Think Progress

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”

  1. unbelievable Says:

    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...


  2. Publicus Says:

    Unfortunately, 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.


  3. madashell Says:

    OMG, 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


  4. big papa Says:

    SURPRISE!!!!!


  5. Jeb's OBGYN and Check Cashing Says:

    Atleast you can't give amnesty without admitting there was a crime.


  6. DrSinker Says:

    Hard 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.


  7. wow123 Says:

    ??


  8. madashell Says:

    Take 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.


  9. Tigris Lily Says:

    Scumbag!


  10. Unholy Moses Says:

    Wow ...

    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 ...


  11. Equality72521 Says:

    I'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.


  12. Zookeeper Says:

    CNN'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.
    (Emphasis added)


  13. Jaded Prole Says:

    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.


  14. G.W.SuperChrist Says:

    Once 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.


  15. Richard Power Says:

    This 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.


  16. dubya Says:

    Specter = Spineless.


  17. GSD Says:

    At least Specter will get that fat endorsement contract from Jello....."Watch him wigggle and jiggle"....

    -GSD


  18. Joe Sixpack Says:

    I'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.


  19. NutWrench Says:

    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.

    The reason why they're called LAWS is because they're NOT "optional."


  20. Zookeeper Says:

    …..”Watch him wigggle and jiggle”….

    -GSD

    Oh my god, that's funny.


  21. S.D. Says:

    It'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.


  22. Exley Says:

    I 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.


  23. Krazny Says:

    Funny 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.


  24. Wayne Says:

    23--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
    chalk your comment up to lack of intellegence


  25. bob Says:

    Specter was ALWAYS going to cave. Mr. Magic Bullet is a totally-paid-for tool.


  26. Cyra Brown Says:

    #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?


  27. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exley--
    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).


  28. Exley Says:

    Here's your first lesson in constititional law, kiddies.

    The Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.

    Heh! Amateurs.


  29. west virginia hillbilly Says:

    Gee! I think I know how the German people felt under Hitler.
    Where did our government go??????


  30. Krazny Says:

    then how does tracking domestic phone calls fall under foreign survelliance?

    Amatuer


  31. Cyra Brown Says:

    #30- And the issue is spying on AMERICANS, not foreign intelligence gathering, which is already legal.


  32. Wayne Says:

    The 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.
    are you really that dense?


  33. Zookeeper Says:

    #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


  34. SL Aronovitz Says:

    It 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.


  35. Wayne Says:

    The 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.
    are you really that dense?


  36. Exley Says:

    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."


  37. Unholy Moses Says:

    Looks like Exley had a big bowl of stupid for breakfast ...


  38. Wayne Says:

    not sure how that double posted, weird =P


  39. Exley Says:

    Oh, 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.


  40. Krazny Says:

    Exley please read the first paragraph of the post over again. We are not talking about foreign survelience, it is talking about domestic survelliance.


  41. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exely--
    What part of "foreign" don't you understand? You do know what that word means, right?


  42. Zookeeper Says:

    #38 - Better be coughing up some links, there Exley. You're using quite a few ellipses...


  43. Cyra Brown Says:

    #35- I predict that 'something' will suddenly come up, requiring his hasty departure.


  44. Walt Says:

    Arlen 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.


  45. Exley Says:

    Heh! 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.


  46. Wayne Says:

    You 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.


  47. Zookeeper Says:

    #38 - I also notice you're using the word "foreign" quite a bit, which is completely beside the point, sweetie darling.


  48. Krazny Says:

    exley,

    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.


  49. Humanist Says:

    The 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?


  50. Exley Says:

    You 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.


  51. Exley Says:

    You 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.


  52. Cyra Brown Says:

    #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.


  53. Exley Says:

    Krazny, 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.


  54. Cyra Brown Says:

    #53 Or are you admitting that the DOMESTIC illegal wiretapping is indeed illegal?


  55. Jimi Says:

    Was there any doubt the good Senator would fold? I think not. His leash was jerked and he fell into line.


  56. G.W.SuperChrist Says:

    When 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.


  57. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exley--
    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.


  58. Your conscience Says:

    Exley 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.



  59. Barfly Says:

    Oh, 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.


  60. Krazny Says:

    Exley,

    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.


  61. CointelproLives Says:

    This 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?"


  62. Exley Says:

    Wayne,

    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.


  63. Exley Says:

    Unholy 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.


  64. Keith H. Says:

    Newk Diebold NOW.


  65. Barfly Says:

    Let 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).


  66. Exley Says:

    Hey 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.


  67. Barfly Says:

    Your "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.


  68. Exley Says:

    You 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.


  69. Barfly Says:

    I'll understand if you run off again, the weakness of your answer shows you haven't really thought about it much.


  70. Solitaire Says:

    I 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.
    Bottom line is that he is GOP. Period. The GOP are traitors to this country. They owe their allegiance to Bushland.


  71. CointelproLives Says:

    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?


  72. Krazny Says:

    The 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.


  73. Marty Didier Says:

    There'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?


  74. Exley Says:

    Hmmmm...I guess Barfly left or he's getting his computer fixed...Oh well. Maybe he'll check in later.


  75. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    I 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.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 1:10 pm

    Here’s your first lesson in constititional law, kiddies.

    The Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.

    Heh! Amateurs.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 1:21 pm

    Exley,

    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.


  76. Zookeeper Says:

    #79 - Ahhhh, a breath of fresh air.


  77. Exley Says:

    Krazny, 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.


  78. Barfly Says:

    How 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.


  79. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exley—
    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.”

    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.


  80. G.W.SuperChrist Says:

    Exley - 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!


  81. G.W.SuperChrist Says:

    Exley - 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!


  82. Exley Says:

    Briseadh 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?
    Read it and then get back to us.


  83. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    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?

    Comment by Humanist — June 9, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

    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?


  84. Exley Says:

    Barfly..."the Japs" ????????

    Um, kinda offensive, don't ya think?


  85. Barfly Says:

    Barfly…”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.


  86. Wayne Says:

    Exley, 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


  87. Zookeeper Says:

    #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.


  88. Exley Says:

    G.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.


  89. lever long enough Says:

    racketeering (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."


  90. Humanist Says:

    Exley 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.


  91. Zookeeper Says:

    I 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...


  92. Ken Daves Says:

    As 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?


  93. Barfly Says:

    I will wait.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

    Comedic gold, I tell 'ya!


  94. Exley Says:

    Nice 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.


  95. Wayne Says:

    Now 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
    if you demand an answer to your question, then answer the ones asked of you. But you can't


  96. swede Says:

    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


  97. Unholy Moses Says:

    Humanist--
    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.


  98. Marie Says:

    I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but I told you so.
    Don'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.


  99. Exley Says:

    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.


  100. Krazny Says:

    Wasn'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.


  101. Barfly Says:

    You 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.


  102. Exley Says:

    Unholy 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.


  103. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exley--
    I never apologized to you. Nor will, nor should, I.


  104. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    Exley -

    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.

    Do you mean this article?

    The 2002 Appeals Court Myth
    A column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt argues that Bush’s secret domestic surveillance program was legal. (Byron York posted a portion of the piece on the National Review website under the title “READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE“) It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:

    “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.”

    Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute.

    This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, “where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president’s authority is at its lowest ebb.”

    The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:

    It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…

    All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President’s authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, “[T]he question before us is the reverse.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth

    Next time, it would be helpful if you posted your own links to support your arguments.


  105. Later On » Phil Specter, spineless wretch Says:

    [...] 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. [...]


  106. Miro Says:

    Isn'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.


  107. swede Says:

    everyone please read How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values by Glen Greenwald and you will see how this administration is completely lawless


  108. Exley Says:

    Yep, 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.


  109. Jim Haynes Says:

    Giving 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.


  110. Unholy Moses Says:

    Exley--
    I've read both cases, and in both cases your interpretation is incorrect:

    From here:

    The 1972 ruling "makes clear that the warrant requirement applies to all searches within the United States, even if the president alleges that it's an intelligence search,'' said Abraham Sofaer, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution on the Stanford University campus. Sofaer, as a Columbia University law professor, wrote the main brief challenging the wiretap, later served as a federal judge and then became the chief legal adviser to the State Department under President Ronald Reagan.

    Although the case involved domestic surveillance, the court made it clear that "there's no inherent power to eavesdrop for foreign intelligence purposes within the United States,'' Sofaer said

    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 ...


  111. Exley Says:

    By 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.


  112. swede Says:

    Read 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


  113. Marie Says:

    #103 Krazny,
    I 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.


  114. freeman Says:

    exley
    without 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 $)


  115. felicity smith Says:

    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.


  116. Keith H. Says:

    As long as these son of a bitches have unchecked power, they will be ABOVE EVERY F$#*ING LAW THERE IS.
    With 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.


  117. freeman Says:

    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 ?


  118. freeman Says:

    don't tread on me


  119. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    Exley,

    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:

    Feinstein said she believes Congress should take its time on the issue, because it involves serious constitutional questions on the scope of presidential powers.

    Enough said.


  120. Exley Says:

    FROM 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  121. GG Says:

    Arlen Sphincter's muscle has atrophied; everything slides through him easily after he lets out a bit of noxious gas.


  122. Krazny Says:

    It 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.


  123. For Truth Says:

    Arlen 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.


  124. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    Well, 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....


  125. Exley Says:

    Briseadh 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.


  126. unbelievable Says:

    MY 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?


  127. Exley Says:

    Krazny...It was kind of a joke. Relax, dude.


  128. unbelievable Says:

    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

    Hate to rain on your parade, but - no you have not. The law and Constitution are quite clear.


  129. Exley Says:

    Unbelievable....See my note to Krazny. Relax. It's Friday.


  130. Exley Says:

    "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.


  131. unbelievable Says:

    Unbelievable….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)


  132. freeman Says:

    Don'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?


  133. Exley Says:

    I 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.


  134. unbelievable Says:

    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

    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.


  135. Krazny Says:

    Exley, 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.


  136. LC Liberal Says:

    I 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


  137. unbelievable Says:

    Exley - you were using all caps quite a bit in the Zarqawi thread...


  138. For Truth Says:

    I 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?


  139. Exley Says:

    you 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.


  140. For Truth Says:

    Man 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.


  141. For Truth Says:

    #137, LC Liberal,

    No Sir, I never expected otherwise.


  142. Exley Says:

    Unbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named "Anvilhead."


  143. For Truth Says:

    Maybe if the Constitution was re-printed on the same material currency is printed on the Repubs will pay more attention to it.


  144. Barfly Says:

    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?

    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.


  145. freeman Says:

    rumsfeld 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


  146. freeman Says:

    rest easy .go back to sleep xley and when you wake up you'll be in fascist state!!!!!


  147. Wayne Says:

    Unbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.”

    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


  148. Exley Says:

    Hi Wayne! Good to hear from you again, buddy! As pleasant as always, I see.


  149. freeman Says:

    lets 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


  150. unbelievable Says:

    Unbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.”
    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


  151. Exley Says:

    Are you oppressed, freeman? I don't feel oppressed. How 'bout you, Wayne????


  152. freeman Says:

    lets 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


  153. freeman Says:

    the price of freedom is eternal vigilance


  154. freeman Says:

    your 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?


  155. Exley Says:

    Are you talking to me, freeman?

    No, this is not a democracy. It's a republic.


  156. freeman Says:

    and yes mass murder and being spied on oppress me


  157. freeman Says:

    is that unpatriotic?


  158. Exley Says:

    Is what unpatriotic?


  159. freeman Says:

    Time for real democracy perhaps


  160. freeman Says:

    it doesnt bother u that the government is spying on you ?May u always be so naive


  161. freeman Says:

    but stick with the law history will only depress U


  162. freeman Says:

    but stick with the law. History will only depress U


  163. Exley Says:

    Unless 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.


  164. freeman Says:

    if 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


  165. Exley Says:

    Chile???? Oh, wait, you said it's a joke. Good. Have a good weekend.


  166. freeman Says:

    And 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


  167. freeman Says:

    ask the world court in the hague about it I belive they called it a crime against humanity and convicted kissinger in absentia


  168. Exley Says:

    "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.


  169. freeman Says:

    Igrew up with friends that fled Pinchet the US toppled a freely elected govt


  170. freeman Says:

    un true Quakers in the US anti war groups and enviormentalists too


  171. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    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.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

    The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

    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.

    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.


  172. Exley Says:

    They 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.


  173. freeman Says:

    are 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


  174. freeman Says:

    Monkeying 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


  175. Exley Says:

    "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.


  176. freeman Says:

    the spirit of the law is more important the legalese DONT TREAD ON ME !!!!!!!!


  177. freeman Says:

    your prez is a war criminal,pre emptive war is agression (more legalese)Waterboarding is torture Murder is murder.....


  178. freeman Says:

    this 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


  179. Keith H. Says:

    Ask 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.
    Newk Fux Newz, now.


  180. freeman Says:

    after alittle waterboarding and being put into a sleeping bag head first the general died War crime


  181. Exley Says:

    PRESIDENT 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.


  182. freeman Says:

    exley 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?


  183. freeman Says:

    Karamov just recieved millions from bush >He boils people alive


  184. freeman Says:

    would u feel better if we had lawyer draw up some papers saying murder and tortue are allright?


  185. freeman Says:

    you thinka stroke of a pen will erase our rights to be spied upon.Sneak and peak for instance or the end of habeas corpus ?


  186. freeman Says:

    these 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


  187. Exley Says:

    You 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?


  188. freeman Says:

    do u agree or not exley


  189. Exley Says:

    You 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)


  190. freeman Says:

    good logic but sadly south americans dont like us and middle easteners dont like us


  191. freeman Says:

    asnd wasnt it hitler who said the ends justify the means?


  192. Exley Says:

    do 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.


  193. freeman Says:

    I say unto you rresist not evil Jesus


  194. Exley Says:

    I 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.


  195. freeman Says:

    do 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?


  196. freeman Says:

    watch politics in s america recentlyis it allright that we tried to kidnap hugo chavez before overthrowing the govt of haiti?


  197. freeman Says:

    and no we are notliked in the middle east


  198. Exley Says:

    I think the Shiites and Kurds who were liberated from Saddam's genocidal tyranny like us just fine.


  199. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    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.

    Comment 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.


  200. freeman Says:

    Images 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?


  201. freeman Says:

    and I still recieve no real answer


  202. freeman Says:

    my 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


  203. freeman Says:

    corporation america should be worried less the people tire of them


  204. Krazny Says:

    The 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.


  205. Exley Says:

    Briseadh 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.


  206. freeman Says:

    oh sorry for killing your woman children husbands parent and cousins i guess we were wrong get over it ?


  207. Exley Says:

    My 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.


  208. freeman Says:

    no one held accountable?Do you support that or should someone payexley?


  209. freeman Says:

    is mass murder by people who wrote that they planned to invade another country really supportable?


  210. Exley Says:

    Freeman, 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.


  211. freeman Says:

    do 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?


  212. freeman Says:

    no connection between 911 and the terrorists


  213. freeman Says:

    we supported the taliban


  214. freeman Says:

    hell we supported saddam and are currently supporting a man who boils people alive


  215. Exley Says:

    I 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."


  216. freeman Says:

    Its 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


  217. freeman Says:

    war is peace oh i mean liberation


  218. Exley Says:

    Ummmmmm...What?

    "no connection between 911 and the terrorists

    Comment by freeman — June 9, 2006 @ 7:18 pm"


  219. freeman Says:

    war is peace clean skies iniative a licence to pollute this is all double speak. how much do they pay you?


  220. Exley Says:

    Let'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?


  221. freeman Says:

    we 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 .


  222. freeman Says:

    never heard of the 911 commision?


  223. freeman Says:

    never heard of the 911 commision?no connection btween iraq and 911


  224. Exley Says:

    Freeman, 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?


  225. freeman Says:

    we 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


  226. freeman Says:

    do u like our support of karamov?


  227. Exley Says:

    Let'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?"


  228. Gerald Gibson Says:

    violence, ready for export.”

    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.


  229. Exley Says:

    "We have exported lots and lots of violence… and most of it has not been in self defense like WWII."

    Examples?


  230. freeman Says:

    we 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


  231. Exley Says:

    Freeman, 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?”


  232. freeman Says:

    you 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


  233. freeman Says:

    sorry for the misstatement NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QEADA


  234. freeman Says:

    besides 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


  235. Exley Says:

    Okay, 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.


  236. freeman Says:

    has the govt been spying on quakers Xley?


  237. Exley Says:

    Ah, 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.


  238. Gerald Gibson Says:

    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?

    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.


  239. freeman Says:

    obviosly 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


  240. freeman Says:

    the 911 commission has said no connection existed and this is a well known fact bro


  241. freeman Says:

    last 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


  242. freeman Says:

    liberating isnt it


  243. Exley Says:

    Actually 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.


  244. freeman Says:

    "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 ,


  245. theswan Says:

    This is extremely sick news. And I'm wondering where this mentality comes from? Most likely doesn't matter.
    We 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.


  246. freeman Says:

    no connection al qeada wanted to topple all non theocratic govts in the mid east,saddams was sectarian not theocratic


  247. Gerald Gibson Says:

    9/11 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.”

    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 neighbors”

    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.”

    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.”


  248. freeman Says:

    thanx man


  249. freeman Says:

    now if we could only learn to read like the indians


  250. Barfly Says:

    We have exported lots and lots of violence… and most of it has not been in self defense like WWII.”

    Examples?

    Comment by Exley

    Nicaragua? Or are you as forgetful as St. Ronnie?


  251. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    I look forward to your response when you return from class.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 8:21 pm

    Ok. 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?

    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.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

    ok, well, this reply begs the question.

    My 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.

    Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

    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?


  252. thinker Says:

    Specter 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.


  253. unbelievable Says:

    From 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...


  254. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    Unbelievable,

    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.


  255. Mike Taylor Says:

    What 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!


  256. LanceThruster Says:

    F*ckin' Spector!!


  257. Moon Base Herald Says:

    Arlen, 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...


  258. Exley Says:

    Briseadh 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.


  259. Steve Magruder Says:

    This 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.


  260. freeman Says:

    next time I vote republicrat


  261. freeman Says:

    hey 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


  262. freeman Says:

    atleast 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.


  263. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    Exley, #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:

    Enron defrauded California out of billions during energy crisis
    By Jerry Isaacs
    10 May 2002
    Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

    Documents released Monday by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission revealed Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.

    Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps.

    ***
    [The author details how Enron manipulated the California energy market.]

    Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.

    Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.

    After FERC was finally pushed to restrict price hikes in late April 2001 Cheney denounced the move, telling the Los Angeles Times, “Price caps are not a help. They take us in exactly the wrong direction.” After reiterating that only free market policies could resolve California’s problems, Cheney added, “I’ve never seen price regulations that I’ve felt very good about. If I had been at FERC, I would never have voted for short-term price caps.”

    At the time California’s Democratic governor and senators requested federal intervention to hold down the cost of electricity and charged that energy providers were manipulating the market to boost their profits. According to the New York Times, Senator Diane Feinstein said she tried “three or four times” to speak with Bush about the state’s crisis but the president refused to meet with her. Instead she held two brief meetings with Cheney as part of larger groups. “Their attitude was laissez-faire, let the market do what the market does, but it was a broken market,” she told the Times. At meetings with Cheney on March 27 and June 12, she said, the vice president spoke, “but did not listen much. When someone is looking at their watch, it gives you a pretty good idea they want to get out of the room,” Feinstein said.

    Commenting on the fact that Enron’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, was given unrestricted access to the White House, Feinstein added, “Here is a company that was a ribald, as brash, as swashbuckling and as unethical as any company I can possibly conceive of. And they had major access to this administration. But the senior senator from California can’t get to see them.”

    The Democratic senator has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to “pursue a criminal investigation to determine whether in fact any federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated.” But neither Feinstein nor any other Democrats have suggested that there should be a criminal investigation in the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of the energy trader.

    For its part, the US media, which spent the Clinton years giving credence to every right-wing campaign to destabilize the government—from Whitewater to the Monica Lewinsky affair—has also sought to downplay Bush’s ties to a company that wreaked havoc in California, defrauded its investors and threw thousands of workers out of work, while its executives made millions in compensation.

    California officials are seeking to recover some of the $30 billion Governor Gray Davis says Enron “extorted from the state.” But that will be difficult because the company has filed for bankruptcy and sold off its energy-trading division. USB Warburg, the investment bank that bought the division in February, said it had no liability for any violations carried out by the former management. “We did not inherit the liabilities,” a spokesperson said.

    Enron epitomizes the corruption that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and provides a glimpse of the anti-social methods used by the financial elite to accrue their vast personal fortunes during the stock market boom of the 1990s. It also shines further light on all the nostrums about deregulation and the “magic of the market.”

    ***

    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.


  264. Exley Says:

    "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???


  265. Briseadh na Faire Says:

    which one of us is being doctrinaire in their thinking???

    Comment by Exley — June 12, 2006 @ 9:35 am

    In 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.


  266. Think Progress » Specter’s dishonesty. Says:

    [...] 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) [...]


  267. Us Bankruptcy Court Western Pa Says:

    Us 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.


  268. latest super bowl odds Says:

    latest super bowl odds

    I found your site via Google while searching for %KEYWORD% and your post regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me.


  269. tax preparation Says:

    tax preparation

    Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.


  270. Gay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass Says:

    Gay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view


  271. limited liability company form Says:

    limited liability company form

    Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.


  272. Jim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court Says:

    Jim 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


  273. bad debt isnt national that Says:

    bad debt isnt national that



Jump to Top

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2009 Center for American Progress Action Fund
View Most Popular

Advertisement

What We're About

Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report



imageTopic Cloud


Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
Reports


Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.

Name:
Email:
Tip:
(required)


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll