Specter Caves, Proposes Blanket Amnesty For Illegal Government Surveillance
Specter Caves, Proposes Blanket Amnesty For Illegal Government Surveillance
At first, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) talked tough about the President’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program, insisting that it be subject to judicial review. From the 2/17/06 New York Times:
[C]ritics of the program, including some Republicans..say it must be brought within the scope of the intelligence court. Among them is Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is circulating legislation that would require the court to pass judgment on whether the wiretapping is constitutional.
“Unless they’re prepared to have a determination on constitutionality as to their programs, window-dressing oversight will not be sufficient,” Specter said.
Now, Specter has unveiled a new version of his legislation. Instead of requiring the administration to submit to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the new bill simply makes it optional:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency.
Further, Specter has now included a provision protecting anyone who authorizes illegal surveillance from legal trouble:
Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.
Glenn Greenwald, who describes Specter’s bill as dragging “the country to a still new level of lawlessness,†has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
274 Responses to “Specter Caves, Proposes Blanket Amnesty For Illegal Government Surveillance”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Further, Specter has now included a provision protecting anyone who authorizes illegal surveillance from legal trouble:
And yet the sheep will continue to elect him...
June 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pmUnfortunately, Specter is "my" senator from PA. (We have a honest facist, Santorum, and a hypocritical "defender" of the bill of rights, Specter.
The voters will dump Santorum first, but Specter's time will come too. It's sad because I'd like to respect him, but I can't.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pmOMG, WTF!!! They will stop at nothing. They will stop at nothing to have complete control of us, and that is no joke. AMERICA: FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM
June 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pmSURPRISE!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pmAtleast you can't give amnesty without admitting there was a crime.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pmHard to not see Specter as all bark and no bite on this issue.
Take the House and Senate in the midterms folks. That's our best shot at getting this under control.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:45 pm??
June 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pmTake the House and Senate in the midterms folks. That’s our best shot at getting this under control.
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
I couldn't agree more. But will the masses truly follow through? In my case, Senator Cantwell is up for re-election, or hopefully not. The old mindset creeps in. We have a truly progressive candidate running against her, but they fear the republican opponent, and therefore think that reelecting Cantwell is the best bet. DAMN IT. She voted for the war, CAFTA, NAFTA, closing debate on Alito, confirming Roberts...she is just way too corporate.
I think it is time PROGRESSIVES take back the Democrat party, once and for all.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:50 pmScumbag!
June 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pmWow ...
Why not just get rid of those pesky second and third branches of government altogether, Sen. Spectre? (And, yes, I spelled his name that way on purpose.)
I mean, if the President can willingly ignore the laws passed by Congress, and if his actions require no judicial oversight, why are they there?
Well, other than to collect lobbying money and push forth a far-right agenda. But besides that ...
June 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pmI'm one PA sheep that would rather die than vote for him. Stalintorum will be easy, but Specter is going to take some effort. Like Publicus, many people in PA would like to respect him. And he plays on that by throwing them a bone every now and again. Sheep has short memories.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pmCNN's Jack Cafferty said it all a couple days ago:
What an idiot I am. I actually thought at the time Senator Specter was going to exercise his responsibility to provide some congressional oversight of the executive branch, you know, see if the White House is playing by the rules. Silly me.
In the end, Senator Specter has turned out to be yet another gutless Republican worm cowering in the face of pressure from the administration and fellow Republicans. There are not going to be any hearings. Americans won't find out if their privacy is being illegally invaded.
You know what the Senate Judiciary Committee settled for instead? Senator Orrin Hatch said he has won assurances from Vice President Dick Cheney that the White House will review proposed changes to the law that would restrict certain aspects of the NSA program.
Dick Cheney is going to decide if it's OK to spy on American citizens without a warrant. And this worthless bunch senators has agreed to let him do it. It's a disgrace.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm(Emphasis added)
Next thing you know they'll want a blanket amnesty for war crimes.
I wish it were as easy as "taking over the Democrats" or even electing them.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pmOnce again Specter is only interested in creating the illusion of oversight... if he speaks out against something and then later supports that same something most Americans get the impression that things were changed or that the problem was fixed.
To those uncurious individuals it is hard to understand how someone could be opposed to something one week and then support it the next if things haven't changed... what they don't know is that his whole opposition is just a purposeful ruse aimed at duping them in to believing that he and congress are protecting their liberties and that the president is doing nothing illegal.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThis capitulation is a disgrace, although not a surprise. There are apparently only two Republicans left in the US Senate, Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who contines to speak out more courageously than most Democrats (to their shame) and perhaps Richard Lugar, who spoke out forthightly for negotiations with Iran. McCain is a broken man, with no credibility left. But Snow, Collins, Chafee and Specter are even worse, they do not have the excuse of positioning themselves to run in the Dominionist controlled southern presidential primaries. By this time, we all of the outrages -- exposed, half-hidden and still hidden -- including contempt for both the US Constitution and the Geneva Accords, unmistakable evidence of lying the US into war, and breaching national security in revealing the identity of a covert operative, the purging of the CIA, the prostitution of the EPA, i.e., acts of war crimes, treason and other impeachable offenses, a bi-partisan consensus at the center, with all Democrats, and at least five to ten Republicans should have formed to defend our laws and rescue our military. Specter's career and integrity have been swallowed up, like McCain's and Powell's. But the Democrats who voted for, or only feigned to resist the confirmation of Alito and Roberts, and who refuse to adopt Jack Murtha's plan, or sign on to Russ Feingold's censure motion, are no better...They too have lost their credibility and their integrity in protecting Bush-Cheney from the rule of law -- but perhaps it would be more accurate to say protecting themselves from Bush-Cheney's lawless rule.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmSpecter = Spineless.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmAt least Specter will get that fat endorsement contract from Jello....."Watch him wigggle and jiggle"....
-GSD
June 9th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI'm shocked.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like Specter is just like all the other Republicans and simply posturing, blubbering in feigned indignation, and mugging for the camera's in the wake of the November elections.
I mean, its either that or that toothless old f*ck needs some false teeth.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:05 pmThe chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency.
The reason why they're called LAWS is because they're NOT "optional."
June 9th, 2006 at 1:07 pm…..â€Watch him wigggle and jiggleâ€â€¦.
-GSD
Oh my god, that's funny.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pmIt's an Odd thing. No longer does anything Sen. Specter surprise me anymore.
It's gotten so bad that this new "Legislation" hardly causes me a stir.
At this point: I think if he actually swears someone in, or in anyway exercises oversight, I'd fall over shocked.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pmI guess Specter finally got around to doing some legal research and recognized that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, especially in time of war. Chalk this NSA "controversy" up to yet another phony, liberla media-driven tempest in a teapot.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pmFunny Exley I guess the thing in the constitution about being safe from illegal search and seizure, and probable cause and warrants don't really mean anything.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pm23--Chalk this NSA “controversy†up to yet another phony, liberla media-driven tempest in a teapot.
Comment by Exley
If the president had authority, there would not be a need for the repukes to make a blanket amnesty for ILLEGAL ACTS.
come back after you read the constitution
June 9th, 2006 at 1:18 pmchalk your comment up to lack of intellegence
Specter was ALWAYS going to cave. Mr. Magic Bullet is a totally-paid-for tool.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#24- If that is the case, then there is no need for any new legislation, is there? So why is Specter wasting more time on this? If it IS already 'legal', then what is the point?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pmExley--
Can you please show where it says the President can do that without any kind of oversight?
Oh, and also show where Congress OFFICIALLY declared WAR (not just use of force).
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pmHere's your first lesson in constititional law, kiddies.
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:21 pmGee! I think I know how the German people felt under Hitler.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pmWhere did our government go??????
then how does tracking domestic phone calls fall under foreign survelliance?
Amatuer
June 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#30- And the issue is spying on AMERICANS, not foreign intelligence gathering, which is already legal.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
Comment by Exley
And if they were not tapping US phones and just doing forein survailence, there would not be an issue. Theyare tapping american phones without a warrant.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmare you really that dense?
#30 - Exley, read this article on the difference between default powers and exclusive powers. I double-dog dare you....
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060213.html
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmIt is likely that representatives from Diebold payed Specter a visit and reminded him who it is exactly that chooses the winners and losers in America. The fix is already in thanks to HAVA and the Republicans.
My fellow progressives can strategize and publicize and spend untold amounts of money, but until we go back to paper ballots and hand recounts, we will be losing each and every electronic election by 51% to 49% in spite of the huge margins of victory indicated by pre-election and exit polling.
51%-R to 49%-D every time! Get used to it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThe Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
Comment by Exley
And if they were not tapping US phones and just doing forein survailence, there would not be an issue. They are tapping american phones without a warrant.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmare you really that dense?
Unholu Moses...In the Supreme Court's 1972 decision U.S. v U.S.D.C., the Court held that while the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the isame ssue and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmLooks like Exley had a big bowl of stupid for breakfast ...
June 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmnot sure how that double posted, weird =P
June 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmOh, poor little Wayne....You really need to get your facts straight. You can start by reading my posting above. Take your time...I'll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pmExley please read the first paragraph of the post over again. We are not talking about foreign survelience, it is talking about domestic survelliance.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pmExely--
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhat part of "foreign" don't you understand? You do know what that word means, right?
#38 - Better be coughing up some links, there Exley. You're using quite a few ellipses...
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#35- I predict that 'something' will suddenly come up, requiring his hasty departure.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmArlen always caves; because he, like all republicans, wish to sell Americans into servitude to the omnipresent government and big business.
My contempt for Arlen, Bush, Cheyney, Rice, Delay and all the other bastards that are fooling 90% of Americans grows each and every day because of the shit they get away with, at Alen's assistance.
I am getting so irate that now my wish for all of them is to contract a flesh eating virus and live.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHeh! I give a three paragraph response citing numerous legal decisions in support of my position and this:
"Looks like Exley had a big bowl of stupid for breakfast … "
is the best response Wayne can come up with!!! Hysterical! What a wit!
Okay, well, this debate is over before it began. The Constitution, law, and facts are on my side.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pmYou answered my question Exley. Yes you are that dense. Go back and read the article.
Answer this, if it is legal as you say, what is the need for amnesty? answer that.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#38 - I also notice you're using the word "foreign" quite a bit, which is completely beside the point, sweetie darling.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:35 pmexley,
noone is arguing the the legality of the wiretapping foreign sources. Please read the starting paragraph, it talks about domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Big difference.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThe issue that you all dance around is that the United States of America is now the most corrupt and dangerous country on the planet. Your democracy is virtually gone. Your politicians are so corrupt and despicable that they don't even seem to have qualms about openly suggesting laws that are designed to make them above your laws. The absurdity is at a level that I do not believe has been seen previously. Not in modern times, that's for sure.
What is most bizarre, however, is how you all are able to distance yourself from your responsibilities simply by using the excuse that it is not your "party" that is in control. This is convenient for you but wholly unjustifiable. There are not two United States of America. Nor is it reasonable or correct for you to expect the world to forgive half of the American people for the US's foibles and atrocities because the do not belong to the party in control. It's an absurd expectation and really has merit only in your own eyes.
The United States of America is a society governed "of", "for", and "by" the people. Therefore, any actions of the government of the US is, for all intents and purposes, the responsibility of ALL Americans, not just a select few. Such is the foundation of your democracy and is, arguably, one of the reasons why your democracy has been successful. Yet now you run from your responsibilities and hide behind the excuse that it's the "other" party's fault and therefore you are innocent and not responsible for YOUR country's actions.
The question I keep asking but remains unanswered is: If illegal and immoral war, crimes against humanity and the international community, and an abandonment of your own constitutional principles are not enough to cause you to stand up and do something real, what is it going to take?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmYou folks seem very, BERY confused...(or you are being deliberately ignorant). The article and the NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
Try again, kiddies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmYou folks seem very, VERY confused...(or you are being deliberately ignorant). The article and the NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
Try again, kiddies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#47- And you are still ignoring the point here! Why not just address it, head on? You are the one with all the facts, after all.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmKrazny, again you are incorrect...Read the article again. The NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#53 Or are you admitting that the DOMESTIC illegal wiretapping is indeed illegal?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pmWas there any doubt the good Senator would fold? I think not. His leash was jerked and he fell into line.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWhen one argues with a fool there are two... I'm counting about eight to ten here on this thread.
Exley is a fool that would not acknowledge reality if he were being sodomized with it... don't waste your time guys.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmExley--
First of all, my response (the big bowl of stupid comment) was written before I read your post on the legal opinion -- but it still qualifies.
The NSA program does NOT JUST TARGET FOREIGN CALLS. They also intercept calls that begin AND end IN THE UNITED STATES.
In addition, they also collected the phone records of MILLIONS of calls in a huge datamining project. They had no idea if the calls were actually from terrorists, or just me ordering a pizza -- they collected ALL OF THEM. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL and not supported by the legal decision you posted.
Next time, you may want to truly understand the issue.
And for the love of god, I hope you're not a lawyer -- if so, you obviously suck ass at it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmExley is perfect proof of the effects of drinking 29% CONCENTRATE MOONSHINE, YOU SEE ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO.
Domestic Dumbass, Domestic. History will show regardless of your brown shirt idealogy
Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say the eavesdropping violates the 1978 law that created a special intelligence court to oversee domestic wiretapping. They have called for the law, the Foreign Intelligence Service Act, known as FISA, to be revamped. On Thursday, Roberts talked about a possible change in the act without saying what they might be.
The White House is unlikely to agree to bring the wiretapping under the scope of the FISA court, as most Democrats and some Republicans want. Instead, the administration appears interested in a proposal by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, that would explicitly authorize the wiretapping, without court warrants, but create small congressional subcommittees to oversee it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pm[...] Think Progress : Specter Caves, Proposes Blanket Amnesty For Illegal Government Surveillance [...]
June 9th, 2006 at 1:51 pmOh, poor little Wayne….You really need to get your facts straight. You can start by reading my posting above. Take your time…I’ll wait.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
I'm still waiting for an answer to yesterday's question Exley. You haven't yet given a valid example, and it's been a while. Take your time…I’ll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:52 pmExley,
the target of the wiretaps, is anyone in the US communicating with anyone outside the US. as long as the person in the US is suspected of links to terrorists. The FISA court issued over 2000 warrants last year. the refusal is so low, that it is less then 1%. Keep in mind a FISA warrant can be retroactive by 72 hours. Hardly too slow or cumbersome to catch a terrorist. If a person in the US is suspected of terrorist ties, and are making phone calls to syria, I think the FISA court can issue a warrant. As long as one of the targets is in the US it is at least partially domestic, and the 4th amendment applies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThis is all very reminscent of some long time Bush&Co. strategies - which may be summarized as, "Don't break the Law - Change the Law!". SEC says it's illegal? Time to appoint a new chairman! Constitution forbids it? Do a legislative end run around the Constitution, then pack the Supreme Court with appointees who won't mind looking the other way. Want to spy on your fellow citizens? Get the NSA to do it, then make sure you have private access to their databases. Impeachable offenses include breaking the law while in office - but then, didn't Bush say the Constitution was "just a piece of paper?"
June 9th, 2006 at 1:56 pmWayne,
First of all, I accept your apology.
Second, you are confusing two separate NSA programs. The NSA program discussed in the Washington Post article and to which Specter's proposal applies is limited to international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists
The other program, with which you confusing the topic under discussion, does not involving wiretapping or monitoring of domestic phone calls. That program involves traffic analysis in which phone patterns are traced. This program does not involve monitoring or listening to calls.
I hope this cleared up your considerable confusion.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pmUnholy Moses
First of all, I accept your apology.
Second, you are confusing two separate NSA programs. The NSA program discussed in the Washington Post article and to which Specter's proposal applies is limited to international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists
The other program, with which you confusing the topic under discussion, does not involving wiretapping or monitoring of domestic phone calls. That program involves traffic analysis in which phone patterns are traced. This program does not involve monitoring or listening to calls.
I hope this cleared up your considerable confusion.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pmNewk Diebold NOW.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:58 pmLet me make it easy for you Exley old buddy. Just admit there IS NO HISTORICAL PRECEDENT for invading another country to install democracy, and I'll leave you alone. (You seem to have a hard time with the concept of "invasion," which is done by an initial aggressor, not someone who subsequently pushes the invasion back, such as we did in Germany).
June 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pmHey Barfly! You're here! Great to hear from you...I notice you are DESPERATELY trying to change the subject since you see your buddies getting embarassed by their obvious lack of understanding of the NSA program being discussed. But I must say that I am surprised that you would bring up yesterday's discussion when I had to educate you on post-World War II Japan.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYour "education" was sorely lacking. that's why I sought you out for clarification since you answer didn't make sense. (see above post).
I just want a straight answer, which you seem incapable of giving.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:06 pmYou may want to get your computer checked....It seems that you are not receiving my postings. You asked for examples of undemocratic nations that became democracies after being defeated militarily by democracies...I have already said two or three times, Japan following WWII.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pmI'll understand if you run off again, the weakness of your answer shows you haven't really thought about it much.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:10 pmI have to disagree with the headline. He didn't "cave" because he never had any intention of standing up in the first place. He's the GOP mop-up guy. When the really bad stuff hits the news, he talks like he's going to do something, then he buries it. His track record on this is without parallel.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:10 pmBottom line is that he is GOP. Period. The GOP are traitors to this country. They owe their allegiance to Bushland.
What Bush did with the NSA is far more impeachable then anything Clinton ever did; the NSA is only a small part of it, anyway. Rumsfeld's lieutenant Stephen Cambone is running the DIA and all the rest of the Pentagon Intelligence; I imagine they spend more time worrying about the anti-war movement then they do about terrorists in Iraq. Then you have Gonzales and Mueller and their own domestic FBI political surveillance programs. If you really are so desperate and frightened by the spectre of 'international terrorism' that you are willing to give up all your consititutional rights, why not just ask the government to lock you up in solitary confinement, where noone can get at you?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThe social/political situation in post-war Japan, is a far cry from the situation in Iraq. While you are technically correct. The two nations are not comparable.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThere's a reason why this is happening, has anyone figured it out yet? I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Orgtanized Crime but this wasn't any ordinary crime system. They bragged about it being "The World's Largest Criminal System" and for good reason.
The Government/Military wiretapping effort which now appears to be headed into a coverup is part of a major effort by criminal elements within out Government to spy on us. But there are other reasons that have yet to surface.
Do you know what they are?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:12 pmHmmmm...I guess Barfly left or he's getting his computer fixed...Oh well. Maybe he'll check in later.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pmExley,
Where did you study Constitutional Law? Where are you a professor of Constitutional Law?
And where did you come up with the insane notion that the Administration is limiting surveilance to foreign intelligence gathering???
Me? I studied at an ABA law school, graduated in the top 15% of my class, and took a constitutional rights course from a Supreme Court Justice.
Your ignorance is dangerous, both to you and to whomever you manage to sway with your falacious arguments. You may wish to live under totalitarian rule, but I, and many others, do not.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#79 - Ahhhh, a breath of fresh air.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pmKrazny, I grant you that the two situations are not identical. There are few -- if any --historical analogies that are. But given the parameters of Barfly's question, the answer of post-WWII Japan is appropriate.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pmHow nice of you to change the criterion:
You asked for examples of undemocratic nations that became democracies after being defeated militarily by democracies…I have already said two or three times, Japan following WWII.
That's not the question and you know it. I see you still haven't figured out what "invasion" means. Let me help. "Invasion" means initial incursion. In this sense our "invasion" was to counter their initial invasion. The semantics are important; the Japs "invaded" us first, so your point about our later instilling democracy there is invalid - they attacked us first (like we did to Iraq). They were the "invaders" not us. Your point would be valid if the Japs had invaded us to "install democracy," which they obviously didn't intend. Same with the Germans - they started it. You still haven't given me a valid example of an "invading' (I hope this is clear now) force installing democracy.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pmExley—
First of all, I never apologized to you, simply because there is no reason to.
Second, your insistence that giving the Preznit a blank check to conduct wiretaps will somehow only affect “foreign†calls is disingenuous. The two issues (foreign surveillance and domestic) ARE related.
The current administration has already shown that it cares little for the other two branches of government. To think that it will suddenly not use unchecked power to spy on domestic-only calls is to throw all logic and reasoning out the window.
So it’s not me that doesn’t understand the issue – it is you who can’t see the broader implications of Specter’s “compromise.â€
Also, you do realize that your boy Bush won't always be President, right? What happens when someone you don't support or even like gets elected? Will you still think unchecked power is just dandy?
I'm guessing not.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:26 pmExley - I think your clock has officially been cleaned (see post 79).
Maybe you can head out to the playground and impress some of the slower kids with your knowledge of constitutional law but that shit don't play around here!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmExley - I think your clock has officially been cleaned (see post 79).
Maybe you can head out to the playground and impress some of the slower kids with your knowledge of constitutional law but that shit don't play around here!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBriseadh na Faire,
You may have graduated law school, but your knowledge of the facts and the legal issues involved in this matter appear to be seriously lacking. I suggest you read John Schmidt's Dec. 21, 2005 op-ed which appeared in teh Chicago Tribune discussing the president's legal and constitutional authority to order the NSA program under discussion. John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States.
Or are you going to argue that you are more qualified to discuss this issue than he is?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRead it and then get back to us.
The vast majority of people will not act unless they see an issue as affecting them directly. For all the news of the above activities, the one issue that motivated hundreds of thousands to the streets was the immigration issue. Why? It affected them or their families directly. It was also a direct response to the underlying bigotry in the immigration issue.
The war may not generate that kind of response until kids are drafted.
But in answer to "what's it going to take?"
A charismatic leader. One whom the Corporate Media cannot ignore. Such a leader is coming. The question is, will it be a new Hitler, or a new Ghandi?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBarfly..."the Japs" ????????
Um, kinda offensive, don't ya think?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBarfly…â€the Japs†????????
Um, kinda offensive, don’t ya think?
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006
I take that as your admission of defeat on this issue. I was speaking in historical context; sorry if it went over your head.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pmExley, you still haven't answered:
if it is legal as you say, what is the need for amnesty?
You cannot answer it because if it were not illegal, amnesty would not be needed.
and you must be seeing things, I never apologised to you
June 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#86 - The op-ed page of the Chicago Tribune? Well, I guess we should throw out the Constitution and all laws and legal prescedent, because the Chicago Tribune's got it all handled.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pmG.W.SuperChrist and Unholy Moses,
I find it amusing that neither one of you has responded to the fact the the U.S. Supreme Court said in the 1972 decision UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) that the president has the inherent authority to order wireless wiretaps to combat threats from abroad.
Nor has anyone addressed the fact that the FISA Court said in the 2002 matter In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
Now why don't you kids address those two points in a mature and civilized manner? I will wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pmracketeering (n) - a pattern of illegal activity that is carried out in furtherance of an enterprise which is owned or controlled by those engaged in such activity; example - "The Republican Party was accused of political racketeering, and they offered neither defense nor apology."
June 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmExley is a provocateur and an antagonist. Her flawed position and arguments have already been sufficiently exposed, addressed, and debunked yet you all continue to allow her to sway the course of your discussion. I would suggest that you all move on and allow her to wallow in the ignorance that she is obviously intent upon maintaining.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI would suggest that you all move on and allow her to wallow in the ignorance that she is obviously intent upon maintaining.
Comment by Humanist
Agreed. I am moving on...
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmAs head of the judiciary committee, spector decides how these things go. He's the decider when bush is not in the room.
After all, we can be sure spector is being an impartial judge in this case because he's clearly not mixing up his anger (as expressed in a 9-page letter to cheney) with his clear-headed judgment.
Or maybe that's what we're supposed to think; maybe that's why we got the story about the boys being angry at each other.
Bullshit. That's propaganda. I think it's healthy to assume that you are being lied to all the time, and that the administration has found a way to infiltrate the internet with their straw men.
Think ann coulter...what was that all about? She's no worse than ever before...why the buzz on the internet? Did we drop the ball?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmI will wait.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Comedic gold, I tell 'ya!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmNice try, Zookeeper. Read what Clinton's formers associate attorney general wrote about the president's legal and constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance of foreign threats and than get back to me. You might also want to read some court decisions I referenced above UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) and In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001.
I'll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pmNow why don’t you kids address those two points in a mature and civilized manner? I will wait.
Comment by Exley
You seem to be avoiding my question, troll
June 9th, 2006 at 2:44 pmif you demand an answer to your question, then answer the ones asked of you. But you can't
just very sad, he makes the big splash all over the newswires then just panders his way out of it, we are fading fast under this completely secretive government that plays by their own rules regardless of what the LAWS are, i''m disgusted
June 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pmHumanist--
You are correct -- Exley cannot reconcile the facts:
1. If the program was legal, then no amnesty would be needed;
2. That no war was actually declared (use of force does not equal a declaration of war), thus making the cases she cites moot;
3. The inability to see the broader implications and how domestic wiretapping would also be allowed.
I've taken too long a lunch break anyway. Thanks for the prod.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI hate to be an I-told-you-so, but I told you so.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmDon't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
Specter is a Republican first and foremost - and the word came down from on high - this is the way it will be. Specter bows down, kisses Cheney's ring, wipes Bush's ass and declares it done.
AH, yes, Wayne. Your question. As you are reading the court decisions I sent, I will answer. The amnesty provisions provided by Specter's proposal are in fact unnecessary. As I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt the NSA program is legal and constitutional.
Now, go do your homework and read the opinions I sent and get back to me. Okay? Good!
And yes, you are correct, it was not you who apologized to me. That was Unholy Moses. I already correct that.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWasn't there a change in executive powers in 1976, after Nixon's resignation. I don't know exactly what happened, but there was a change in presidential powers, because of the watergate phone taps. If so It may be that the 1976 changes overruled the 1972 ruling Exley keeps refering too.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pmYou seem to be avoiding my question, troll
if you demand an answer to your question, then answer the ones asked of you. But you can’t
Comment by Wayne — June 9, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
At least not honestly.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmUnholy Moses, it is very apparent that you have not read the legal opinions I sent. Neither one of them rests on the fact that there was congressional declaration of war. The distinction you are trying to draw is not supported by the facts and the two courts' opinions.
Try again.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmExley--
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmI never apologized to you. Nor will, nor should, I.
Exley -
Do you mean this article?
Next time, it would be helpful if you posted your own links to support your arguments.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm[...] This ThinkProgress post led me to Glenn Greenwald's excellent discussion of the issue: Observing and commenting on the behavior of Arlen Specter is one of the most unpleasant obligations a person can have, but for anyone following the NSA eavesdropping scandal specifically, and the Bush administration's abuses of executive power generally, it is a necessary evil. The principal reason that the Bush administration has been able to impose its radical theories of lawbreaking on the country is because Congress, with an unseemly eagerness, has permitted itself to be humiliated over and over by an administration which does not hide its contempt for the notion that Congress has any role to play in limiting and checking the executive branch. And few people have more vividly illustrated that institutional debasement than Arlen Specter, who, along with Pat Roberts, has done more than anyone else to ensure that Congress completely relinquishes its constitutional powers to the President. [...]
June 9th, 2006 at 2:54 pmIsn't that Spectre clever. He was right there at the beginning like a honey pot difusing the outrage until he could present THIS! So clever.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:54 pmeveryone please read How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values by Glen Greenwald and you will see how this administration is completely lawless
June 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pmYep, that's it Briseadh na Faire ...And as you can see if you read Schmidt's piece and the opinions he cites, it is quite clear that the president -- any president -- has the inherent constitutional authority to order wireless surveillance to combat international threats to the United States.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:03 pmGiving illegal immigrants amesty for breaking the law will be the (?) coute des grates[sp] in this country's seizure. Talking tough (we are making English the official language...) is just more useless rhetoric. Since Asians represent the "brightest" of the ethenic groups, should they aspire strong leadership, they will probably control the future state that occupies this territory that we now know as the United States.
Illegal immigrants must bare a good deal of the blame of the desparity(?) of wealth in our nation. (The greedy and selfish rich and our too unsophisticated congress people of the past must carry the most blame, however). What is left of our middle class is over burden with taxes, out-of-control spending (trying to maintain a lifestyle that is really beyond their means), under educated and are a devoid of character due to the deterioration of the family. (The character values set by most middle-class American families are of such low standards and phantom-like in their substance that openly practicing homosexuals declare that they should have identical right to this debaucle[sp]; and rightfully so).
Back to the point, giving amesty to another illegal would just substantiate what the terrorist were trying to demostrate in the 911 act of terror. It is the same old axiom, "Money talks, b.s. walks". Others say any of us can be bought with the right price. Illegals know that, for now, the right price is "affordable (cheap) labor."
Democracy only works when the majority of the electorate are intelligent, the majority of the electorate agree in the sovereignty and the direction of the country and when most of the electorate believe the country is going to provide them with anexcellent chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That has not been this country in a long time.
Because of the basic unspoken agreement between white Americans and the insignificance of the statue of others, this country once functioned on, sort of, a class dictatorship. Others are want to call it racism, (I am African-American) but anyperson who describs him/herself, within the first five adjectives of description, with a racial distinction is most probably a racist. Biggotry is another matter. At any rate, the country functioned. Now, there is an increasing divide between people with money and those who have very llittle. And, too offen, our basic services are being provided by people from third world nations. And inspite of all of the good qualities ascribed to theses "hard-working" people, those good qualities did little to afford them the kind of life and country which has evolved in these United States.
The President and his pals remind me of Jerry Krause, a former general manager of the Chicago Bulls. Rather than see the "dynasty" Bulls as a unique gift from on-high, Mr. Krause took the (unfortunately usual male) egotistical position of believing that his efforts were what made the winning Bulls who they were. Even the stupid (me) would have slided Michael Jeffery Jordan's name in there before Mr. Krause's. However, power makes men drunk. Mr. Bush could use a stay at Betty Ford's. This is not the time to thrust this kind debaucle[sp] on the American people. The American People who can count at least five generations.
We need to feel that we matter and know that securing this country means securing us, also. Amesty for illegals does not do it.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:05 pmExley--
I've read both cases, and in both cases your interpretation is incorrect:
From here:
As far as the 2002 issue, one can only conduct a warrant for 15 days AFTER A DECLARATION OF WAR. Of course, you can all read the statute itself here and draw your own conclusions (it's pretty clear, but apparently some have reading comprehension issues).
Well, I gotta go now. Have fun ...
June 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pmBy the way, here is another in-depth (and unassailable) legal analysis demonstrating that the president had the legal and constitutional authority to to create and implement the post 9/11 NSA warrantless anti-terrorism surveillance program. It is written by H. Bryan Cunningam, a former career national security lawyer for the CIA and DOJ under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Twenty-four (24) pages and chock full of footnotes. It should answer all your questions and clear up the rather considerable confusion surrounding this topic.
http://www.morgancunningham.net/downloads/article_18.pdf
Read it and learn. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have when you have finished it.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:12 pmRead the book exley, all the president has to do is ask, he NEVER did, then lied about it afterward, always the same story with these people
June 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#103 Krazny,
June 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pmI believe you are correct. The corrupt Nixon administration brought new laws to prevent such abuse of power. And FISA has been amended many times since the late 70's to accommodate technology, and other advances.
exley
June 9th, 2006 at 3:33 pmwithout a law making it a crime for murder would you feel killing was alright?.there are things understood as obvious and whether or not a politician passes a law or not these remain inalienable rights ,this includes the right as specified in our constitution and in the U.N. charter of human rights.to privacy in our own homes .The nazi,s made it legal to push jews into ovens ,but that didnt make it right!Unfortunately as long as we need to have laws to make people behave morally there will always be lawyers whose job it is to use the law to protect the criminal (if he has enuf $)
The handwriting was on the wall when Specter refused to have Gonsalez sworn in befpre testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, Specter didn't hesitate swearing in the Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division who works for Gonorrhea, so it's not that Specter is averse to swearing people in. There's only one criminal class in America and it's Congress. Mark Twain.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmAs long as these son of a bitches have unchecked power, they will be ABOVE EVERY F$#*ING LAW THERE IS.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmWith diebold and the msm in their pockets, we are in for a world of hurt.
Without legit elections, there is only one way to take back our Country.
By hand.
It is rapidly becoming time.
November will be the last straw.
100'sof thousands of deaths and the incalculable miseries of of the loved ones left behind and all we can discuss is whether the lawyers dotted their I,s and crossed their T,s in the final document ?
June 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pmdon't tread on me
June 9th, 2006 at 3:48 pmExley,
Last I checked, Marbury v. Madison has not been overturned. It is up to the Supreme Court to determine what is, and what is not Constitutional, not lawyers writing op-ed pieces.
Your entire argument focuses on the proper use of the NSA. Yet that is not the issue. The issue is the improper use of the NSA. No one here is arguing that the proper use of the NSA, with the supervision and oversight of the NSA court is unconstitutional.
However, the Constitutionality of the magnitude and scope of the information gathering by this administration without either Congressional nor Court oversight is certainly in question. You seem oblivious to that distinction.
I close with this quote from the above-linked article:
Enough said.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:48 pmFROM CNN: "Cell phone tracking helped find al-Zarqawi
Intelligence from cell phone technology helped U.S. forces find and kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said an Iraqi army colonel in an exclusive interview with CNN. Col. Dhiya Tamimi said he worked with U.S. forces to monitor al-Zarqawi and his associates' cell phones, helping to lead to Wednesday night's airstrike on a safe house near Baquba."
MY GOD! I hope they got a warrant first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pmArlen Sphincter's muscle has atrophied; everything slides through him easily after he lets out a bit of noxious gas.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmIt didn't happen in the US. Noone is arguing over whether a warrant was needed in Iraq. I already explained that. What is being discussed is the use of warrantless wiretaps in domestic situations.
get with the program Exley.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmArlen Sphincter’s muscle has atrophied; everything slides through him easily after he lets out a bit of noxious gas.
Comment by GG — June 9, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Nice analagy, I am warning others as to avoid any visuals.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pmWell, at least Exley writes better than MA.
I'm refering to the quality of the writing, not the quality of arguments, by the way. The arguments are still dogmatic and beg the question.
Back to my studies now....
June 9th, 2006 at 4:04 pmBriseadh na Faire, I agree that the constitutional questions are not decided by lawyers writing op-eds in newspapers. Nor are they decided on ThinkProgress message boards. But as you know as a lawyer, the courts are normally pretty reticent to get involved in controversies involving national security between the executive and legislative branches, so it seems unlikely SCOTUS will ever make a final determination on this issue. All I ask is that people take a sober look at the issue and the legal and constitutional questions involved. Too often I see emptyi and simplistic sloganeering about "illegal warrantless wiretaps" and "domestic spying" by people who really don't know anything about the issue or will even take the time to learn. I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:04 pmMY GOD! I hope they got a warrant first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
You only need a warrant if U.S. citizens are involved. Though... Zarqawi could have been knowing the Bush Regime...
And if he called someone, they have 72 hours to get one retroactively. No problem. Unless you're too lazy to follow the law... Is that that you're saying - you're too lazy?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:05 pmKrazny...It was kind of a joke. Relax, dude.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:06 pmI think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Hate to rain on your parade, but - no you have not. The law and Constitution are quite clear.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pmUnbelievable....See my note to Krazny. Relax. It's Friday.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pm"Hate to rain on your parade, but - no you have not. The law and Constitution are quite clear."
Oh, I agree...The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:10 pmUnbelievable….See my note to Krazny. Relax. It’s Friday.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I am very relaxed. Normal operating procedure for me. You should take your own advice though. After all, you are the one typing in caps (shouting) and using multiple exclamation points (lunacy)
June 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmDon't worry about your privacy their here to protct you from the evil terrorists.With our record of supporting the worst dictatorships on the planet and assasinating the democratically elected leaders of weaker countries it a wonder we have this few enemies !!! Is that un american?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI don't write all in caps. The odd word here and there to emphasize them as if in a conversation. In fact, I don't anyonehere on this thread has used all caps.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmOh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Lemme fix that for you....
Oh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal - as long as you get a warrant if an American citizen is involved in the wire tap.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmExley, I merely made a point, you are the one with the exclamation points, and other hysterical writing.
I do think its funny, that in post #126 you state:
I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
then you state in post #131
Oh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Nice little flip flop.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI see the Gitmo torturers have gotten to Specter. Of course W and Co. will get a pass for breaking the law. Did anyone expect anything otherwise?
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
AN OUTRIGHT THREAT AGAINST ANN COULTER. WHO'S WITH LCL?
Only on LCL
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
An exclusive interview with U.S. Rep. Jim Davis:
And
Was al-Zarqawi murdered after he survived the "fatal" bombing?
Only on SSA
June 9th, 2006 at 4:15 pmExley - you were using all caps quite a bit in the Zarqawi thread...
June 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI still haven't seen any Repubs tell us what they really think of the Constitution here. Whenever the Constitution is referenced, they never directly respond to it, like its some inconvienience, or besides the point. I am left to assume Repubs really think the Constitution is inconvienient for them.
Any Republicans care to comment on what they really think of that document?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmyou are the one with the exclamation points, and other hysterical writing.
I assume you are referring to "My God, I hope they got a warrant first." Ummm..again, that was kind of a joke.
As for post # 126, where I wrote: "I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.." Yeah, well...I was just trying to be nice. I am pretty convinced that I am right.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pmMan I am so happy to hear Zarqawi didn't die a quick and painless death, he got to suffer a bit, and know who bombed him. /sarcasm.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#137, LC Liberal,
No Sir, I never expected otherwise.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named "Anvilhead."
June 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmMaybe if the Constitution was re-printed on the same material currency is printed on the Repubs will pay more attention to it.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmWhenever the Constitution is referenced, they never directly respond to it, like its some inconvienience, or besides the point. I am left to assume Repubs really think the Constitution is inconvienient for them. Any Republicans care to comment on what they really think of that document?
Comment by For Truth — June 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
An impudent bit of irrelevence, created by a bunch of upstart colonial secessionists - and bad for business to boot.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pmrumsfeld armed hussein because we were having no luck over throwing the government of Iran ,we are getting some of our best intellegence about our terrorist enemy from Karamov in uzbekistan whom the former brittish ambassador says uses boiling alive as a prreferred interrogation method,and we just sent him millions to continue the fine job of information gathering he's doing for us, sort of like the way we got involved with Saddam ! dont worry this wont create any more terrorists the Uzbekki'sprobably just love us for it.ANd dont worry that could never happen here! just let the gestapo go about protecting us .The right to privacy is so over rated anyway
June 9th, 2006 at 4:25 pmrest easy .go back to sleep xley and when you wake up you'll be in fascist state!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.â€
Comment by Exley
Must be because both of you spew crap that you cannot back up and both of you are intelectually dishonest. That makes it easy to confuse you with most of the trolls here
June 9th, 2006 at 4:33 pmHi Wayne! Good to hear from you again, buddy! As pleasant as always, I see.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pmlets get back to all the legal arguments for our oppression as a people Im sure their lawyer in the white house has taken care of all the legalese
June 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.â€
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
I'm not easily confused...
HAHAHAHAHHAHAA! “Unbelievable†is sooooooooooo bitter that his hero Zarqawi bit the dust yesterday! Poor guy!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 10:56 am
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Don’t worry Zawarhi, Allah-willing, you’ll be seeing him soon.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 11:38 am
This keeps getting better and BETTER! Zarqawi was alive when we found him! That’s fantastic!!! Not only did we kill this animal, but he suffered before he went and he knew it was the U.S. that got him!!! Hahahahahahahhahaa! Enjoy your time in Hell, you fanatic!!!!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 10:11 am
June 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAre you oppressed, freeman? I don't feel oppressed. How 'bout you, Wayne????
June 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pmlets bring back the good old days bfore WW1 when all our enemies were domestic ones and we had this much fun over the 8 hour work day and the end of child labour
June 9th, 2006 at 4:42 pmthe price of freedom is eternal vigilance
June 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pmyour middle class existance has only been around since after the GI returned from the second WW its an anomaly in history and in need of somer protecting !do u think this is a real democracy?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pmAre you talking to me, freeman?
No, this is not a democracy. It's a republic.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmand yes mass murder and being spied on oppress me
June 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmis that unpatriotic?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:48 pmIs what unpatriotic?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pmTime for real democracy perhaps
June 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pmit doesnt bother u that the government is spying on you ?May u always be so naive
June 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pmbut stick with the law history will only depress U
June 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pmbut stick with the law. History will only depress U
June 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pmUnless you are calling members of Al Qaeda in other countries, the government isn't spying on you, Freeman. You have to stop being so paranoid. Relax. Have a beer. Watch a ballgame.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pmif your repesentative govt can kill or be involved in the killings of of thousands in chile for instance do u think they will lose any sleep over ridding themselves of a dissidents who pester them domestically?How many died in our support of saddams war with Iran ?Dont worry its just a joke Its friday, Very cavalier
June 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pmChile???? Oh, wait, you said it's a joke. Good. Have a good weekend.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pmAnd maybe u missed something but as I understand it the sping is NOT only on international calls and I am married to a european.besides how is u know there are only spying on al Qaeda theere is no acountability in our secret govt,oNLY GOOGLE HASNT TURN OVER ITS RECORDS TO THE NSA ,only one phone company has publically refused to cooperate
June 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pmask the world court in the hague about it I belive they called it a crime against humanity and convicted kissinger in absentia
June 9th, 2006 at 5:11 pm"but as I understand it the spying is NOT only on international calls."
No, that is incorrect. The NSA terrorism surveillance program is directed only at international calls and e-mails beginning from or coming into the United States involving suspected Al Qaeda members.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:14 pmIgrew up with friends that fled Pinchet the US toppled a freely elected govt
June 9th, 2006 at 5:17 pmun true Quakers in the US anti war groups and enviormentalists too
June 9th, 2006 at 5:18 pmComment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
"All I ask is that people take a sober look at the issue and the legal and constitutional questions involved."
Sorry, no, that is not what you are doing. You are being an apologist for Bush. If you're being paid to post here, go back and tell your employers they better try to find someone else. You failed to pass muster. Don't take it too personally. Trying to find ways to justify the actions of this Administration is incredibly difficult. Nice try, though. Your writing style is far better than other Bush apologists that post here.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThey may have fled Pinochet, but they sure as heck would have fled Allende, a communistr dictator who was already consolidating totalitarian rule in Chile. Pinochet may not have been a picnic. But Allende was a totalitarian thug.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pmare u really so naive?how do u feelabout our support of dictators as a form of international diplomacy such as Karamov in Uzbekistan (presently)or our LONG history of destabalizing other countries around the world for the last 50 years
June 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pmMonkeying in the affairs of other sovereign nations is criminal and not likely to have won us any friends.Aritede in haiti claims he was kidnapped by the us and that we overthru his govt last year
June 9th, 2006 at 5:26 pm"Your writing style is far better than other Bush apologists that post here."
Well, I appreciate that Briseadh na Faire. Although I would not call myself a Bush "apologist." I am very much a Bush supporter, I will grant you.
But I must say that I don't think you are being totally honest here (intellectually speaking). I have provided several legal decisions in support of my (and the president's position)-- one of them coming from a Clinton DOJ official. I think that is fairly substantive stuff. No one here has really taken time to review and respond to those documents or the idea that the president as commander-in-chief has the inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:27 pmthe spirit of the law is more important the legalese DONT TREAD ON ME !!!!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pmyour prez is a war criminal,pre emptive war is agression (more legalese)Waterboarding is torture Murder is murder.....
June 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pmthis administration telegraphed it intentions thru the project for the new american century to invade the mid east while the ussr was weakened and bfore the chineese were strong enuf to oppose it "but barring a natn catastrophy it would be hard to galvanize the public behind such a scheme" WAR CRIME
June 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pmAsk Junior Bush and he'll tell ya that God talked to him. That God spoke directly to him and told him where to find and how to kill thousands of innocents while looting the treasury and giving tax breaks to the richest. He'll say God told him that re-writing law to benefit the corporate world would send him straight to the pearly gates. Yes indeed, quite a leader. Damn glad I didn't vote for the stinking War Pigs.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pmNewk Fux Newz, now.
after alittle waterboarding and being put into a sleeping bag head first the general died War crime
June 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pmPRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence, ready for export.
Nov. 2003
Sounds like you and Dubya are on the same page, Freeman.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:46 pmexley doesnt this shake your confidence in war co a little?do you condone our behavior of toppling govts destabalizing countries and political assasinations of the past fifty years?Remember the Maine?
June 9th, 2006 at 5:49 pmKaramov just recieved millions from bush >He boils people alive
June 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pmwould u feel better if we had lawyer draw up some papers saying murder and tortue are allright?
June 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pmyou thinka stroke of a pen will erase our rights to be spied upon.Sneak and peak for instance or the end of habeas corpus ?
June 9th, 2006 at 5:56 pmthese rights are inalleinable not because the govt cant pass laws denying them but because as human being we will always fight for them (our birth right )The right to privacy was not invented by a lawyer
June 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pmYou are not responding to my post, Freeman, but I will respond to yours. The U.S. has made mistakes in the past. Overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950s was a bad decision and we are still paying for it today. But. on the other hand, the U.S. has done mostly good around the world, even when overthrowing governments. Is there any doubt that helping to defeat the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the the 1980s was the right thing to do? Of course not. Is there anyone hear who doesn't think overthrowing the Taliban was the right thing to do? And yes, the U.S. has allied itself with some pretty unsavory regimes since WWII. But that fact has to be placed in the context of the Cold War against communist totalitaranism. Sometimes in a fight against a greater, more immediate evil, it is necessary to deal with less than perfect allies with whom you otherwise not associate yourself.
Take FDR in World War II -- In order to defeat Nazi Germany, the U.S. allied itself with Stalin and the USSR --hardly paragons of human rights and democracy. But the alliance with a criminal like Stalin was necessary. Did that make FDR and the Allies less right in the fight against Nazism?
June 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pmdo u agree or not exley
June 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pmYou are not responding to my post, Freeman, but I will respond to yours. The U.S. has made mistakes in the past. Overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950s was a bad decision and we are still paying for it today. But. on the other hand, the U.S. has done mostly good around the world, even when overthrowing governments. Is there any doubt that helping to defeat the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the the 1980s was the right thing to do? Of course not. Is there anyone here who doesn't think overthrowing the Taliban was the right thing to do? And yes, the U.S. has allied itself with some pretty unsavory regimes since WWII. But that fact has to be placed in the context of the Cold War against communist totalitarianism. Sometimes in a fight against a greater, more immediate evil, it is necessary to deal with less than perfect allies with whom you otherwise not associate yourself.
Take FDR in World War II -- In order to defeat Nazi Germany, the U.S. allied itself with Stalin and the USSR --hardly paragons of human rights and democracy. But the alliance with a criminal like Stalin was necessary. Did that make FDR and the Allies less right in the fight against Nazism?
(Corrected version)
June 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pmgood logic but sadly south americans dont like us and middle easteners dont like us
June 9th, 2006 at 6:02 pmasnd wasnt it hitler who said the ends justify the means?
June 9th, 2006 at 6:03 pmdo u agree or not exley
Comment by freeman — June 9, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
With what? You need to be more specific. As I said, I have and will continue to respond to your questions. I hope you will extend me the same courtesy.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:03 pmI say unto you rresist not evil Jesus
June 9th, 2006 at 6:04 pmI think it is far too broad a statement to say all South Americans and Middle Easterners "don't like us." Some do...Some don't.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:07 pmdo u approve of noaccountability in a war over entirely false premises that has taken the lives of 100's of thousands of innocents by people who wrote of their intention to go to war years bfore 911 and do u believe that 50 years of history were all for honorable reasons?
June 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pmwatch politics in s america recentlyis it allright that we tried to kidnap hugo chavez before overthrowing the govt of haiti?
June 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pmand no we are notliked in the middle east
June 9th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI think the Shiites and Kurds who were liberated from Saddam's genocidal tyranny like us just fine.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:18 pmComment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Exley, I took the time, and responded. The Commander-in-Chief's inherent authority to conduct foreign intellegince operations is not at issue. What is at issue is the expansion of that authority into purely domestic communications without Congressional or Judicial oversight. And what is at issue is the proposal that Congress give the Executive Branch a free pass, thereby increasing Executive Power at the expense of individual liberties.
In this instance supporting Bush is akin to supporting the creation of a dictatorship. It is as if the current administration is using 1984 as a blueprint for government.
"I am very much a Bush supporter, I will grant you."
Be careful of what you wish for: you may get it.
I ask that you step back and analyze all this administration has done as if Clinton had done the same things. Would you still support the actions, regardless of the man?
Usually when I post the above questions, the Bush supporter begs the question or refuses to answer at all. I hope you will be different. I hope you will be open to a more objective point of view. I have a class to go to, but I'll be checking back in a few hours.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:18 pmImages of torture the VP speaking on the record muses perhaps only certain groups with in the govt should conduct torture.Secret prisons rendition the destruction of falluja a war over false premises (our first attempt at pre emption)these events have seriously damaged our reputation globally ?you thinkthese were wiser choices than we made in the past and if W,s on the same page why is he suppoting a dictator who boils people alive?
June 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pmand I still recieve no real answer
June 9th, 2006 at 6:21 pmmy answer to your finer points of the law remains as follows lawyers did not create our rights as human beings the right not to be spied on as aQuaker or an anti war protester are inallienable and the spying is domestic what are your fellingon this X man
June 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pmcorporation america should be worried less the people tire of them
June 9th, 2006 at 6:25 pmThe Shia's and Kurds are happy to see Saddam go, but it doesn't translate into them liking us. Frankly any culture that would revere Al Zarkawee (phonetic spelling) is most likely not going to like the US. As long as we have a military presence in the middle east, we are not going to be liked. Even our allies Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan's general populace don't really like the US.
Western and middle eastern culture have been fighting each other since the middle ages. Why we fight has changed, but the root dislike is still very much alive.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:26 pmBriseadh na Faire: I ask that you step back and analyze all this administration has done as if Clinton had done the same things. Would you still support the actions, regardless of the man?
I was no Clinton fan, as I am sure you guessed. But I did support him in several instances. For example, I was a strong supporter of his actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. I also supported Clinton's launching of Operation: Desert Fox agaist Iraq and his attack on the factory in the Sudan. I also applauded his decision to push for the expansion of NATO.
I would also remind you that Clinton too claimed the inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, as stated by Jamie Gorelick.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pmoh sorry for killing your woman children husbands parent and cousins i guess we were wrong get over it ?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:03 pmMy point being, Briseadh na Faire, is that I will support a person -- Democrat or Republican -- if I feel what they are saying or doing is the right thing for the country. So, my answer is yes, I would have (and did) support Clinton when I thought he was doing the right thing.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:06 pmno one held accountable?Do you support that or should someone payexley?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pmis mass murder by people who wrote that they planned to invade another country really supportable?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:09 pmFreeman, you have asked numerous questions but they allo essentialy boil down to one: Do I support the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is yes. I believe both actions were necessary to prevent future 9/11s. Do I think both wars have been handled perfectly? No. But I do believe history will judge our corrections as correct.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:13 pmdo you really believe our govt is so lilly white that we shouldnt examine our past ?We created terrorism thru injustice ( those pesky inallienable rights agin!)We continue to make the same mistakes ,overthrowing Haitis govt ,attempting to kidnap hugo chavez,condoning torture and a war on proven lies make enemies .Maybe instaed of spying on average americans we should try apologizing for the evils that these sameplayers have committed in our namesin the past and by depriving our dictators club of funds?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:17 pmno connection between 911 and the terrorists
June 9th, 2006 at 7:18 pmwe supported the taliban
June 9th, 2006 at 7:19 pmhell we supported saddam and are currently supporting a man who boils people alive
June 9th, 2006 at 7:20 pmI absolutely believe we should examine our past and learn from our mistakes. As I said, the overthrow of Iran's government in the 1950s was a terrible mistake for which we are still paying.
Our decision to abandon the South Vietnamese to the genocide of the communists in the early 1970s was a disgrace.
As George W. Bush said (and with which you apparently agree): "Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence, ready for export."
June 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pmIts like farming troubles thats next years crop,and I thought the prez had disavowed our past behaviors but hes only doing what hes done repeatedly and been caught at ,lie lie lie
June 9th, 2006 at 7:24 pmwar is peace oh i mean liberation
June 9th, 2006 at 7:25 pmUmmmmmm...What?
"no connection between 911 and the terrorists
Comment by freeman — June 9, 2006 @ 7:18 pm"
June 9th, 2006 at 7:25 pmwar is peace clean skies iniative a licence to pollute this is all double speak. how much do they pay you?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:27 pmLet's get back to your statement:
“no connection between 911 and the terrorists
Comment by freeman — June 9, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
What does that mean?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:29 pmwe live in the greatest country on earth right ?all though in europe u cant find a home less person and they all have universal health care .
June 9th, 2006 at 7:31 pmnever heard of the 911 commision?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:32 pmnever heard of the 911 commision?no connection btween iraq and 911
June 9th, 2006 at 7:33 pmFreeman, what does "“no connection between 911 and the terrorists" mean?
Are you claiming it was some type of "inside job" by the CIA? Did the Israelis do it?
Are you actually claiming that terrorists did not perperate 9/11?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmwe are liberating them from the brutal dictator we helped stay in power so he could kill iranians ? I think we have liberated many innocent civilians of body parts.Shock and awe indead
June 9th, 2006 at 7:36 pmdo u like our support of karamov?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:38 pmLet's get my question settled first...What did you mean when you wrote:
““no connection between 911 and the terrorists†mean?
Are you claiming it was some type of “inside job†by the CIA? Did the Israelis do it?
Are you actually claiming that terrorists did not perperate 9/11? Or did you simply misstate yoru position and mean to write "No connection between 911 and Iraq?"
June 9th, 2006 at 7:45 pmviolence, ready for export.â€
Comment by Exley
And what kind of example are we?
Who the hell do we think we are?
We can talk the talk but not walk the walk?
We have exported lots and lots of violence... and most of it has not been in self defense like WWII.
If we DEMAND that others do what we ourselves do not ...do you know what that is called?
It sure isnt honor.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:48 pm"We have exported lots and lots of violence… and most of it has not been in self defense like WWII."
Examples?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pmwe did not go to war to liberate the iraqis we went because saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and a little yellow cake on the side remember?all untrue as it turned out and even though most of bushes cabinet consists of oil exec some of whom still recieve generous funds while on the job and even though they wrote of their intentions to invade the mid east for its oil we can rest happy that it was inorder to liberate them. wow U relly belive that?.Its obvios these people lie endlessly and now we should trust what they say about who their spying on?despite google saying it wont hand over all its records and Q west refusing toallow the nsa to wire tapp conversations en masse and in light of govt spying on legitimate dissent wow mind blowing I quess Bush co can do no wrong in your eyes exley
June 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pmFreeman, you refuse to answer my very simple question despite the fact that I have endeavored to answer yours. Now, if you want to continue discussing the matter, Ithink it only fair that you answer the question I have no asked three times. If you do, we can move on.
What did you mean when you wrote:
““no connection between 911 and the terrorists†mean?
Are you claiming it was some type of “inside job†by the CIA? Did the Israelis do it?
Are you actually claiming that terrorists did not perperate 9/11? Or did you simply misstate yoru position and mean to write “No connection between 911 and Iraq?â€
June 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pmyou must be joking x man where have u been do u think our behaviors of desabalizing other countries or the support of brutal dictatorships all over theworld and those very things which u said W has disavowed are perfect examples.Karamov in uzbekistan is a present one were supporting him just like we did saddamand he boils people alive
June 9th, 2006 at 7:59 pmsorry for the misstatement NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QEADA
June 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pmbesides u seem to think bush can do no wrong if they did blow up the towers it must all have been in our best interests
June 9th, 2006 at 8:02 pmOkay, well, it is pretty clear you won't answer my pretty straightforward question. Accordingly I must believe that you think the 9/11 was some type of U.S-manufactured "inside job" or an Israeli plot of some sort...And I cannot have a serious discussion with someone who holds such bizarre conspiracy-theory beliefs.
Good night.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:03 pmhas the govt been spying on quakers Xley?
June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pmAh, there we go. Thank you. Okay. Well, while I disagree with you when you say there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (There clearly was, as the 9/11 Commission reported) at least you are not a 9/11-was-carried-out-by-the-CIA-Mossad conspiracy nut.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:05 pmTake FDR in World War II — In order to defeat Nazi Germany, the U.S. allied itself with Stalin and the USSR –hardly paragons of human rights and democracy. But the alliance with a criminal like Stalin was necessary. Did that make FDR and the Allies less right in the fight against Nazism?
Comment by Exley
Its getting really old. The republicans latching onto WWII as if it is explains their actions. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos was NOTHING like WWII. Nicaragua was NOTHING like WWII. The decisions we make MUST be decided relative to the danger we face. Without that we risk letting corrupt presidents use OUR power for THEIR ends. Many of the actions we have taken were nothing more than posturing for global games of perceived threat or for commercial gain. Take the example of how we helped Europe get China helpless addicted to opium and used our military to help protect their ships and citizens on land in China. Take the miliatary idustrial complex... you know... the one Dwight Eisenhower warned us about. The one that has an unbelievably large motive to WANT war .. no matter the cause ... anywhere in the world so they can sell death machines? You must ALWAYS take their enthusiasm for going to war with a grain of salt. They profit from it. Its not about conspiracy its about common sense which is why Eisenhower said it.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:08 pmobviosly terrorism was involved in 011 but also on the public recordis the fact that 2 of the terrorist were living with fbi informants prior to the attack and that the neo cons wrote of their intention to invade the mid east prior to 911 I do not at this time believe that the govt was actually involved in the planning but it is not beyond possibility
June 9th, 2006 at 8:10 pmthe 911 commission has said no connection existed and this is a well known fact bro
June 9th, 2006 at 8:13 pmlast years terrorists looked like sitting bull and we know for a fact that we were only there to helpthe indian get civilization and to learn to read
June 9th, 2006 at 8:15 pmliberating isnt it
June 9th, 2006 at 8:16 pmActually Freeman, the 9/11 Comission reported numerous contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda and described the Clinton administration's concerns that Iraq and Al Qaeda were forming an alliance. This subject is pretty well covered in the Zarqawi thread.
Well, on that note, it is time to go out and have a drink. Good night all.
Briseadh na Faire, I look forward to your response when you return from class.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:21 pm"but barring a national catastrophy it will be hard to galvanize the american public behind such a scheme" written by the neo cons for the project for a new american century pre 911 on invading the mid easy ,
June 9th, 2006 at 8:22 pmThis is extremely sick news. And I'm wondering where this mentality comes from? Most likely doesn't matter.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWe are almost at a point where "men" of our represenative goverment , like Thomas Jefferson or George I might have thought about stabbing one of these "fools" in the back. Traitors, the lot of 'em.
no connection al qeada wanted to topple all non theocratic govts in the mid east,saddams was sectarian not theocratic
June 9th, 2006 at 8:26 pm9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials
C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad
Bush overstated Iraq links to al-Qaeda, former intelligence officials say
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions
"Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
"Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.†[National Journal, 8/9/03]
Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.†[LA Times, 7/19/03].
“The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.†[NY Times, 6/27/03]
"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]
Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.â€
Powell said on 2/23/012/24/01e threatens not the United States.†, “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.†He then said on , “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighborsâ€
On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere†made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference†removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said “"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.â€
The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis. But the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government “not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.â€
June 9th, 2006 at 8:29 pmthanx man
June 9th, 2006 at 8:40 pmnow if we could only learn to read like the indians
June 9th, 2006 at 8:41 pmWe have exported lots and lots of violence… and most of it has not been in self defense like WWII.â€
Examples?
Comment by Exley
Nicaragua? Or are you as forgetful as St. Ronnie?
June 10th, 2006 at 2:26 amOk. I'm back. (Tonight's topic was Constitutional Law.)
I ask that you step back and analyze all this administration has done as if Clinton had done the same things. Would you still support the actions, regardless of the man?
ok, well, this reply begs the question.
This does too, although it implies that you would support Clinton if he did everything Bush has done over the past 6 years, since you claim to be a Bush supporter. I must admit I don't think I can find anything Bush has done which I could support. Forgive me, for the hour is late, but I would like to understand you a bit better. Do you support the following actions that the Bush Administration has done:
Convened in secret with energy company executives to develop the nation's energy policies while excluding environmental groups?
Allowed Enron to manipulate the energy market, sending one of the largest states in the union into chaos with rolling blackouts and brown outs, with no governmental oversight or investigation?
Allowed voting irregularities in national elections to go uninvestigated?
Ignored warnings about an imminent terrorist attack?
Allowed the family members of the person most likely responsible to leave the country without a full investigation into the crime?
Initiated a war of aggression for the purpose of (a partial list of the reasons given):
regime change?
Weapons of mass destruction?
instilling democracy?
oil?
revenge?
Allowed the torture of foreign nationals?
Allowed the secret rendition of foreign citizens to countries where torture was likely to occur?
Held a United States Citizen without charges nor trial for 3 years?
Authorized a surveillance program to be used against United States Citizens without judicial oversight?
Created disproportional tax cuts favoring the super wealthy?
Increased the national debt by trillions?
Supported a Constitutional Amendment which would write gender discrimination into the Constitution?
Set an impossible standard for public schools, whereby every public school will be deemed a failing school authorizing a national take-over of public education?
Negligently responded to a natural disaster (Katrina)?
Outed a CIA agent for political purposes?
Embraces "Creation Science?"
Rejects the notion of global warming?
There's more, I am sure, but it's late. But this list will do. How you respond will speak volumes about you: are you rational, or dogmatic? Are your arguments consistent, or convoluted? And, more important, what is your underlying philosophy? Do you have an open mind? Are you capable of changing your opinion when confronted with new facts? Are you capable of seeing other's point of view? Are you capable of creating new points of view? Can you find common ground?
June 10th, 2006 at 2:54 amSpecter is nothing more than a manipulator of words for his own benefit - effectively, yet another Republican liar out for the good of noone and nothing but himself. He SPECulates on what voters and the American public want to hear, then TERminates all logical thought as he caves to the far right and the administration's policies.
June 10th, 2006 at 9:35 amFrom Exley's examples - he only supported Clinton when he was in military mode. That's pretty telling. Someone who supoprts violence and nothing else.
I mean there were much better things to support in the Clinton Administration (and I was not a Clintonite) that were peaceful... A stable economy, a budget surplus, a waning deficit, an increase in jobs...
No wonder he supports Bush. he likes the violence...
June 10th, 2006 at 10:18 amUnbelievable,
Exley...No wonder he supports Bush. he likes the violence…
I am waiting to see his response to 252. That will give us a more complete picture of what it is Exley supports and where he is coming from.
June 10th, 2006 at 10:38 amWhat Spector said (did not say) or does (does not do) is moot.
The conservatives are circling the wagons prior to the mid-terms ... end of discussion.
There is no concern about Constitutional issues .. only about protecting the King!
These people are fools, as in the long run, they lose right along with us. When the Constitution becomes "just a piece of paper" as our glorious leader stated ... we are all in the same boat .... sinking!
June 10th, 2006 at 11:30 amF*ckin' Spector!!
June 10th, 2006 at 8:57 pmArlen, you old devil, you almost had me....
This just in from Earth feed Think Progress. American senator Arlen Specter is a douche bag. I'm not sure these days why I bother to care anymore about Earth politics. Ever since I left Earth for my new home here...
June 10th, 2006 at 11:36 pmBriseadh na Faire:
1) I have no problem with the Vice President of the United States meeting with energy company officials to devise a national energy policy. As we know, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Cheney in June 2004 in the case of Cheney v. U.S. District Court
2) The administration did not "allow" Enron to do any such thing. As you know, it was this administration that investigated and ultimately obtained the conviction of Enron officials. Actually Enron became a powerhouse under the Clinton Admininstration.
3) Do you have any evidence of this or is this just left-over bitterness from the fact that your side lost in 2000?
4) The 9/11 Commission did not find that the administration ignored evidence of an imminent attack. Indeed, if you read the report, you'll see that the Bush Administration at the president's behest began pre-9/11 formulating an anti-terrorism policy against Al Qaeda that was further stronger and pro-active than had been the Clinton adminisraion's.
5) I too would have liked the Bin Ladens to have been held longer. BUT, do you know who it was who gave the "okay" to let them fly out of the country???? It was current-liberal hero Richard Clarke. He so testified before the 9/11 Commission hearing (Moreover, I am certain that if they had been held indefinitely as you seem to have wanted, you would then taken the opposite position and claim we were violating their civil and human rights). But regardless, you should take up this matter with Richard Clarke.
6) Do I support launching military action in response to a murderous atrocity that led to the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans in an hour's time? Yes, I do -- 100%.
7) It is my understanding (in fact, it is indisputable) that military personnel who violate the law and mistreat prisoners are prosecuted and, if convicted, punished. So, your question is based on a faulty premise. The administration does not "allow" the torture of foreign nationals. It punishes such actions in accordance with the law.
8) I have no problem sending captured terrorists back to the nations from which they came. I find it very amusing that liberals decry detaining enemy combatants at the Guantanamo facility, but at the same time got apoplectic when we don't send the terrorist to Guantanamo and instead send them back from where they came from...What would you suggest we do with our enemy cpatives?
9) Jose Padilla has his case reach all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the face of that fact, to claim that he has been derpived of due process in absurd.
10) As we have already discussed, the NSA anti-terrorism surveillance program is undoubtedly constitutional and legal. That matter has already been settled.
11) Actually, the Bush tax cuts have made the tax system far more fair, with the wealthiest paying a far larger share of the tax base than in the Clinton years. I favor greater and deeper tax cuts for all Americans.
12) Here we are in agreement...The Bush administration, by adopting liberal spending patterns and increase spending on wasteful social spending programs, has been a great disappointment to conservatives. I would dearly love to see the administration cut the budget drastically, reducing both the deficits and the size of the federal government. As I said, we are in agreemnt here -- We both support drastic budget cuts.
13) I am not sure what "gender discrimination" you are talking about. If that is a euphemism for the constitutional amendment that would deprive unelected judges from unilaterally altering the definition of marriage as being anything other than a union between a man and a woman, I would say I support such an amendment, as do the vast majority of the American people. To oppose such an amendment shows a lack of faith and belief in democracy. Do you oppose democracy?
14) I tend to agree that the federal government's role in education should be extremely limited. I have long favored eliminating the Depeartment of Education. I am glad to see you support this as well.
15) As we have learned since Hurricane Katrina, most of the horror stories that followed turned out to be false. Even the New Orleans Times-Picayune printed an article admitting that much of the coverage was exagerrated:
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#082732
Yes, there were missteps in the preparation for and aftermath of Katrina. But as we have subsequently learned those missteps were those of state and local officials.
16) You must have information the rest of us don't have...As far as I know, the special prosecutor has not filed a single count against anyone for violating the IIPA. You liberals are going to have to get used to the fact that thus far the alleged "outing" of Valerie "Vanity Fair" Plame has turned out to be a big bust.
17) I believe you are referring to "intelligent design" and not "creationism." And I have no problem with students being exposed to various theories from evolution to ID to creationism. I personally accept the theory of evolution. But I am puzzled why liberals are so frightened of a free and open debate on this topic.
18) Actually, it was the U.S. Senate in 1997 that UNANIMOUSLY rejected the Kyoto Accord. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-to-0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which stated that “it is the sense of the Senate that ... the United States should not be a signatory to [the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty].†Ninety-five Senators voted in favor of this resolution. Zero opposed it. means that every single Republican and Democrat who voted, voted for the resolution condemning the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
So, to blame the Bush administration, which did not take office until 2001, for the U.S. rejection of the Kyto Treaty is to ignore history.
June 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThis is all interesting in that if one considers if the roles were reversed, and a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress were doing these same kind of shenanigans, Republicans and conservatives all over the country would be openly talking about political assassinations, and possibly even carrying them out.
June 11th, 2006 at 5:36 pmnext time I vote republicrat
June 11th, 2006 at 5:46 pmhey hear the latest the nsa is using natnal security letters to track the presses phone calls according to ABC and the blog on that new site on this issue sounds like we are going to end up with a civil war.only Q west has denied the NSA the ability to tapthe phones of millions of americans and only google has denied this administration the ability to look into our internet visits Isnt that just a tad Orwellian exley
June 11th, 2006 at 5:52 pmatleast you offer intellegent arguement by and large exley but on several other blogspots on this web site the right wing is obviously trying to be ugly and disruptive check out the postings about mary maitlan and ann coulters book its disgusting and is incredibly short sided .The behaviors are rude and totally disturbing.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:02 pmExley, #259,
your reply echoes talking points I have heard, which does tend to show a great deal of where you are coming from.
Blind support of any government is foolish.
I don't have the time for an in depth response, a few examples will have to suffice.
1) Convened in secret with energy company executives to develop the nation’s energy policies while excluding environmental groups?
1) I have no problem with the Vice President of the United States meeting with energy company officials to devise a national energy policy. As we know, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Cheney in June 2004 in the case of Cheney v. U.S. District Court
You addressed the executive privilege issue, but ignored the environmental issue. Profit at the expense of the environment is an unbalanced approach.
2) Allowed Enron to manipulate the energy market, sending one of the largest states in the union into chaos with rolling blackouts and brown outs, with no governmental oversight or investigation?
The administration did not “allow†Enron to do any such thing. As you know, it was this administration that investigated and ultimately obtained the conviction of Enron officials. Actually Enron became a powerhouse under the Clinton Admininstration.
Here's one article that pulls together multiple sources.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/enro-m10.shtml
All the information is independently verifiable:
The lack of oversight and investigation I was refering to was during the time period of the energy crisis here in California, when something could have been done to save many small businesses who suffered as a result of the energy market manipulations.
and finally,
3) Allowed voting irregularities in national elections to go uninvestigated?
Do you have any evidence of this or is this just left-over bitterness from the fact that your side lost in 2000?
Here's a rather comprehensive look at the evidence:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stole
I do take exception to the statement, "left-over bitterness from the fact that your side lost in 2000." You are assuming I am bitter. I am not. I am concerned. You are also assuming I am on a 'side' which 'lost.' I am not. I am a Shaman. I am not on a side, in the conventional sense.
Most of us view the world through only one lens. We only see what we want to see. Your response is indicative of your lens. I encourage you (and all who read this) to challenge your assumptions.
Remember, everyone believes his/her viewpoint is right. Since there are differing points of view, there are different ways of being right. If you cannot see where an opposing point of view may also be considered right, you cannot begin to resolve differences.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pm"Blind support of any government is foolish."
I agree...As is blind support of any ideology....As is reflexive opposition to any government.
Whereas I listed several areas of disagreement with the Bush administration, such as its runaway spending on social welfare programs, you wrote "I must admit I don’t think I can find anything Bush has done which I could support."
Thus, I ask, which one of us is being doctrinaire in their thinking???
June 12th, 2006 at 9:35 amIn a sense, everyone is. It is just a matter of where their individual doctrine comes from. Mine has been developed from The Sermon on the Mount, the Tao Te Ching and the 105 Universal Laws. If you read those, and read what it means to be a Shaman, you will understand better where I am coming from.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:06 am[...] Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) claimed a bill he authored didn’t provide amnesty for illegal surveillance, as the Washington Post reported. That isn’t true. Glenn Greenwald has the details. 1:51 pm | Comment (0) [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 1:52 pmUs Bankruptcy Court Western Pa
I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pmlatest super bowl odds
I found your site via Google while searching for %KEYWORD% and your post regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 amtax preparation
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:17 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pmlimited liability company form
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pmbad debt isnt national that
April 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am