life of me understand what J Carville sees in that woman. She's just..bleh.
Poppycock: A chronicle of the stupidest things ever said
January 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#10 ...the president can spy on terrorists all he wants. He can even do so if one end is going to an American... BUT HE MUST REPORT HIS SPYING TO FISA. If he cant let FISA know who he is spying on then he ISNT SPYING ON TERRORISTS.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI'm usually against spousal violence, but in this case I'd make an exception for James.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#2 Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — January 24, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Ever wonder what it looked like in Poland or Switzerland during that decade?
Now flash forward 75 years.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran....
January 24th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWhy don’t people like you get that?
Comment by Duh
He gets it. But if he admits he gets it, it puts him on the same side as us and he would rather die. These people are un-American, you need to understand that. They hate liberals and Americans who don't agree with them that they, a small fringe minority, should decide how it will be for everyone, and would rather we were dead. Just like the Nazis hated the Jews. It will end in violence some day, the sooner the better I say. They are outnumbered anyway. They'll be happier dead.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:58 pmBlue State Red,
(1) The president can order surveillance on a terrorist, he just has to go through a few procedural hoops to ensure that he isn't just placing the name "terrorist" on a person without having a certain level of confidence that ther person might be a terrorist. That level of confidence is in fact relatively low. Probable cause is ridiculously easy to meet. But even if that is too hard, the President, under a congressional determiniation of what is the appropriate procedure, can obtain the warrant after begining the wiretapping.
(2) Just because the person at the other end of phone call is in the US does not "immunize" them from surveillance. There just has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person is a terrorist. And if they are talking to a terrorist, reasonable suspicion is met. But you do have to go through some procedural safegaurd to obtain a warrant to ensure that the system is not abuse. Additionally, the US, when it drafted the Constitution decided that by simply being a citizen or resident of the US, you are afforded special protections. They listed these protections in various order in something called the Bill of Rights. Now, the Bill of Rights wasn't meant to apply to every, just the citizens and residents of the US.
The procedures outlined by FISA to obtain a warrant, particularly with the availability of obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours after beginning to obtain the wire tap and the relatively low threshold for obtaining that wire tap, seem to ensure that national security will not be jeopardized from threats outside the country. The procedural safegaurds are there to ensure that our own rights and liberties are not jeopardized by threats within our government.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:59 pmI’m usually against spousal violence, but in this case I’d make an exception for James.
Comment by Streetcar Named Desire
The sex must be damn good. I couldn't live that way.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:01 pm#4 Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 24, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Parrallel theat argument with this doosie:
THE BIBLE TOLD ME SO
Just like the Aministrations argumentive behavior of spin and rhetoeric, I should have more than one wife, slaves, etc.
But as humans and especially educated Americans, we know the difference between WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO and logic.
Wish the BushCO would catch up.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pmDomestic Spying
BTW:
This 50/50 "balance" in presentation is doing a disservice to truth. Hannity and Matalin and her husband perpetuate this disservice. It provides the illusion that there are 2 equally balanced legitimate sides to a story. This is a fallacy. This is why it's criminal for Libs and Progs to guest on Fox shows and serve as a soundboard/stooge for the crazy messages that come out of propaganda media.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pmHere is something interesting. Over at Media Matters, Fox new's Jim Angle has a piece about Jane Harman & Peter Hoekstra, both on the house's Intel. committe. The date is Dec. 21. Angle is very careful not to use the term Domestic Spying. Yeah so what? Well put him under oath and ask him if he had been advised by the White House on how to present this to the media.Next ask him if he had mentioned the naming of this situation with Fox news. Who formulated his approval and the contents of his comments relating to this. I think this is where it gets ugly. The Sean Hannity piece is just phase 2.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:05 pmBSR - Handi's case is unique and does not play a factor in this instance. The only reason the court ruled "The Fourth Circuit reversed, stressing that, because it was undisputed that Hamdi was captured in an active combat zone, no factual inquiry or evidentiary hearing allowing Hamdi to be heard or to rebut the Government’s assertions was necessary or proper." America is not in a combat zone. The combat zone is Iraq and Afganistan.
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.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
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.
Note the first line of this law. This means that he cannot break the law no matter what. No if’s, and’s, or but’s. GET IT - GOT IT - GOOD.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 Prev | Next
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Release date: 2005-03-17
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pmYou keep trying to explain this to the trolls. Waste of time. This is more about power, ego, and not looking weak. They do not want a Bush reversal. To avoid that they would be willing to tear up the Constitution. How un-American can you get? If you have ever seen the film, Little Big Man, think about how Custer is portrayed in that film. Think about how Custer ended up. That's what Bushco and the right is going to end up like. I'm a Cheyenne brave and it's a good day for the right wing to die. And I will have their scalp when they are on the other side.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:07 pmYou keep trying to explain this to the trolls. Waste oif time. This is more about power, ego, and not looking weak. They do not want a Bush reversal. To avoid that they would be willing to tear up the Constitution. How un-American can you get? If you have ever seen the film, Little Big Man, think about how Custer is portrayed in that film. Think about how Custer ended up. That's what Bushco and the right is going to end up like. I'm a Cheyenne brave and it's a good day for the right wing to die. And I will have their scalp when they are on the other side.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:07 pmI prefer "illegal wiretapping" myself. Brings the point home rather succinctly, I think.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:08 pm"Don’t you understand that no one is saying the surveillance shouldn’t be done, we are just saying there is a correct way to go about. And if the way set up right now is “too slow†then there are channels to go through to change FISA or whatever needs to be changed."
Why is FISA the only relevant authority? Haven't all presidents conducted surveillance on enemy communications during wartime, long before FISA was enacted in the 1970s? Also, doesn't FISA itself contain legislative history to the effect that it is not intended to encroach on the President's existing constitutional powers? Finally, doesn't FISA contain an exception for surveillance done under other statuitory authority?
These questions take us away from your process questions, and back to the substantive constitutional questions:
1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
A third question also arises: when Congress authorizes the President to use force, isn't it also authorizing the President to use surreptitious tactics (like electronic surveillance) as well as bunker buster boms?
If communications intelligence is a fundamental incident of waging war, I think it would be strange to argue that the AUMF authorized President Bush to drop bombs on suspected terrorists, but notr to listen to their conversations.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pmBSR - See #28
January 24th, 2006 at 1:12 pmSorry in post #27 I meant Peter Hoekstra should be questioned under oath not Angle. Too much multi tasking today.Remember the White house has been ready for this for a year.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pmRead the Book and see the movie.
Memorable Quotes from
Little Big Man (1970)
General Custer: A Custer decision impetuous! GRANT called me impetuous, too. The drunkard. Sitting there in the White House! Calling ME impetuous!
General Custer: You came up here to kill me, didn't you? And you lost your nerve. Well, I was correct. In a sense, you are a renegade, but you are no Cheyenne Brave. Do I hang you? I think not. Get out of here.
Jack Crabb: You're not going to hang me.
General Custer: Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision.
Jack Crabb: Do you hate them? Do you hate the White man now?
Old Lodge Skins: Do you see this fine thing? Do you admire the humanity of it? Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them... like that hair. The man from whom this hair came, he's bald on the other side, because I now own his scalp! That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#28 Comment by RemoveBush — January 24, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Good points.
Especially on the title of the President of the United States of America.
Commander and chief.
Lat night, while watching some national news station, I actually heard a reporter call Bush, Protector and Chief.
WTF???
January 24th, 2006 at 1:16 pmProtectorite?
Who gave him that power?
He's a member of the propaganda platoon (a subset of the chickenhawk base)
Spying? What spying? We don't need no stinking spying.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#31 Comment by ann — January 24, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Its only deemed illegal when a court says so. Untill then, innocent untill proven guilty.
JUST DON'T PARSE WORDS.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pmCALL IT WHAT IT IS.
#32 - I don't believe Congress declared a state of war to exist, therefore under the Constitution there is no war state at present, therefore there is no precedent for unbridled executive power allowing unrestricted domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus, etc etc. You know, that's the answer for Chimpy, why doesn't he get a war resolution through congress? Declare war on something and then he can do what he wnats....
January 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pmWhy is FISA the only relevant authority?
Because that's the law. The Constitution empowers Congress alone with the ability to make the law, and that's the law they passed.
1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
He can. But he has to follow the law, just like everyone else. In fact, even more: he's taken an oath to carry out the law faithfully.
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
Because that's not what the law says.
A third question also arises: when Congress authorizes the President to use force, isn’t it also authorizing the President to use surreptitious tactics (like electronic surveillance) as well as bunker buster boms?
The authorization of force is usually specific, and generally speaking, doesn't contain wiavers of laws regarding the conduct of the government or armed forces. Those laws must be followed, since the Contitution empowers Congress alone with the ability to set such rules.
If communications intelligence is a fundamental incident of waging war, I think it would be strange to argue that the AUMF authorized President Bush to drop bombs on suspected terrorists, but notr to listen to their conversations.
He can do so, but he has to follow the law.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pmThey can argue semantics all they want. The idiot admitted to commiting a crime and even the president isn't above the law. Will he be removed from office? No, not yet and probably not until the end of his term, but he violated the law and he must be held accountable for it.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pmAll of the wingers start their arguments with the same false premise. No one cares, except the terrorists whoever they may be, if the NSA monitors their communications. Even the courts bless the practice after the fact. The false premise is that ALL the illegal wiretapping is conducted against ONLY a terrorist or terrorists and their counterpart in the United States. The estimate is up to some astronomical figure in the thousands and yet not one of those KNOWN TERRORISTS and KNOWN US SUPPORTERS has been arrested or tried. What is the purpose of the spying if no criminal is captured, tried, and jailed. On the other hand, if the spying is being done against political adversaries of King George the Dumb then we have a very plausible explanation why the warrants are not being requested and why no arrests have been made. There is a very simple solution for this problem. Congress should issue an ultimatum to KGtD stating that either he turn over the names of everybody subjected to his spying or he will be impeached for Contempt of Congress--a high crime. However, the reason he will not turn over the list is because it will result in the same impeachment. That, my friends, is called being on the horns of a dilemma. It could not happen to a more deserving neo-king.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmIts only deemed illegal when a court says so. Untill then, innocent untill proven guilty.
That the act is illegal was already established by Congress.
What a court, or Congressional impeachment hearings, would need to determine is whether Bush committed the act. But then he's already admitted that he has.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmAs part of its all-out campaign to defend its indefensible illegal domestic wiretapping program, the Bush administration is turning to one of its tried and true marketing techniques - branding. The product? The "Terrorist Surveillance Program"...
For the full story, see:
January 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pm"Branding the Domestic Spying Scandal."
Loook, Every Time you Do Anything, Information is Gathered on You, Visa purchases, car buying, Store Shopping, There ARE Data Collectors Out there Collecting as MUCH Information About YOU AND YOUR SPENDING HABITS. WHY? So THEY CAN TARGET YOU IN THIER ADVERTISEMENTS. YES
January 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmHas anyone heard that there is an International committee trying to get the Canadian courts to file a claim against Bush and his administrations for war crimes? I havent heard of this and read it and just wanted to see if anyone else heard about this?
Sorry for being off topic.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:26 pmLOL Faux news is reduced to re-coining words to sell its Spin.
How dumb does Faux News think we are?
On the other hand, other critics of American empire, such as Chalmers Johnson, situate the rise of the US imperial matrix in the aftermath of World War II and the development of the Cold War. Enacting a bipartisan policy of what Johnson calls “stealth imperialism†(65-94), the US expanded its influence and control with high-sounding, but hypocritical, rhetoric about freedom, liberty, and human rights. However, all during the Cold War, the US managed to subvert duly elected governments from Iran (1953) to Guatemala (1954) to Chile (1973) in order to prevent any challenges to US economic or political hegemony. According to Johnson in Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, “The American government displays one face to its own people…but another in areas where the support of repressive governments seems necessary to maintain imperial dominance. Whenever this contradiction is revealed…Americans try to cover it up with rhetoric about the national burden of being the ‘indispensable nation,’ or what the Council on Foreign Relations calls the world’s ‘reluctant sheriff’†(68).
Pretty much sums up lying lawyer news Faux and the Rhetoric spewed forth.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:27 pmI can't imagine why more people don't get that bit. Bush admitted to breaking the law and vowed to keep doing it. If that had been Clinton... damn liberal bias in the media! The impeachment hearings are basically a formality. An admission of guilt is pretty final in any sort of legal proceddings.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:28 pmThe obvious point of having an underground spying program is to avoid oversight. Avoiding oversight means you can say anything you like about the program, how wonderful it is, how necessary, how lawful, and nobody can contradict you because nobody really knows, now do they? You can do anything you like with the program, spy on anybody, do anything, because nobody is looking. You can even say that you only spy on terrorists, or wookies, or anything you want, because nobody can tell on you. Oversight is why we had FISA, and oversight is why Bushco bypassed FISA. Spin away all you like, waste your breath. Facts are facts.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:29 pmAfterthunk;
Hey, if Hannity is attacking the Media, then What doth Hannity consider Faux News?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:29 pmBlue State Red,
"In a time of war" Exactly one of the corrupt reasons why the Admin went to war. To be able to break the law.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
If we were a dictatorship, King George could do anything he liked.
But we're a nation of laws. Right? We have law and process. Right? FISA is part of this law and process. Right?
Perhaps the ReichWingNuts would like to explain why King George has the authority to circumvent the law of the land? I mean really explain it. Not just a little flag waving about how we're at war. Or some such nonsense. Truth is, they can't explain anything.
War can only be declared between nation states and not around ideologies, BTW.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pm1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
Do I beat the dead horse? Do I attempt to explain that everyone wants to make sure the laws and safeguards protect the fourth amendment weren't violated? In order to search Americans you need probable cause to get a warrant and this administration hasn't made that case.
and that brings up an important question not discussed enough: If he didn't need FISA at all why did he use it to get the legitimate warrants? And who were these people/groups?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIs anyone else experiencing problems with this site today?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmFor me, it seems to take 20 times as long to display the comments.
You left out Iran, Mr. Ho.
Look how well our involvement there worked out. The beauty part is that with our "unbiased media" Carter gets blamed for the mess and blowback that other admins caused, primarily the Eisenhower administration. Google Savak, the Shah's secret police and think how Iraq is likley to turn out in a few years.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThe obvious point of having an underground spying program is to avoid oversight.
Like Buschco 'Pioneers' such as the Mercenaries of Blackwater USA?
Oh forgot too bush spin it.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pmThe 'Privatized Security Contractors'..
Who has produced a list of possible American/foreign communications that may have been involved? OR is this prohibited to speculate?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pmSAVAK
Yes Keith H.
We are all having that trouble.
As Judd said yesterday it is primarily due to the spam blocking filters and they are working on it.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:34 pmBuckley,
It's been touched on above, but let's make it clear, here:
If the President can do whatever's necessary to protect the country from terrorists (including ignore the law), and if this program has been survelling only terrorists, and if they've been wiretapping thousands of people (by their own admission), all of whom must ergo be terrorists, then why haven't those thousands of terrorists been arrested?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWell, if it is only aimed at terrorists, or suspected terrorists, then I am concerned because the numbers that have been presented are millions of people are in this net.
Also, when did the Quakers, and the ACLU become terrorists. If a person who expresses their decent with this administration is a terrorists, we have a serious problem and a whole nation (well at least 61% of America) of terrorists.
So you see BSR and all the other supporters, this is the reason why there is such a fuss about this. It has been proven not to be limited and aimed just at suspected terrorists.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#45 Comment by Gary Kleppe — January 24, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
I'm with ya on the issue.
Bush said he would follow the law.
Proof is that he didn't follow the law,
Even when the law gave him allowance to opperate outside those bounds under dertermined boundries.
Yet he still is, by law, required to be tried by his peers in order to be convicted of such crimes.
Untill then, call it what it is.
Warrentless Domestic Spying.
Albeit, all illegal.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pmYet to be deterimned by a court of jis peers.
Has anyone heard that there is an International committee trying to get the Canadian courts to file a claim against Bush and his administrations for war crimes? I havent heard of this and read it and just wanted to see if anyone else heard about this?
I've had a strong feeling for a long time now that there was a clear reason why King George refused to join the World Courtc. Frankly, he needs to be hauled up before them anyway and be held accountable for his war crimes, crimes against humanity, and for his arrogance of power.
Here's to praying (because we've all heard how effective that is from people like Ralph Reed and Pat Roberston) that cases against Bush get filed all over the world.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:37 pmSO Mr hannity, that peace group, in Florida, are you saying Mr hannity that that was not DOMESTIC spying?
Mr Cheney Spies on you Mr Hannity..
Do you think thats Domestic spying?
Or Political? or Propagandistic spying?
Isnt Spying Spying Mr hannity?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:37 pmI guess you could or soon will call it
something like Peeping, or Listenin in
or Watching, hey better yet we can call it
Papprazzi!
Thanks GGG.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:37 pmhttp://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en
January 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThis is nothing but the criminalization of politics.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pmHe’s much more of a smooth operator.
Comment by MLDB #5
MLDB,
Scum Insanity smooth?
You gotta be kiddin' me...
Have you ever seen his modus operandi?
He cuts off his "opposition guests", not allowing them to make any pertinent points...
...then spews out the rght wing talking points like evangelical kids do the "Books of the Bible" at Vacation Bible School...
This guy Scum Insanity and Pus Limphog are the Goebbels and Goering (sic) of the Bushreich...
January 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pmThe Information Marketplace: Merging and Exchanging Consumer DataMerging and Exchanging Consumer Data. Posted: April 30, 2001 ... Recommendation: All entities that collect consumer data for the purpose of selling it to ...
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ftc-info_mktpl.htm - 60k - Cached - Similar pages
Collecting Research Data Online: Implications for Extension ...Collecting consumer data using online surveys. Consumer Interests Annual, [On-line], 49. Available at: http://www.consumerinterests.org/public/articles/ ...
http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/tt1.shtml - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
FTC investigates DoubleClick's data-collection practices | CNET ...FTC investigates DoubleClick's data-collection practices | The Internet's largest ... DoubleClick accused of unlawful consumer data use. January 28, 2000 ...
news.com.com/news/0-1005-200-1551521.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
DoubleClick accused of unlawful consumer data use | CNET News.comDoubleClick accused of unlawful consumer data use | A California woman files a ... and highly intrusive means of collecting and cross-referencing private ...
news.com.com/ DoubleClick+accused+of+unlawful+consumer+data+use/2100-1023_3-236216.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] COLLECTING CONSUMER STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS DATA BY MEANS OF ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
This paper focuses on collecting data on consumer structural ... This data collection is one of the specific topics in the consumer characteristics ...
http://www.energy.ca.gov/marketinfo/documents/98-10_LANG.PDF - Similar pages
Demand Analysis Office - Energy Efficiency DivisionConsumer Data Collection and Planning. DAO collects consumption and load history data, historical and projected prices, and weather pattern data. ...
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/demand_analysis.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from http://www.energy.ca.gov ]
Comments of Beth GivensRecommendation: All entities that collect consumer data for the purpose of selling it to other parties, must be required to clearly explain how the ...
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/ infomktplace/comments/givens.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Separating Static and Surveillance Data CollectionFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Data collection without the express knowledge of the consumer is not a method ... third-party actors at the point of data collection. A consumer shopping ...
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/ infomktplace/comments/berry.pdf - Similar pages
[ More results from http://www.ftc.gov ]
Patents; A method of collecting consumer data renews questions ...Patents; A method of collecting consumer data renews questions about patents on business practices. July 30, 2001, Monday By SABRA CHARTRAND ...
select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract. html?res=F30F16F83B590C738FDDAE0894D9404482 - Similar pages
IAPP - International Association of Privacy Professionals ...And if the company collecting the data isn’t telling the consumer what will happen with their data, the consumer mind is free to think the worst. ...
https://www.privacyassociation.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=125 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
InformationWeek | Data Collection | Customer Data Means Money ...Though the practice of collecting data about consumers is decades old, the Internet ... Consumers may worry because data collection is less obvious online, ...
http://www.informationweek.com/news/ showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6506304 - Similar pages
InformationWeek | Privacy Regulations | Europe's Eye On Privacy ...--Companies must tell consumers how and why personal data is collected and who it's shared with. --Consumers must be able to request their data not be ...
http://www.informationweek.com/news/ showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6506979 - Similar pages
[ More results from http://www.informationweek.com ]
Frequently Asked QuestionsHow are the Consumer Expenditure Survey data collected? 11. How do the Census Bureau and BLS handle respondent confidentiality? ...
http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxfaqs.htm - 52k - Cached - Similar pages
I SPY
January 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pmFor keith H. and others who may be having trouble with the site. I use both IE Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. I find Firefox works better with this site, and many others. You can use both browsers on your PC.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmThe fact is that this is NOT domestic spying, as the calls were being made overseas.
This IS terrorist monitoring
January 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmThis is nothing but the criminalization of politics.
Comment by RPin — January 24, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
If he was using this for political gain that's even more serious.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmGAWD: HOW DO THEY KNOW ITS A TERRORIST BEFORE THEY LISTEN IN? THERE'S NO WAY. HENCE, THEY'RE NOT JUST LISTENING IN ON TERRORISTS. CHRISTOFASCISTS.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pmThis is nothing but the criminalization of politics.
Comment by RPin — January 24, 2006
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pmMark Twain
Gary Ruppert - it IS DOMESTIC SPYING. For your proof, see #28.
Happy reading
January 24th, 2006 at 1:45 pmBlahThefactBlahisBlahthatBlahthisBlahisBlahNOTBlahdomesticBlahspying,BlahasBlahth
BlahThisBlahISBlahBlahterroristBlahmonitoringBlah
Comment by BlahGaryBlah RuppertBlah
Ruppert monitoring and jamming provied by.....
January 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pmit IS DOMESTIC SPYING in various names though.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pmGoogle search consumer data collecting and DOMESTIC SPYING
#32 the president can spy on terrorists all he wants. He can even do so if one end is going to an American… BUT HE MUST REPORT HIS SPYING TO FISA. If he cant let FISA know who he is spying on then he ISNT SPYING ON TERRORISTS.
And NO he does not have the right to spy on Americans just because he is given the right to drop bombs by congress. Those are two totally different things.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#73 The fact is that this is NOT domestic spying, as the calls were being made overseas.
This IS terrorist monitoring
Comment by Gary Ruppert
Gary, do you have proof that this eavesdropping was only on suspected terrorists? We don't either, but with the numbers of Millions of people being monitored I doubt it is just terrorists.
Also, when did the Quakers, and the ACLU become terrorists. If a person who expresses their decent with this administration is a terrorists, we have a serious problem and a whole nation (well at least 61% of America) of terrorists.
So you see BSR and all the other supporters, this is the reason why there is such a fuss about this. It has been proven not to be limited and aimed just at suspected terrorists.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pmThe fact is that this is NOT domestic spying, as the calls were being made overseas.
This IS terrorist monitoring
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 24, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
First of all he admitted to spying on civilian Americans so it is Domestic Spying. Second of all no one knows who was being monitored and if the calls were being made overseas. And according to the FBI most of the information was useless.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#48 Comment by RemoveBush — January 24, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
It is being done, on many fronts.
Here
Here
January 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pmThis is nothing new, sadly. It has been going on since before the days of Sen. McCarthy. We the people have to do this shit every couple of decades. They are like roaches and you have to keep spraying. The Church Commission.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pmYou forgot Ronald Dumbsfeld's "epiphany" that if we don't call the Iraqis insurgents "insurgents", then they aren't insurgents.
San Francisco Chronicle
January 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pmNovember 29, 2005
Rumsfeld: Don't Call Them 'Insurgents'
January 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Gary,
By the definitions found in FISA, it is domestic spying and it is illegal.
Clever wordgames and attempts to split hairs don't move this into legal territory, nor make it OK.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pmHannity is a dope on prozac so who cares what he thinks!
January 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pmMatalin is a nasty Bush lover, so I feel sorry for James Carville her husband! James was once a Democrat advisor with great ideas, but since he married Matalin he has been compromised! His wife uses his own ideas to help the GOP!
GAWD: HOW DO THEY KNOW ITS A TERRORIST BEFORE THEY LISTEN IN? THERE’S NO WAY. HENCE, THEY’RE NOT JUST LISTENING IN ON TERRORISTS. CHRISTOFASCISTS.
Comment by BUSH BITES — January 24, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
I'd be scared to death if our intelligence community cannot identify terrorists without listening to phone conversations. Also, the constitution is required reading before engaging in debate.
And my straw man alert notified me that no one said we can't listen to terrorists.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pmUsing the GOP logic:
Shoplifting = Non-revenue Product Sampling
Robbery = Solicited Fund Transfers
Murder = Extrajudicial Capital Punishment
Lying = Misstated
Dictator = Unified Executive Powers
I would add my own:
Impeachment = National Security Imperative
January 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Just curious--how many "terrorists" have been caught as the result of Bush's domestic spying program?
Oh yeah, and was Usama bin Laden really known as "Tim Osman"?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThe Church Commission
It never ends.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Wendell Phillips
January 24th, 2006 at 1:55 pmWHEN THEY SAY"TRUST ME" I SAY "HELL NO"
January 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pm#32 - You wrote:
1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
A third question also arises: when Congress authorizes the President to use force, isn’t it also authorizing the President to use surreptitious tactics (like electronic surveillance) as well as bunker buster boms?"
Answer #1 - He can, all he has to do is follow the laws and request permission, or get permission after the fact by the FISA court. Not hard to do. Not an onerous task. In the thousands upon thousands of requests, less than 1 percent of 1 percent were ever denied.
Rebuttal #1 - Why can't the President just follow the law? Why must he conduct in illegal actions, then try to claim it's all right to break the laws?
Answer #2 - It doesn't, all he has to do is follow the laws and request permission, or get permission after the fact by the FISA court. Not hard to do. Not an onerous task. In the thousands upon thousands of requests, less than 1 percent of 1 percent were ever denied.
Rebuttal #2 - Why can't the President just follow the law? Why must he conduct in illegal actions, then try to claim it's all right to break the laws?
Answer #3 - I does, provided he follows the laws and requests permission, or gets permission after the fact by the FISA court. Not hard to do. Not an onerous task. In the thousands upon thousands of requests, less than 1 percent of 1 percent were ever denied.
Rebuttal #3 - Why can't the President just follow the law? Why must he conduct in illegal actions, then try to claim it's all right to break the laws?
January 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pmJust curious–how many “terrorists†have been caught as the result of Bush’s domestic spying program?
Oh yeah, and was Usama bin Laden really known as “Tim Osman�
Comment by Preznit_Douchebag — January 24, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
While this is important, it is not the point here. The issue is not "how many terrorists did this catch" it is that the president spied on us.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pm"I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process," Bush said. "We briefed members of the United States Congress ... about this program."
Ok, so I guess the law is not really needed, Bush will just have his lawyers review the matter at issue and brief Congress on their decisions.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pmSponsored Links
U.S. Consumer Database
Receive 15% Off. Call 800-213-9869
200 Million U.S. Consumers.
http://www.infoUSA.com
Consumer Database
Buy precisely targeted databases
Call (877) 247-4770 for quote
http://www.tlclists.com
Consumer Data
Advanced marketing and segmentation
tools that are easy to use
http://www.mapinfo.com
Consumer Marketing Lists
Targeted. Fresh. Hotlists. National
Buy Lists. Append Data. High ROI.
http://www.ClickData.com
Consumer Data
Find Market Research on Consumer
Behavior vendors & more now!
http://www.business.com
Data Collection Tool
Collection and integration of any
datatype, website and application.
http://www.kapowtech.com
Raw Residential Data
Over 190+ million residents and
businesses. Updated monthly.
residentialdatabase.com
Need Consumer Data
Find consumer data now
500,000+ manufacturers online
http://www.SourceTool.com
Collecting Data Info
Articles, Tips, and Information on
Collecting Data - free advice.
BusinessChambers.com
January 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hannity is a dope on prozac so who cares what he thinks!
Matalin is a nasty Bush lover.
And if King George ever paid for his crimes in a fitting manner, would that make him a Dope on a Rope? Or would that only apply when Jeff Gannon attached a leash to George and led him around the Oval Orifice?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pmThe president spied on me?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pmSo who here thinks the ONLY calls and emails monitored were to KNOWN terrorists.
They were pulling down EVERY SINGLE CALL bounced off these satellites. I've read as much from government spooks who've annonymously said stuff to the media.
Really bushies, why you willingly jump into the frypan in the name of your leader is one thing. But don't go doing it thinking you've got our blessing to cheapen the country we live in. Damn! You don't have my permission to run a totalitarian state.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOk, so I guess the law is not really needed, Bush will just have his lawyers review the matter at issue and brief Congress on their decisions.
Comment by Solitaire — January 24, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
It's like everything this administration does. They f*ck it up then send someone across the country to cram their failed policy down our throat instead of doing it right the first time. Mistakes and justification.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Just curious–how many “terrorists†have been caught as the result of Bush’s domestic spying program?
Oh yeah, and was Usama bin Laden really known as “Tim Osman�
Comment by Preznit_Douchebag — January 24, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
While this is important, it is not the point here. The issue is not “how many terrorists did this catch†it is that the president spied on us.
It was a rhetorical question. But the second one wasn't.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:06 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I'm just saying don't let the debate turn into whether or not it was an effective spying program. We have to remember that no matter what this is unconstitutional.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWho Cares if the President is Spying, If you have nothing to Hide, Don,t Worry about it.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:10 pmYou know, I,m starting to sound like a Republican Now, Thats Scary.lol.(not)
January 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pmWho Cares if the President is Spying, If you have nothing to Hide, Don,t Worry about it.
Comment by Flashback — January 24, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
If he has nothing to hide he won't worry about an independent investigation.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pmg.gordon giddy #36...i got only this far, reading the posts, before i had to stop and post this message...when i first saw Little Big Man i was in high school and that movie had a profound affect on me, a small town midwestern white chick of catholic/german/irish roots...i still think of it and recommend it these days - i need to see it again...your post made me realize that...
January 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pmi must also say that it was that movie that cemented my life-long love for dustin hoffman as an amazing actor...it is an amazing movie.
"If they are terrorists, why aren’t they just arrested? You say we’re at war, and don’t you arrest enemy soldiers that are in your country? What you say makes absolutely no rational sense. If you have enough evidence to know they’re a terrorist, then getting a warrant should be no problem."
A terrorist using a cell phone to communicate with someone in the U.S. could be anywhere in the world. That's just part of what makes "getting a warrant" so difficult on some circumstances, and that's why the President, as commander in chief, has to be able to engage in activities that are the fundamental incidents of waging war without seeking permission from Congress or the courts. Of course, in this case, the President advised congressional leaders and the head of the FISA court - and no one opbjected. I'd say he did all he was required to do under the circumstances.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pmMary Matalan looks like a brunette version of that drag queen from Project Runway... Why do these neocon women routinely look like anorexic men in drag? All the bile and avarice of hating combined with the weight of judging everyone is really making them look horribly...
January 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pmI Wonder If Bush Spyed on Delay of Abramoff?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pmOf course, in this case, the President advised congressional leaders and the head of the FISA court - and no one opbjected.
Actually they did
January 24th, 2006 at 2:13 pmSpy Network Raises French Suspicions
PARIS July 5, 2000
The French want to know exactly who might be listening in on their calls, and for what purpose. (AP)
(CBS) A French prosecutor has opened a preliminary investigation into a U.S.-led spy network that has left many Europeans suspicious that their businesses are being monitored, judicial sources said Tuesday.
Paris prosecutor Jean-Pierre Dintilhac in May asked the DST, France's internal security service, to carry out the preliminary inquiry, according to a report in Tuesday's Le Figaro newspaper.
It said Echelon has surveillance-interception stations across the globe that intercept "billions of messages per hour," including telephone calls, fax transmissions and private e-mails.
The report by British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell was presented to the EU assembly. It urged the EU to take action against unwanted interception of communications, insisting that this violated human rights and could be used for industrial espionage.
The United States and Britain have offered reassurances that Echelon is not involved in economic espionage.
But some Europeans remain concerned that the network may be compromising businesses, and many European parliament members have asked for a deeper probe. On Wednesday, EU lawmakers are expected to decide whether to create a temporary inquiry commission on Echelon, Le Figaro said.
Can someone tell me why what Bush is doing is any different from what Clinton did prior to 9/11? Just what was Clinton listening for?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:13 pmBSR-
The president has yet to make the case that the domestic surveillance was confined only to terrorists.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pmRepublicans think that Bush just spies on Democrats, so they think that is cool beans, but they do NOT realize that thugs like Bush spy on their so-called friends first!
The joke is on the GOP, because they are all wiretapped by Bush's NSA Gestapo! I bet Bush has all the info he needs on McCain to keep him a ass-kisser forever > lol.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:16 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Who Cares if the President is Spying, If you have nothing to Hide, Don,t Worry about it.
Comment by Flashback — January 24, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Doesn't the idea of someone watching you creep you out - even a little?
I have nothing to hide, but our culture is one who wants and expects privacy. It's part of our Constitution.
Besides, what's to say that what you think it nothing to hide won't be something someone else considers immoral, and decided to hold it against you in some format? Or broadcast it to the masses?
There just have to be some things that are off limits - and this is a pretty big one. Because once you're okay with them spying on you, before long they will be invading your life in ways you don't want...
January 24th, 2006 at 2:17 pmthat’s why the President, as commander in chief, has to be able to engage in activities that are the fundamental incidents of waging war without seeking permission from Congress or the courts.
If that is your arguement, then how long will this war last since terrorism has been around as long as recorded history? You just said that the President gets unlimited powers indefinitely. And in case you forgot what the president did with pre911 data.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pmWhy do you keep posting this lie?
Are you that stupid?
This has been debunked numerous times, but I will do it one more time for your dumb ass.
Letter from Jay Rockelfeller to Dick Cheney regarding the legallity of the warrantless domestic spying program.
Once and for all people did object to this illegal program.
OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED
January 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pmRepublicans think that Bush just spies on Democrats, so they think that is cool beans, but they do NOT realize that thugs like Bush spy on their so-called friends first!
The joke is on the GOP, because they are all wiretapped by Bush’s NSA Gestapo! I bet Bush has all the info he needs on McCain to keep him a ass-kisser forever
It really pains me to say this, but there are times when I miss 'ol Tricky Dick Nixon.
BushCo makes Mr. Nixon look like a rank amateur!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pmIt's semantics and the gullible press, the gullible media eventually buy it. It's not creationism - it's intelligent design. It's not domestic spying - it's terrorism surveillance. It's not Homeland Security - it's insecurity. It's not clear skies - it's let them pollute the air. It's not the enemy al qaeda, it's the enemy saddam. The list of their propaganda goes on and on.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pmThis is NEWSPEAK, folks. Read 1984 and you will see the future.
The problem is not spying on suspected terrorists, it's who defines terrorist?
According to NSA insider Russell Tice, this illegal domestic spying was being done on millions of Americans, including groups that were peacefully protesting some of Bush's policies. Read it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889
So again, spying on terrorists = ok.
Allowing the Bush admin to define terrorist = dangerous.
Many of the BushCo insiders are throwbacks from the Nixon era (Cheney and Rummy for starters), domestic spying is among their favorite tactics to quiet dissent.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pmHere's the damn letter, so you don't have to click the link.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pmRead 1984 and you will see the future.
Read 1984 and you will see the present.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pmBill - This is about Bush. Quit acting like a 4 year old..... He did it so I can do it. Because someone does something does not mean that everyone else can do it.
Deal with the issue at hand. This obviously was not an issue, or known to the public like it is now. Deal with the issue now, not what happened over 5 years ago.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pmPage 2
January 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmCan someone tell me why what Bush is doing is any different from what Clinton did prior to 9/11? Just what was Clinton listening for?
Comment by Bill — January 24, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
It's not the act that Bush violated... it's the process for carrying out the act that Bush violated. Per the Bill of Rights, he must have a warrant. Clinton got warrants (the process). Bush did not get warrants. The problem is not in spying (the act), but in following the law on obtaining the appropriate warrants first (that whole checks and balances thing...).
January 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI have plenty to hide. I hide every aspect of my personal life, my financial situation, and my relationships. I hide because I no longer trust the government of the United States. I hide because I fear identity theft, I don't want my neighbor to know my political views, because I don't want my church to know my political views, because I don't want my employer to know my political views. I hide my financial status for all of the same reasons. I hide just for the principle of it. I believe in the right to privacy. I don't want to live in the totalitarian government of '1984'. People who have nothing to hide today may boast of that, but when the tables are turned, and the lefties are chasing down the wingers to hang in the back yard, then maybe they might value privacy too. What do you think?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmWhy are the squatting eunuchs so frightened of sh*thead terrorists? Jesus, just go squat in your basement you will be safe there!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pmThe mightiest propaganda machine ever assembled is now kicking into to 5th gear to convince people that the facts are not what they appear.
Bush tells reporters what the top story for the day is. Now we will break out the Orwellian Doublespeak and tell people that scooping up large amounts of information on Americans is not doemstic spying.
Are they going to have some nice Beethoven playing and a large sign that says "Work Makes You Free" over the gate of the labor camps too?
Fucking scary. And all they need is a few supplicants ion the media like Hannity, O'Reilly, Matthews and Limbaugh to tell people what they see and hear is not true.
-GSD
January 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pm1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
One work answer to both: FISA. And it's the law, something Republicans professed to care about when they weren't occupying the White House.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pmYes post 122 > Nixon was a lightweight thug compared to Bush & Cheney! It is obvious that the NSA is spying on the entire nation now and listening to every bit of gossip too!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:27 pmPimple faced NSA agents are eavesdropping on sex chats and getting their rocks off on it > lol.
Can someone tell me why what Bush is doing is any different from what Clinton did prior to 9/11? Just what was Clinton listening for?
Comment by Bill — January 24, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
These are difficult things for many Americans to understand, especially if their only knowledge of criminal procedure in the courts is from Nancy Grace and CourtTV and watching hi-profile celebrity cases like the O.J. Trial.
It's a legal concept called due process, Bill.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pm"Why is FISA the only relevant authority?
Because that’s the law. The Constitution empowers Congress alone with the ability to make the law, and that’s the law they passed."
COMMENT: What if Congress passes an unconstituional law? What if FISA, as applied to the NSA program, encroaches on powers already given to the President under Article II?
"1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
He can. But he has to follow the law, just like everyone else. In fact, even more: he’s taken an oath to carry out the law faithfully."
COMMENT: So, if the President has the inherent power under Article II to conduct surveillance on terrorist communications, his following the law and fulfilling his oath, right?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
Because that’s not what the law says."
COMMENT: You keep referring to FISA as "the law." Congressional enactments are not the only source of "the law." If the Constitution permits electronic surveillance on terrorist communications, or if the AUMF augments the Presdient's inherent constitutional powers, then it doesn't matter what FISA says.
"A third question also arises: when Congress authorizes the President to use force, isn’t it also authorizing the President to use surreptitious tactics (like electronic surveillance) as well as bunker buster boms?
The authorization of force is usually specific, and generally speaking, doesn’t contain wiavers of laws regarding the conduct of the government or armed forces. Those laws must be followed, since the Contitution empowers Congress alone with the ability to set such rules.
If communications intelligence is a fundamental incident of waging war, I think it would be strange to argue that the AUMF authorized President Bush to drop bombs on suspected terrorists, but notr to listen to their conversations.
He can do so, but he has to follow the law."
COMMENT: You cannot cite one legal authority or historical example of your assertions about use of force authorizations or the application of FISA to wartime intelligence. In fact, FISA very well may not apply at all to wartime intelligence, whereas you assert, without any supporting authroity, that the President must comply with FISA even during wartime. That would turn the President's exclusive constitutional powers as commander in chief inside out, and make them meaningless without prior compliance with congressional and judicial restrictions. Somehow, I doubt that this was the standard that applied when FDR was intercepting Japanes electronic communications during World War II.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:42 pmAs the link above indicates, the legal doctrine of due process comes down to us from the Magna Carta, 1215. Bush is reversing 800 years of legal progress and precedent because he is power mad and wants to spy on his political enemies. This has nothing to do with protecting us. It's about protecting Bush and the fascists who have hijacked this country. And by fascists, I mean the classical definition of FASCISM. The marriage of business and government.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:43 pm"Impeachment hearings are coming. They know it. Maybe even before the midterm elections."
This is music to my ears. The more voters realize that the true purpose of all this nonsense is to gin up talk of impeaching the President, the more likely the Democrats are to lose seats in Congress.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pmI wonder if due process will carry the day? I wonder if anyone is going to have the integrity to pin this guy down in a court or in Congress? Most people I know think he's going to get away with it. Most people I know don't think the law will be able to stop the guy with the guns.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pmShorter BSR: All of a sudden I'm a judicial activist and original intent is bullshit!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#111 - You wrote:
Of course, in this case, the President advised congressional leaders and the head of the FISA court - and no one opbjected.
I'm sure you'll be able to give a source for this, correct? Not just some radical right-winger who says it just because he’s trying to cover for Pres. Bush’s illegal activities of not seeking legal permission.
You’ll understand if I don’t hold my breath. While I’m sure you WANT this to be true, it’s probably more of the same: lies to cover for illegal acts.
Face it, the President broke the laws. It’s too bad he refuses to take personal responsibility for his own actions. That would be too much to ask for, a Republican that takes personal responsibility for his/her actions.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pmA third question also arises: when Congress authorizes the President to use force, isn’t it also authorizing the President to use surreptitious tactics (like electronic surveillance) as well as bunker buster boms?
Comment by Blue State Red #32
Fools State inbRed,
Many members of Congress who've had that question put to them (Brownback, Graham, McCain and others) have answered it in the negative...
You're a traitor and should be Vladed...
January 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmThis is Funny:
From : Thinkprogress
Sent : Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:01 PM
To : "flashback" Subject : RE: A message from the ThinkProgress.org website
| | | Inbox
No. The site is bugged today. We are working on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: flashback
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:38 PM
To: Thinkprogress
Subject: A message from the ThinkProgress.org website
Why am I getting Wordpress error Msgs?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmHave I been Banned?
This is music to my ears. The more voters realize that the true purpose of all this nonsense is to gin up talk of impeaching the President, the more likely the Democrats are to lose seats in Congress.
Comment by Blue State Red
Hey dipshitz,
That's the Washington Times. Are they a liberal biased media organ?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmBSR - 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.
Note the first line of this law. This means that he cannot break the law no matter what, and FISA is LAW. No if’s, and’s, or but’s. GET IT - GOT IT - GOOD.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 Prev | Next
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Release date: 2005-03-17
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:48 pmVladed…
You know where they put that stake bigpapa?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:49 pmDemocrat Soldier,
I have posted images of Jay Rockefeller's letter to Dick Cheney objecting to the illegal domestic wiretapping.
There is no need for BSR to post anything about her lies, because they have already been debunked officially. She is incorrect and posting lies, which is typical for the trolls here.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:49 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
BSR - You keep asking for us to provide you with proof that the president can't do what he is doing. WE HAVE. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT HE CAN.
Show me where in the Constitution or in any LAW that states he can spy on American citizens, in war or anythime.
SHOW ME!!!!!!!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#136
Nice, now we have eunuch "basement lawyers" squatting on constitutional law. You will be safe in your basements eunuchs. We will get the little girl next door to bring you soup, and she will let you know when it is safe to be an American again.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pm"Here’s the damn letter . . .
So Jay Rockefeller penned a personal CYA letter to the Vice-President, then locked it in his safe for two and a half years. So what? That's not exactly a resounding objection to the NSA program, is it? Sen. Rockefeller permitted the program to continue all during that time (July 2003 to December 2005) without so much as a peep of a suggestion that it was wrong, or that Congress or the courts had a right to intervene. I'd say that speaks volumes about the President's power to conduct this terrorist surveillance, and about his good faith in doing so, regardless of the source of his power.
BTW, it also says something about Sen. Rockefeller: If the fever swamp Left is right to characterize this program as a massive violation of American civil liberties, then Jay Rockefeller obviously was willing to sacrifice those same liberties for the sake of preserving his own political skin. What a hero!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pmBSR,
It is clear that you have no respect for the Constitution or our laws. Your argument that in the "time of war", which we are NOT in by the way, that laws do not apply is so incredibly absurd that it is impossible to respond. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. There is not a grey area about this. If laws can be suspended at any time then they are not laws, they are edicts subject to change outside of the scope or control of the governed. This structure that you desire is not based upon our constitution and instead is a dictatorship.
I can go on and on about how your fear is being exploited to control you. I can cite quote after quote of revered Americans such as George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt that address the importance of elevating laws above men, of not surrendering freedoms and liberties for any reason, and not being controlled by fear. However, I know that these will fall upon deaf ears because I have already quoted them to you specifically many times.
I could not have imagined that in my lifetime I would see our government taken hostage by a corrupt and incompetent regime. Nor could I have imagined that so many Americans would adopt such counter-constitutional stances as to even discuss surrendering their rights for security against an invisible and undefined enemy. And not in my wildest dreams could I have foreseen that friends, family, neighbors, and countrymen – people that I grew up with and attended school with – would baselessly and maliciously compare me to Osama Bin Laden, an enemy of this country and an international criminal, just because I have differing political views.
My greatest concern, BSR, is that you will get the country that you are hoping for. The irony is, though, that when it comes about you will blame everyone but yourself for the horrors that will come with it.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSpying can be Traced soooo Far Back, Long Before America Was ever Discovered.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pmHell, Americas Been Spying on China For Ages, and Russia, and, and ,and...
THis is NOT News.
Spying In America Gos all the way Back to Columbus when He First Spyed On Indians.
Lewis and Clark were Spys, Just a Different Name, Thats all. They were called Exploreers, or Pioneers, Exploring is Spying. Different name same results.
#136 – “Your Comment: What if Congress passes an unconstituional law? What if FISA, as applied to the NSA program, encroaches on powers already given to the President under Article II?â€
So, what’s the unconstitutional law that Congress passed? Can’t name it, can you? Could it be because this is a straw man argument? I think you now the answer to that one. The FISA law doesn’t encroach on Presidential powers, it requests that the President get the court FISA to approve the domestic spying. Since less than 1 percent of 1 percent of all requests have ever been denied, this isn’t going to hamstring his powers.
“Your Comment: So, if the President has the inherent power under Article II to conduct surveillance on terrorist communications, his following the law and fulfilling his oath, right?â€
You’re forgetting that the law stipulates that he had to get the FISA court’s approval. He doesn’t even have to do it in advance! Al he has to do is ask for permission AFTER THE FACT! Why are you ignoring the revolving door that is the FISA court and that is the law? Could it be because what Pres. Bush did was unconstitutional? I think you know the answer to that is ‘yes’ but you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
“Your Comment: You keep referring to FISA as “the law.†Congressional enactments are not the only source of “the law.†If the Constitution permits electronic surveillance on terrorist communications, or if the AUMF augments the Presdient’s inherent constitutional powers, then it doesn’t matter what FISA says.â€
You’re right, Congress doesn’t enact every single law. The FISA requirements were defined and passed by who??? The Republican Controlled Congress! The FISA requirements were signed by who? President Clinton! The FISA requirements were mentioned as LAW by WHO????? President Bush!
Why would he say he was following the FISA law, and that it was a good law, then turn around and break that same law?!? Because he’s WRONG, and he knows it.
Your tortured logic just shows why the Republican party is the most corrupt and unethical party around. I look forward to the Republican party soon becoming the MINORITY party.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:57 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Well, Mr. Hannity, this is also not about only Democrats criticizing the warrantless wiretaps. There are prominent Republicans that have criticized it as well, but I certainly didn't hear that on Faux News last night.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
BSR:
This is being Vladed for you and Bush. See you in 2006. Briefly, and then never, ever again.
36%
January 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pmCOMMENT: What if Congress passes an unconstituional law? What if FISA, as applied to the NSA program, encroaches on powers already given to the President under Article II?
What if the president violated the constitutional law? What if he encroached on our civil liberties without probable cause?
COMMENT: You cannot cite one legal authority or historical example of your assertions about use of force authorizations or the application of FISA to wartime intelligence.
The only legal authority you are citing is the precarious AUMF line that doesn't hold water against an amendement of the Constitution and a court of the land.
In fact, FISA very well may not apply at all to wartime intelligence, whereas you assert, without any supporting authroity, that the President must comply with FISA even during wartime.
Then why did he bother to use it at all?
That would turn the President’s exclusive constitutional powers as commander in chief inside out, and make them meaningless without prior compliance with congressional and judicial restrictions.
It's actually called checks and balances - essential to American government.
Somehow, I doubt that this was the standard that applied when FDR was intercepting Japanes electronic communications during World War II.
I doubt FDR would have ignored warnings that terrorists were about to bomb the US, which this administration did.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pm"Show me where in the Constitution or in any LAW that states he can spy on American citizens, in war or anythime."
This is the easiest challenge of all, because it's all been done before, long before FISA ever was enacted.
Fact: Before World War II the U.S. broke the Japanese diplomatic code, so that we were able to decipher Japanese electronic communications into America almost faster that the Japanese ambassador himself. This was done without any warrant, and without any statutory enactment, because under the constitution the President is in charge of foreign policy.
Fact: During World War II the U.S. broke the Japanese militray code, so that we were able, among other things, to know in advance their plans to attack Midway Island. This was done without any warrant, and without any statutory enactment, because under the constitution the President is in charge of fighting wars. Moreover, it led to our first significant victory in the Pacific theater.
Conclusion: Both the constitution and historic precedent support the President's position in this case.
Next Challenge?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pmFlashback is some other spammer who changed his name. That name escapes me but the posts are recognizable.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pmFlashback
We know you are a boychild (12-14 sounds about right) from your incoherent postings.
Blue state
How did you get this far in life being so afraid? Christ boy, grow a backbone.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pmBSR:
Your facts are questionable, as usual. If I am not mistaken it was the Japanese naval code that was broken by Enigma.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pmFlashback is harmless. He breaks up the monotony of BSRuppertIRI and lends some comic relief.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmFact: Before World War II the U.S. broke the Japanese diplomatic code, so that we were able to decipher Japanese electronic communications into America almost faster that the Japanese ambassador himself. This was done without any warrant, and without any statutory enactment, because under the constitution the President is in charge of foreign policy.
I'm tired of your straw men. NO ONE IS SAYING WE CAN'T LISTEN TO TERRORISTS PHONE CALLS!!! We are saying he has to follow guidelines in a court set up after WW2. Please get your facts straight.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pm“Impeachment hearings are coming. They know it. Maybe even before the midterm elections.â€
Tell me - exactly which members of congress are proposing these hearings? You guys couldn't even lay a finger on Alito. Shouldn't that be telling you something? (Hint: You've lost your power, you guys are the minority)
January 24th, 2006 at 3:09 pm"We didn't have to go to this court in World War Two before the court was created, so why should we have to now?"
January 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pmBuckley
They are so frightened of terrorists that they are willing to have someone else "protect" them from liberty.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pmBSR - You still have not provided any FACTS. SHOW ME THE PROOF. Just because you say it was done in the past, does not mean it was legal. Also, these other time were different and not similar. First WWII they were not spying on AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE US. What does someone have to do to get that through your pea brain.
Show me in the LAWS OR CONSTITITION. If you cannot, then stop with this nonsense. I have, and others as well, showed you where the LAW AND CONSTITUTION says the President cannot do these things.
SHOW ME THE PROOF, not just your idea of what is proof. Show me the lines that says this "inherent authority". SHOW ME.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pmBTW, it also says something about Sen. Rockefeller: If the fever swamp Left is right to characterize this program as a massive violation of American civil liberties, then Jay Rockefeller obviously was willing to sacrifice those same liberties for the sake of preserving his own political skin. What a hero!
Comment by Blue State Red — January 24, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Well No DUH. This is what I have been saying ALL along BSR. BOTH parties are corrupted and collude behind closed doors, now that you have seen the "light" perhaps now you will drop the Party Leanings and describe them as what they are;
Greedy self serving liars
January 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pmAnd I am glad you brought that up, BSR, because even though we had the capability to intercept some, not all of the Japanese radio traffic and decode even less, it didn't stop Pearl Harbor, did it?
Enigma
The Japanese had a similar encryption system, all the axis powers did I believe.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pmRight Bill
I'm sure you are out of breath from that little rant. We shall see about Alito eunuch. Now, squat back into your hole.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pmTell me - exactly which members of congress are proposing these hearings? You guys couldn’t even lay a finger on Alito. Shouldn’t that be telling you something? (Hint: You’ve lost your power, you guys are the minority)
Comment by Bill
It's not the Democrats you have to worry about. It's the real conservatives. They are mostly Republicans, I believe.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pmTell me - exactly which members of congress are proposing these hearings? You guys couldn’t even lay a finger on Alito. Shouldn’t that be telling you something? (Hint: You’ve lost your power, you guys are the minority)
Comment by Bill — January 24, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Considering that Specter, Hagel, Snowe, and Simmons are among the GOPs against it (not to mention a mandate from the public) I think we are making good headway.
Alito and Domestic Spying? Like comparing apples and orange construction cones.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm"I doubt FDR would have ignored warnings that terrorists were about to bomb the US, which this administration did."
Oh, I see. Then why was a congressional investigation, and a significant amount of subsequent analysis by historians, devoted to determining whther FDR should have known about Pearl Harbor in advance?
This is, of course, beside the point. The point, which no one has yet refuted, is that FDR conducted surveillance on enemy communciations without prior congressional or judicial approval. President Bush has the same powers, plus those conferred on him under the AUMF, and he has applied them to surveillance of terrorist communications.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pmThis is, of course, beside the point. The point, which no one has yet refuted, is that FDR conducted surveillance on enemy communciations without prior congressional or judicial approval. President Bush has the same powers, plus those conferred on him under the AUMF, and he has applied them to surveillance of terrorist communications.
Comment by Blue State Red — January 24, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Actually the point is that FISA wasn't around during WWII so get a new argument.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBSR - RE #175 The FISA law was not enacted at that time.... GEEZE go back to school and try and learn something. How can he break a law that does not exist yet?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmJesus Blue state eunuch
FISA can out of watergate, not WWII. The supreme court started to take action after the war. Childlike arguments do not need to be refuted.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmThese idiots, (Bushco), want us to believe this is a John Wayne movie. Terrists will use cell phones, speak english and talk openly about their plans to blow shit up, no code.
As I have pointed out before, they don't even use wiretap tapes in OC RICO prosecutions as exhibits for a jury. No jury can make heads nor tails of what the parties are saying, and they are speaking Sopranos style New Joisey english.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmCitizen80203
January 24th, 2006 at 3:19 pmAfter spending 21 1/2 years in the army, I have come to the conclusion that we have no freedoms. only those in power have freedoms.
i,ve seen some sites that would make even you cry.
Iwas in Operation Provide hope in Mogadishu, Africa, Operation Provide comfort in Cuba, Operaion Desert shield/storm, And lastly, Kandahar Afganistan. The hardest thing I ever had to deal with in life was one of My Daughters Joining the Army right at the height (6 months before)911 And She being sent to Iraq. I never trusted Bush to be a Leader. But, I didnt like Clinton Much Either. He Allowed the Dont ask Dont tell policies that corrupted the Military .
Gordon
It is their cowardice that really annoys me.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pm"SHOW ME THE PROOF, not just your idea of what is proof. Show me the lines that says this “inherent authorityâ€. SHOW ME."
I have given you legal authorities (the Constitution and AUMF) and historic precedents (World War II). If you haven't read the relevant cases and history in this area then you need to do so. Quit demanding that others teach you chapter and verse of what you already should know. Your ignorance is appalling.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThey are like strident spoiled, bad-tempered, children, aren't they Citizen? Brats.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pmFlashback
Look eunuch I fought in the Gulf, so please spare me your tripe.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pma 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.
-Bush
January 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pmNice try but bush spied on Peacegroups and even cheney spied on his own state office, thats loaded with AEI people.
And you are now calling Cheney a terrorist, or the State Dept People? Say what about that Franklin Spy BSR?
Why didnt BUSH or Cheney catch Him?
Why BSR, was the program that found 3 of the 5 SAUDI terrorist cells Hushed up? They WERE tracking terrorists. But Silenced before 911.
YOUR case BSR is moot and pointless, Bush cheney spied and lied, you can try to spin this for the next three years, if Baby george doesnt give up and QUIT, like he has everything else.
TILL then keep spinning, it only helps Bushco self implode, and proves the Liars that they are
January 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pmI have given you legal authorities (the Constitution and AUMF)
Please refer to the fourth amendment.
historic precedents (World War II)
Debunked
Once again you are only left with the precarious AUMF which still doesn't explain why he used FISA if it happered his terrorist hunting expedition.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmBSR your an idiot! You provide ABSOLUTELY no proof. Then you call me ignorant.
You speak of precedents, but the presidents you speak of are in a time when laws that are in place now did not exist. New laws replace any precidents you moronic idiot.
What grade did you graduate from? The 3rd grade?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmTHE WAR IS JUST PLAIN WRONG, ILLEGAL,,IMMORAL,, UNJUSTIFIED,,AND CRIMINAL. If you Dont believe that , then YOU Need to go OVER There and See for yourselves.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmI,ve allready seen it.
Gordon
It is their cowardice that really annoys me.
Comment by Citizen80203
It's their aims and goals that really make me want to go to war.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmActually Blue state eununch
Your ignorance of ConLaw is appalling
January 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pm"Actually the point is that FISA wasn’t around during WWII so get a new argument."
No, the point is that the anti-war fever swamp was far smaller, and far less vocal, during World War II. As Gov. Thomas Dewey (R-NY) said at the time, "I would rather lose the election and win the war than vice versa." When was the last time anyone on this site said that?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmYou guys are really out of the mainstream if you think that Republicans are going to remove Bush from office. Maybe that sort of thing happens in your little fantasy world, but how on earth do you think you are going to get 67 senators to vote to remove? The talk of impeachment is pretty much limited to these wacko leftist websites.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:26 pmDid you Serve recently? No.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pmNo, the point is that the anti-war fever swamp was far smaller, and far less vocal, during World War II. As Gov. Thomas Dewey (R-NY) said at the time, “I would rather lose the election and win the war than vice versa.†When was the last time anyone on this site said that?
Comment by Blue State Red — January 24, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
So now Thomas Dewey's personal statement is law? I fail to see the point you are making other than agreeing that FISA was not around during WW2 and cannot be cited as precedence.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pmFortunately for them, they always overreach and end up being hoist by their own petard. Otherwise bigpapa and I would get to "Vlad" them with a bayonet someday.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pmYou guys are really out of the mainstream if you think that Republicans are going to remove Bush from office. Maybe that sort of thing happens in your little fantasy world, but how on earth do you think you are going to get 67 senators to vote to remove? The talk of impeachment is pretty much limited to these wacko leftist websites.
Comment by Bill — January 24, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Out of the mainstream, huh?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pmYour ignorance is appalling.
Comment by Blue State Red — January 24, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Appaling is someone whom thinks Law school made them intelligent. Funny that most of Congressional Crooks are Lawyers, not to mention the Blame game Pundits, You call these People Smart BSR?
Pretty stupid to Lie for money isnt it?
Of course a Lawyer will lie for money, that about right BSR?
Laws dont make morals, as we can see by the Congress, is that about right?
Abramoff also was One wasnt he?
Lawyers think they are smart, but as anyone knows any idiot can steal or lie.So lawyers are smart Liars? And you approve of Senators taking money? Wow.
What a Hypocrite you are BSR
January 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pmWow, this BSR person is being thoroughly embarassed in this thread. The ignorance is breathtaking.
Keep pounding on the cowards all, it may not sink in, but they'll never be able to say they weren't warned.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pmThe fact is that this is NOT domestic spying, as the calls were being made overseas.
This IS terrorist monitoring
Without saying the President or one of his enablers said so, how do you prove that statement?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pmYOU WILL NEVER WIN ANOTHER WAR EVER AGAIN, I PROMISE YOU THAT ! MARK MY WORDS, MOTHER NATURE WILL TAKE OUT AMERICA(EARTHQUAKE OF A MEGA SIZE).
January 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pmhttp://www.usgs.gov/
The talk of impeachment is pretty much limited to these wacko leftist websites.
Comment by Bill — January 24, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
The Rhetoric of Bush is oft Repeated by Rabid ankle biters whom Believe simply what they are told.
Besides BILL, The Majority of America is NON PARTISANm, I guess you missed that FACT.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pmUsing the GOP logic:
Shoplifting = Non-revenue Product Sampling
Robbery = Solicited Fund Transfers
Murder = Extrajudicial Capital Punishment
Lying = Misstated
Dictator = Unified Executive Powers
I would add my own:
Impeachment = National Security Imperative
Pure gold. I would humbly add:
Humiliating defeat = victory
January 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pmDisenfranchisement = preventing opposition victory
Truth = whatever polished turd the rubes will swallow
For all the fever swampers obsessing about FISA as "the law" here is what the FISA Court of Review, the special court of appeals charged with hearing appeals of decisions by the FISA court, stated in 2002: "We take for granted that the President does have that [inherent] authority." The same court also said, "assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."
Next challenge?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pmterrorists = Quakers and ACLU
January 24th, 2006 at 3:41 pmmission accomplished = well, at least a few more years
heckuva job brownie = You really screwed up here
medicare drug plan = handout to insurance and pharmecutical companies
Using the GOP logic:
Shoplifting = Non-revenue Product Sampling
Robbery = Solicited Fund Transfers
Murder = Extrajudicial Capital Punishment
Lying = Misstated
Dictator = Unified Executive Powers
I would add my own:
Impeachment = National Security Imperative
Pure gold. I would humbly add:
Humiliating defeat = victory
Disenfranchisement = preventing opposition victory
Truth = whatever polished turd the rubes will swallow
Comment by David
So good it bears repeating.
The Nation's Dictionary of Republicanisms.
Send yours in, David.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:41 pmBlue State Red, Can you tell me why Bush refuses to seek warrants within the 72-hours granted him? And saying because he might have been turned down doesn’t cut it. If he has no problem defying the law by not getting warrants, he would have no trouble defying it if the warrants were refused.
This is my fifth time posting this question, 2nd time directly to BSR, and I STILL haven't gotten a response.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:41 pmYou will never get a response from him, Lily. This is a Bush Town Hall Meeting and you haven't been properly screened and vetted. Throw him a softball, like "Isn't Bush manly in his flight suit?" ::::swoon::::
January 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pmBecause that’s not what the law says.â€
COMMENT: You keep referring to FISA as “the law.†Congressional enactments are not the only source of “the law.â€
You act like republicans have some deeper understanding of what the law is - but you aren't able to buttress this assertion with any facts. Why?
The fact is Bush just like Reagan before him viewed "the law" as an political inconvienience; remember the Boland amendment?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI am tired of people calling what I write a Post.
This is not Post, it is just some letters randomly arranged on an HTML web page.
Post my ass.......
January 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#208 I....I just can't bring myself to say things like that. I'm not strong enough, especially in the stomach.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pmJanuary 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
For all the fever swampers obsessing about FISA as “the law†here is what the FISA Court of Review, the special court of appeals charged with hearing appeals of decisions by the FISA court, stated in 2002: “We take for granted that the President does have that [inherent] authority.†The same court also said, “assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.â€
Please take time to understand issues before copying and pasting. You base your arguments on things "taken for granted" and "assumptions?" You have not defined your inherent authority. If it is to spy on Americans without a warrant (refer to minimal amount of warrants rejected from FISA), that encroaches on our Constitutional rights - not the presidents.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pmBSR - How about posting the entire portion you are trying to say supports your claim? I can cut a document up to support what ever I want. How about the facts?
Again!!!! SHOW ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS!!! Show me where the constitution says the president can spy on Americans without a warrant. SHOW ME OR SHUT UP.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pmLily, you are not getting an answer because there has been no answer on that question from BushCo. As soon as they come up with something, I'm sure that BSR will be able to spew it at you.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pmSHOW ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS!!!
Comment by RemoveBush — January 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
They can't RemoveBush. (why do I get the urge to chant your name over and over?).
That would be because there is NONE.
PERIOD.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmAnd just to keep everyone up to date on facts to rebut trolls.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmSolitaire, good point. I hadn't thought of that. TY
January 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pm"You cannot wiretap in the United States without a warrant.
It doesnt matter if he (Bush) asked congress.
It's not legal."
Kate Martin
January 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pmDirector CNSS
Center for National Security Studies
1-24-2006
WORFEUS, I know but I want to challenge their tiny brains. Maybe while trying to find this information, they might start to realize that they are really in a situation much worse than they originally thought.
If we can make them think and provide the evidence and proof, this will start to turn some lights on.
So far, all I see is a bunch of houses with a bunch of burned out bulbs.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI see, I see.
Lets see if we can help them with that journey into the light.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pmDoesn't it seem odd that people such as Mary Matlin, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Ken Melhman, etc. claim to be experts on every aspect of the NSA's spying program? My understanding was that the program was SO secret they didn't even fully brief the members of the Senate Intelligence committees on it. I guess Matlin et al received a special briefing at which they were given the names of all people spied on to date by the NSA so they could determine definitively that it wasn't strictly "domestic"? Hmmm
January 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pmA legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."
Scott Shane
January 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pmNew York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18
g.gordon giddy #36…i got only this far, reading the posts, before i had to stop and post this message…when i first saw Little Big Man i was in high school and that movie had a profound affect on me, a small town midwestern white chick of catholic/german/irish roots…i still think of it and recommend it these days - i need to see it again…your post made me realize that…
i must also say that it was that movie that cemented my life-long love for dustin hoffman as an amazing actor…it is an amazing movie.
Comment by katy
I think it's really Thomas Berger, the author, and the John Milius screenplay that deserve some credit as well. Dustin won the best actor Oscar that year for his role, I believe. Thomas Berger is my favorite American author. Most folks don't even know who he is.
BSR, your post about the US having broken the Japanese Diplomatic code....
LOL! You are so out of it dude!
January 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pmâ€At best it's a weak argument. At worst it's a silly argumentâ€
Former Federal Prosecutor Richard Sauber
January 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pm1-20-2006
"Any first year law student can see this argument is specious"
US Congressman Chris Van Hollen
January 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pm1-20-2006
For what it's worth...
The Reader of Gentlemen's Mail: Herbert O. Yardley and the Birth of American Intelligence
From the website of the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article13.html
BSR,
Maybe if you had your facts straight before you came here... you wouldn't bother.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pmSpecious by the way for the right wingers here who may have literary challenges means the following;
False
Hollow
Baseless
Unfounded
Phony
A Sham
Bogus
Incorrect
Untrue
Unsound
Misleading
Spurious
Deceptive
January 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pm"Making their argument longer does not make it better"
US Congressman Chris Van Hollen
January 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pm1-20-2006
Are you that fvcking stupid or do you have trouble reading shit that is right in front of you. The letter is dated July 2003.
The people that were told about the problems were gagged. Do you know what that means? It means they can't talk about it.
You are a fvcking retarded a$$hole.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pmNo, there wasn't out cries of foul because we were fighting a real war, not one made up in the minds of the chicken shit republicans. How does it feel to be such a chicken shit fraidy cat?
January 24th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSpudgeboy,
I feel your frustration and anger. We all do, but it only serves to upset you and it is part of their intent. Wait until you can draw blood, either at the polls, or the ramparts, before you let them get you angry. Stay cheerful here, it drives them crazy.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:23 pmNothing makes me as happy as drawing blood from a tight-ass conservatard with a baseball bat upside the head.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:26 pmG. Gordon Giddy,
Here is the cool part. I am in a great mood. I actually am asking a serious question when I ask BSR if she is really the fvcking stupid. It blows my mind how dumb these trolls are.
Really, I picture this every time:
January 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#In all the bloviating on this subject I have yet to see or hear any explanation of the following:
1. Why can’t the President order surveillance on terrorist communications in a time of war declared on us by terrorists?
2. Why should the fact that one end of a terrorist communication be a U.S. resident immunize that communication from surveillance?
It seems to me that surveillance on communications involving terrorists who have declared war on America should fall within what the Hamdi case called the “fundamental incidents of waging war.†It also seems to me that terrorist communications with people inside the U.S. should be cause for increased, not decreased, surveillance.
Is there a respectable argument to the contrary that does not result in reduced national security?
Comment by Blue State Red — January 24, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Except the 'OTHER END' of the Call may be 'TAPPED' from the UK in the menwith hill station and that becomes the spying end of the FOREIGN connection,.
Think About that
BSR you are also lacking in Electronics Programs have been in Place since the 70s. Nixon tried it and got caught. Peeping george as Well,. But trying to Prove thru LAWS doesnt matter, after all BILL was impeached, that was later overturned. Menwith Hill was built with no public congressional approval. Bush DIDNT need to SPY. It was already being done..
Ergo Bush is fibbing.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThe people that were told about the problems were gagged. Do you know what that means? It means they can’t talk about it.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 24, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
UREKA! We struck GOLD!
Finally someone summarized it correctly.
Does everybody get it?
HE WAS GAGGED using the CLASSIFIED INFORMATION rules.
HE WAS GAGGED.
So he wrote a CYA letter.
I would have written one too.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pmOf course he was gagged. He would have run afoul of the same laws and constraints as Fitzgerald, or anyone else when discussing CLASSIFIED information! This is probably why Fitzgerald would not comment on Plame's status in public. Of course she was a NOC, he could not confirm that then, or perhaps, even now, without being subject to prosecution himself.
January 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pmDrew Blood, Phlebotomist?
Hahaha!
January 24th, 2006 at 4:47 pmOK, I'm gonna tell you all something you probably know by now.
I really like Sci-Fi. Lately, the discussions between the pro-bushco forces (henceforth referred to as: bushies) and the progressive's on the board (henceforth referred to as: the sane saving grace of these United States) have come to parallel some of the junk I watch on the Sci-Fi network.
Really, I mean this. Just look, the bushies are akin to the Ori (or is it houri) in the newest season of Stargate. They require people to worship them and gain all their power from the energy of these worshipers (who they suck all the power from and spit out when done).
But the bushies also remind me of the Wraiths in the Stargate: Atlantis show. Now, I don't like that one so much, but I tape it and fast forward through it mostly. The principle characters are to Seinfeld to be considered real, but then again it's science FICTION. Anyhow, bushies remind me of the Wraiths because they love to sow chaos and they directly feed off the life energy of the people they subvert, thus killing the people they subvert.
It's completely useless to try to engage in a diologue with either force(ori or wraith). They don't really care WHAT you think, they just want to piss you off and then suck your life energy.
So remember all you Sane Saving Grace of these United States folks, don't get wrapped up in giving too much thought about what most of the bushies post here, because basically they are just life energy sucking trolls bent on leading you to chaos. Let's not make their job any easier by throwing ourselves into the hungry maw's of their needs.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pmI used to be a big Sci-fi fan. Now I like westerns. Sci-Fi is just westerns in outer space and the future anyway, and since the advent of special effects, few sci-fi writers can manage what the greats like Phillip K. Dick, Cordwainer Smith, Frank Herbert, Gordon Dickson, Bradbury, Harlan Ellison and even Heinlein, who all the wingers misunderstand, to name a few, used to come up with. Bushco are the cattle barons and the railroad barons. We are the sheepherders, the pioneers, the settlers, the open rangers, Wyatt Earp and Jesse James. Wyatt Earp was an advocate of gun control. That's what the shoot-out at the OK Corral was ostensibly about.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#161, G. Gordon Liddy: The new "Flashback" persona (posts 153, 155, 157)is the old "No Freedom".
January 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pmLying = Misstated
Nah. "Lying" = "Inartfully phrased"
Cheers,
January 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm#161, G. Gordon Liddy: The new “Flashback†persona (posts 153, 155, 157)is the old “No Freedomâ€.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Oh yeah!
Thank you, Jane. I knew his style was familiar. He's harmless. Only slightly less deranged than I am.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI almost forgot. We are the indians and Bushco is Custer.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pmBSR
January 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmThe FISA law was written in the 70's after the abuse of power for political purposes by RM Nixon. To cite offenses against the Constitution in WWI and WWII is sort of irrelevant now, not because they weren't wrong - they were - but the law was fixed by Congress in the 19070's and provided for immediate searches (72 hours later for warrants), provided for two weeks' delay in the event of an attack or disaster, provided for contingencies in surveillance. The issue today is that Bush could have and should have obtained warrants for his searches; probably cause was all he needed and in thousands of instances, the warrants were granted (they were denied in 3 or 4 cases only, in the past 30 years). Bush brings question into the picture because he failed to observe the law and get a warrant before surveilling nor within the 72 hour period. Why did he not do so? If they believed they were within the law, there was no reason not to do so. If they were outside of the law in who they wanted to search, they knew they would be denied, so they did not go to the court.
So who were they surveilling - that they didn't get the warrant?
Bush violated the existing FISA law - he either had to get a warrant or he had to appeal to his Republican Congress to change the FISA to include what he wanted. He did neither.
BSR:
A terrorist using a cell phone to communicate with someone in the U.S. could be anywhere in the world. That’s just part of what makes “getting a warrant†so difficult on some circumstances,
Ummmm, what you're saying is that it's hard technically to do the intercept. Even if true, that has nothing> to do with how hard it is to get the warrant. If they can manage to do the intercept, they can sure as hell get a warrant to do so ... even after the fact ... if they have probable cause.
But nice try to confuse the issue. I'd say, get back to your masters and ask for newer, better "talking points".
Cheers,
January 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmRemember that before 9/11, the govt. KNEW that two al qaeda operatives were in the U.S. They did nothing.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:59 pmComment by Spudge_Boy #234
OOOOOhhhh Spudge,
IRI's gonna be soooo mad...
Where'd you get that picture of his mama?
January 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pmKindness, glad to see another Stargate fan. Yes, when the Ori (their religion is called "Origin") appeared with their "worship us or die" demands, we immediately saw the similarities to both the Bush administration and right-wing religious leaders. Great parallel.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:08 pmNext Challenge?
Comment by Blue State Red #160
Blue Stained Dress,
You must've been raised by moles...
January 24th, 2006 at 6:10 pmSince we are on TV shows now, did any of you notice that the CTU mole who thouhgt he was working for the White House was there to let a guy come in and install an ILLEGAL WIRETAP in CTU?
The other blatant similarity on 24 is that the president in 24 is completely clueless as to what is going on in his own administration.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:28 pmBRS:
COMMENT: What if Congress passes an unconstituional law? What if FISA, as applied to the NSA program, encroaches on powers already given to the President under Article II?
If he disagrees with the law, he can choose to disobey it ... just like any other person can, you, me, or the milkman. He may think, just as we may in our own particular instances, that the law is unconstitutional. He may even argue that point, and if he wins in court, he gets off ... just as you or I would. But if he's found to be wrong by the courts, he's still a law-breaker, just as you or I would be. And I hate to point this out, but most people that argue laws unconstitutional are not very successful; it's a hard burden to prove as the legislature usually does a pretty good job of avoiding controversial or outright wrong acts.
I'd note that the more common course (not only for presidents, but even for some lay parties) is to put the issue before the courts and let them decide before risking imprisonment by violating the laws they challenge (but I'd note that in some cases a person seeking to challenge a law needs to violate it beforehand to even make the courts interested in making a decision; courts usually shy away from considering cases without a factual predicate basis and without parties with an actual stake in the legal questions). When Clinton was faced with a similar problem in the Ames case, he put it before the nation to get a ruling on it, and went and got laws passed that clarified the issue. Not so Dubya, in fact he did the opposite.
COMMENT: You keep referring to FISA as “the law.†Congressional enactments are not the only source of “the law.â€
That's because they are. As provided by the Constitution, the legislative power is a exclusive (i.e., non-delegable) power of Congress. And when Congress states one thing uncontradicted, that is the law. Only the Constitution trumps that. And you have provided neither any example of the Constitution nor any other law contradicting the FISA law. So that's "the law we have, not the law we want."
COMMENT: You cannot cite one legal authority or historical example of your assertions about use of force authorizations or the application of FISA to wartime intelligence.
One "legal authority" (and in law school, it would be considered "mandatory authority") is the text of the law itself (at one time before the "conservatives" sold their soul to the Devil, in fact they insisted that the language and the language only was determinative, a philosophy easily cast aside when incon
In fact, FISA very well may not apply at all to wartime intelligence, ....
And on Krypton, pigs can fly. Why don't you read the freakin' FISA law? Then you'd see that it actually specifies specifically what can be done in time of war. If you're ignorant, best not to show it, BSR....
Cheers,
January 24th, 2006 at 6:37 pm#247, Marie: Wayne said to remind you that the 2 al qaeda operatives were living for a time with an FBI informant.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pmGlen Greenwald has this to say:
The Administration's new FISA defense is factually false
As Atrios notes:
You might want to take a look at Glenn Greenwald's latest post, the contents of which should be pretty much the opening segment of every evening news show. He points out that in 2002 Senator DeWine proposed the legislation which would've amended the FISA law to lower the burden necessary from probable cause to reasonable suspicion (one caveat, for non-US persons only), precisely what our constitution-challenged former NSA head was claiming was why they "had to" break the law. He also claimed they sought such changes but Congress wouldn't give it to them.
The kicker? The Bush Justice Department opposed the law on constitutional concerns.
Let's recap the Bush talking points as they've been shot down.
The program was some super-technology thing! Not true.
The program was necessary because the FISA court doesn't allow them to act fast enough. Not true.
The program was necessary because Congress wouldn't let us lower the necessary burden . Not true - they opposed a similar measure themselves.
Once again, all we're left with is:
They wanted to spy on whoever they wanted to without any oversight or accountability.
That's it.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:44 pmThe WORSE that it gets the better I like it.We have not gotten to this point without the complicity of a large number of Americans. It was the same in Nazi Germany. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest just like S&Gs song "The Boxer".
January 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pmThis is music to my ears. The more voters realize that the true purpose of all this nonsense is to gin up talk of impeaching the President, the more likely the Democrats are to lose seats in Congress.
Uhhhh, right. I think you misspelled "remedy to". But when it comes to having a "purpose" of impeaching the president, you Republicans have a lot to answer for (and a pile of stinking hypocrisy three miles high on the subject). Unlike you, our memories are still functional.
Cheers,
January 24th, 2006 at 8:21 pmBill:
You guys are really out of the mainstream if you think that Republicans are going to remove Bush from office. Maybe that sort of thing happens in your little fantasy world, but how on earth do you think you are going to get 67 senators to vote to remove?
I dunno. When you can easily stir up 50 senators to vote to impeach someone for a consensual blow-job, common sense says that the bar for removing someone running rough-shod over the Constitution should easily be passed. Of course, that assumes common sense (and a smidgen of honour and a disdain for hypocrisy). So, pray tell, why do you think that those folks that voted to convict Clinton might be loath to do the same to someone blatantly violating the will of COngress and the law of the land?
Cheers,
January 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pmGood question, Arne. Can a Congress impeach a King?
January 24th, 2006 at 9:00 pmMaybe not, but we can issue a Declaration of Independence. :)
January 24th, 2006 at 10:24 pmThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
January 24th, 2006 at 10:37 pmWho needs a new one?
January 24th, 2006 at 10:38 pmBut when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:40 pmI really don't see a problem here... you can monitor my calls, i dont care, i'm not going to kill 3000 people. If the governement isnt going to "try" and protect me... who will? things have changed.. sorry.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:53 pmOK, look at some of these posts. This is pretty sick. Cut and paste some 17th century idiot?? get real.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:00 pm#264 - Not Bush..... He had his opportunity before 9/11 with the many months worth of warnings by the FBI, CIA and other people. Not to mention the August PDB "Bin Laden Determined to strike US, Immenent attack"
Yeah, you can count on them. Then when the attacks are occuring, your elustrious leader just sat in the chair after being told that we were under attack.
Your doing a heck of a job Bush.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:04 pmAlso, look at Katrina. Now it is known that BUSH was told 2 days before the storm hit that the situation was like what happened. The night before, an email was sent warning once again.
You might as well forget about this administration protecting you and just count on them taking your civil liberties, since you are so freely giving them up for this GREAT SECURITY AND PROTECTION this administration has given us.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:07 pmOK, look at some of these posts. This is pretty sick. Cut and paste some 17th century idiot?? get real.
Comment by Brandil Lawrence — January 24, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Uh, I think you're the idiot nimrod.
Thats from the PreAmble of OUR Declaration of Independence
Dimwit.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:41 pmOh yea, I forgot Brandil Nimrod.
You clowns are really Nazi Pigs, goosetepping to your own drum.
You probably consider our countries founding documents like the Constituion and the Declaration of Independence as Liberal Propaganda.
I should have quoted Mein Kampf.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:44 pm"Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Now, BSR and all you other idiots on the right, I see nothing here, even the case of war, which says the President of the USA has the right to spy on Americans without a warrant.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:57 amI really don’t see a problem here… you can monitor my calls, i dont care, i’m not going to kill 3000 people. If the governement isnt going to “try†and protect me… who will? things have changed.. sorry.
Comment by Brandil Lawrence #263
Boo! Bambi,
You cowardly traitor...
You don't deserve protection!!!
...or freedom...
...or democracy...
..or American citizenship...
...just deportation to the dictatorship, monarchy, plutocratic fascist oligarchy of your choice...
INBRED!
January 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm