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.
Further, Specter has now included a provision protecting anyone who authorizes illegal surveillance from legal trouble:
And yet the sheep will continue to elect him…
June 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pmUnfortunately, Specter is “my” senator from PA. (We have a honest facist, Santorum, and a hypocritical “defender” of the bill of rights, Specter.
The voters will dump Santorum first, but Specter’s time will come too. It’s sad because I’d like to respect him, but I can’t.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pmOMG, WTF!!! They will stop at nothing. They will stop at nothing to have complete control of us, and that is no joke. AMERICA: FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM
June 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pmSURPRISE!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pmAtleast you can’t give amnesty without admitting there was a crime.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pmHard to not see Specter as all bark and no bite on this issue.
Take the House and Senate in the midterms folks. That’s our best shot at getting this under control.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:45 pm??
June 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pmTake the House and Senate in the midterms folks. That’s our best shot at getting this under control.
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
I couldn’t agree more. But will the masses truly follow through? In my case, Senator Cantwell is up for re-election, or hopefully not. The old mindset creeps in. We have a truly progressive candidate running against her, but they fear the republican opponent, and therefore think that reelecting Cantwell is the best bet. DAMN IT. She voted for the war, CAFTA, NAFTA, closing debate on Alito, confirming Roberts…she is just way too corporate.
I think it is time PROGRESSIVES take back the Democrat party, once and for all.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:50 pmScumbag!
June 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pmWow …
Why not just get rid of those pesky second and third branches of government altogether, Sen. Spectre? (And, yes, I spelled his name that way on purpose.)
I mean, if the President can willingly ignore the laws passed by Congress, and if his actions require no judicial oversight, why are they there?
Well, other than to collect lobbying money and push forth a far-right agenda. But besides that …
June 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pmI’m one PA sheep that would rather die than vote for him. Stalintorum will be easy, but Specter is going to take some effort. Like Publicus, many people in PA would like to respect him. And he plays on that by throwing them a bone every now and again. Sheep has short memories.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pmCNN’s Jack Cafferty said it all a couple days ago:
What an idiot I am. I actually thought at the time Senator Specter was going to exercise his responsibility to provide some congressional oversight of the executive branch, you know, see if the White House is playing by the rules. Silly me.
In the end, Senator Specter has turned out to be yet another gutless Republican worm cowering in the face of pressure from the administration and fellow Republicans. There are not going to be any hearings. Americans won’t find out if their privacy is being illegally invaded.
You know what the Senate Judiciary Committee settled for instead? Senator Orrin Hatch said he has won assurances from Vice President Dick Cheney that the White House will review proposed changes to the law that would restrict certain aspects of the NSA program.
Dick Cheney is going to decide if it’s OK to spy on American citizens without a warrant. And this worthless bunch senators has agreed to let him do it. It’s a disgrace.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm(Emphasis added)
Next thing you know they’ll want a blanket amnesty for war crimes.
I wish it were as easy as “taking over the Democrats” or even electing them.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pmOnce again Specter is only interested in creating the illusion of oversight… if he speaks out against something and then later supports that same something most Americans get the impression that things were changed or that the problem was fixed.
To those uncurious individuals it is hard to understand how someone could be opposed to something one week and then support it the next if things haven’t changed… what they don’t know is that his whole opposition is just a purposeful ruse aimed at duping them in to believing that he and congress are protecting their liberties and that the president is doing nothing illegal.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThis capitulation is a disgrace, although not a surprise. There are apparently only two Republicans left in the US Senate, Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who contines to speak out more courageously than most Democrats (to their shame) and perhaps Richard Lugar, who spoke out forthightly for negotiations with Iran. McCain is a broken man, with no credibility left. But Snow, Collins, Chafee and Specter are even worse, they do not have the excuse of positioning themselves to run in the Dominionist controlled southern presidential primaries. By this time, we all of the outrages — exposed, half-hidden and still hidden — including contempt for both the US Constitution and the Geneva Accords, unmistakable evidence of lying the US into war, and breaching national security in revealing the identity of a covert operative, the purging of the CIA, the prostitution of the EPA, i.e., acts of war crimes, treason and other impeachable offenses, a bi-partisan consensus at the center, with all Democrats, and at least five to ten Republicans should have formed to defend our laws and rescue our military. Specter’s career and integrity have been swallowed up, like McCain’s and Powell’s. But the Democrats who voted for, or only feigned to resist the confirmation of Alito and Roberts, and who refuse to adopt Jack Murtha’s plan, or sign on to Russ Feingold’s censure motion, are no better…They too have lost their credibility and their integrity in protecting Bush-Cheney from the rule of law — but perhaps it would be more accurate to say protecting themselves from Bush-Cheney’s lawless rule.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmSpecter = Spineless.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmAt least Specter will get that fat endorsement contract from Jello…..”Watch him wigggle and jiggle”….
-GSD
June 9th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI’m shocked.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like Specter is just like all the other Republicans and simply posturing, blubbering in feigned indignation, and mugging for the camera’s in the wake of the November elections.
I mean, its either that or that toothless old f*ck needs some false teeth.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:05 pmThe chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency.
The reason why they’re called LAWS is because they’re NOT “optional.”
June 9th, 2006 at 1:07 pm…..â€Watch him wigggle and jiggleâ€â€¦.
-GSD
Oh my god, that’s funny.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pmIt’s an Odd thing. No longer does anything Sen. Specter surprise me anymore.
It’s gotten so bad that this new “Legislation” hardly causes me a stir.
At this point: I think if he actually swears someone in, or in anyway exercises oversight, I’d fall over shocked.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pmI guess Specter finally got around to doing some legal research and recognized that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, especially in time of war. Chalk this NSA “controversy” up to yet another phony, liberla media-driven tempest in a teapot.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pmFunny Exley I guess the thing in the constitution about being safe from illegal search and seizure, and probable cause and warrants don’t really mean anything.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pm23–Chalk this NSA “controversy†up to yet another phony, liberla media-driven tempest in a teapot.
Comment by Exley
If the president had authority, there would not be a need for the repukes to make a blanket amnesty for ILLEGAL ACTS.
come back after you read the constitution
June 9th, 2006 at 1:18 pmchalk your comment up to lack of intellegence
Specter was ALWAYS going to cave. Mr. Magic Bullet is a totally-paid-for tool.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#24- If that is the case, then there is no need for any new legislation, is there? So why is Specter wasting more time on this? If it IS already ‘legal’, then what is the point?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pmExley–
Can you please show where it says the President can do that without any kind of oversight?
Oh, and also show where Congress OFFICIALLY declared WAR (not just use of force).
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19 pmHere’s your first lesson in constititional law, kiddies.
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:21 pmGee! I think I know how the German people felt under Hitler.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pmWhere did our government go??????
then how does tracking domestic phone calls fall under foreign survelliance?
Amatuer
June 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#30- And the issue is spying on AMERICANS, not foreign intelligence gathering, which is already legal.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
Comment by Exley
And if they were not tapping US phones and just doing forein survailence, there would not be an issue. Theyare tapping american phones without a warrant.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmare you really that dense?
#30 - Exley, read this article on the difference between default powers and exclusive powers. I double-dog dare you….
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060213.html
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmIt is likely that representatives from Diebold payed Specter a visit and reminded him who it is exactly that chooses the winners and losers in America. The fix is already in thanks to HAVA and the Republicans.
My fellow progressives can strategize and publicize and spend untold amounts of money, but until we go back to paper ballots and hand recounts, we will be losing each and every electronic election by 51% to 49% in spite of the huge margins of victory indicated by pre-election and exit polling.
51%-R to 49%-D every time! Get used to it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThe Fourth Amendment does not apply to gathering of foreign intelligence.
Heh! Amateurs.
Comment by Exley
And if they were not tapping US phones and just doing forein survailence, there would not be an issue. They are tapping american phones without a warrant.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmare you really that dense?
Unholu Moses…In the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision U.S. v U.S.D.C., the Court held that while the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the isame ssue and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
June 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmLooks like Exley had a big bowl of stupid for breakfast …
June 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmnot sure how that double posted, weird =P
June 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmOh, poor little Wayne….You really need to get your facts straight. You can start by reading my posting above. Take your time…I’ll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pmExley please read the first paragraph of the post over again. We are not talking about foreign survelience, it is talking about domestic survelliance.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pmExely–
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhat part of “foreign” don’t you understand? You do know what that word means, right?
#38 - Better be coughing up some links, there Exley. You’re using quite a few ellipses…
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#35- I predict that ’something’ will suddenly come up, requiring his hasty departure.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmArlen always caves; because he, like all republicans, wish to sell Americans into servitude to the omnipresent government and big business.
My contempt for Arlen, Bush, Cheyney, Rice, Delay and all the other bastards that are fooling 90% of Americans grows each and every day because of the shit they get away with, at Alen’s assistance.
I am getting so irate that now my wish for all of them is to contract a flesh eating virus and live.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHeh! I give a three paragraph response citing numerous legal decisions in support of my position and this:
“Looks like Exley had a big bowl of stupid for breakfast … ”
is the best response Wayne can come up with!!! Hysterical! What a wit!
Okay, well, this debate is over before it began. The Constitution, law, and facts are on my side.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pmYou answered my question Exley. Yes you are that dense. Go back and read the article.
Answer this, if it is legal as you say, what is the need for amnesty? answer that.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#38 - I also notice you’re using the word “foreign” quite a bit, which is completely beside the point, sweetie darling.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:35 pmexley,
noone is arguing the the legality of the wiretapping foreign sources. Please read the starting paragraph, it talks about domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Big difference.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThe issue that you all dance around is that the United States of America is now the most corrupt and dangerous country on the planet. Your democracy is virtually gone. Your politicians are so corrupt and despicable that they don’t even seem to have qualms about openly suggesting laws that are designed to make them above your laws. The absurdity is at a level that I do not believe has been seen previously. Not in modern times, that’s for sure.
What is most bizarre, however, is how you all are able to distance yourself from your responsibilities simply by using the excuse that it is not your “party” that is in control. This is convenient for you but wholly unjustifiable. There are not two United States of America. Nor is it reasonable or correct for you to expect the world to forgive half of the American people for the US’s foibles and atrocities because the do not belong to the party in control. It’s an absurd expectation and really has merit only in your own eyes.
The United States of America is a society governed “of”, “for”, and “by” the people. Therefore, any actions of the government of the US is, for all intents and purposes, the responsibility of ALL Americans, not just a select few. Such is the foundation of your democracy and is, arguably, one of the reasons why your democracy has been successful. Yet now you run from your responsibilities and hide behind the excuse that it’s the “other” party’s fault and therefore you are innocent and not responsible for YOUR country’s actions.
The question I keep asking but remains unanswered is: If illegal and immoral war, crimes against humanity and the international community, and an abandonment of your own constitutional principles are not enough to cause you to stand up and do something real, what is it going to take?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmYou folks seem very, BERY confused…(or you are being deliberately ignorant). The article and the NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
Try again, kiddies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmYou folks seem very, VERY confused…(or you are being deliberately ignorant). The article and the NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
Try again, kiddies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#47- And you are still ignoring the point here! Why not just address it, head on? You are the one with all the facts, after all.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmKrazny, again you are incorrect…Read the article again. The NSA program discussed targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#53 Or are you admitting that the DOMESTIC illegal wiretapping is indeed illegal?
June 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pmWas there any doubt the good Senator would fold? I think not. His leash was jerked and he fell into line.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWhen one argues with a fool there are two… I’m counting about eight to ten here on this thread.
Exley is a fool that would not acknowledge reality if he were being sodomized with it… don’t waste your time guys.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmExley–
First of all, my response (the big bowl of stupid comment) was written before I read your post on the legal opinion — but it still qualifies.
The NSA program does NOT JUST TARGET FOREIGN CALLS. They also intercept calls that begin AND end IN THE UNITED STATES.
In addition, they also collected the phone records of MILLIONS of calls in a huge datamining project. They had no idea if the calls were actually from terrorists, or just me ordering a pizza — they collected ALL OF THEM. THAT IT IS ILLEGAL and not supported by the legal decision you posted.
Next time, you may want to truly understand the issue.
And for the love of god, I hope you’re not a lawyer — if so, you obviously suck ass at it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmExley is perfect proof of the effects of drinking 29% CONCENTRATE MOONSHINE, YOU SEE ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO.
Domestic Dumbass, Domestic. History will show regardless of your brown shirt idealogy
Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say the eavesdropping violates the 1978 law that created a special intelligence court to oversee domestic wiretapping. They have called for the law, the Foreign Intelligence Service Act, known as FISA, to be revamped. On Thursday, Roberts talked about a possible change in the act without saying what they might be.
The White House is unlikely to agree to bring the wiretapping under the scope of the FISA court, as most Democrats and some Republicans want. Instead, the administration appears interested in a proposal by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, that would explicitly authorize the wiretapping, without court warrants, but create small congressional subcommittees to oversee it.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pm[…] Think Progress : Specter Caves, Proposes Blanket Amnesty For Illegal Government Surveillance […]
June 9th, 2006 at 1:51 pmOh, poor little Wayne….You really need to get your facts straight. You can start by reading my posting above. Take your time…I’ll wait.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
I’m still waiting for an answer to yesterday’s question Exley. You haven’t yet given a valid example, and it’s been a while. Take your time…I’ll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:52 pmExley,
the target of the wiretaps, is anyone in the US communicating with anyone outside the US. as long as the person in the US is suspected of links to terrorists. The FISA court issued over 2000 warrants last year. the refusal is so low, that it is less then 1%. Keep in mind a FISA warrant can be retroactive by 72 hours. Hardly too slow or cumbersome to catch a terrorist. If a person in the US is suspected of terrorist ties, and are making phone calls to syria, I think the FISA court can issue a warrant. As long as one of the targets is in the US it is at least partially domestic, and the 4th amendment applies.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThis is all very reminscent of some long time Bush&Co. strategies - which may be summarized as, “Don’t break the Law - Change the Law!”. SEC says it’s illegal? Time to appoint a new chairman! Constitution forbids it? Do a legislative end run around the Constitution, then pack the Supreme Court with appointees who won’t mind looking the other way. Want to spy on your fellow citizens? Get the NSA to do it, then make sure you have private access to their databases. Impeachable offenses include breaking the law while in office - but then, didn’t Bush say the Constitution was “just a piece of paper?”
June 9th, 2006 at 1:56 pmWayne,
First of all, I accept your apology.
Second, you are confusing two separate NSA programs. The NSA program discussed in the Washington Post article and to which Specter’s proposal applies is limited to international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists
The other program, with which you confusing the topic under discussion, does not involving wiretapping or monitoring of domestic phone calls. That program involves traffic analysis in which phone patterns are traced. This program does not involve monitoring or listening to calls.
I hope this cleared up your considerable confusion.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pmUnholy Moses
First of all, I accept your apology.
Second, you are confusing two separate NSA programs. The NSA program discussed in the Washington Post article and to which Specter’s proposal applies is limited to international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists
The other program, with which you confusing the topic under discussion, does not involving wiretapping or monitoring of domestic phone calls. That program involves traffic analysis in which phone patterns are traced. This program does not involve monitoring or listening to calls.
I hope this cleared up your considerable confusion.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pmNewk Diebold NOW.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:58 pmLet me make it easy for you Exley old buddy. Just admit there IS NO HISTORICAL PRECEDENT for invading another country to install democracy, and I’ll leave you alone. (You seem to have a hard time with the concept of “invasion,” which is done by an initial aggressor, not someone who subsequently pushes the invasion back, such as we did in Germany).
June 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pmHey Barfly! You’re here! Great to hear from you…I notice you are DESPERATELY trying to change the subject since you see your buddies getting embarassed by their obvious lack of understanding of the NSA program being discussed. But I must say that I am surprised that you would bring up yesterday’s discussion when I had to educate you on post-World War II Japan.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYour “education” was sorely lacking. that’s why I sought you out for clarification since you answer didn’t make sense. (see above post).
I just want a straight answer, which you seem incapable of giving.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:06 pmYou may want to get your computer checked….It seems that you are not receiving my postings. You asked for examples of undemocratic nations that became democracies after being defeated militarily by democracies…I have already said two or three times, Japan following WWII.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pmI’ll understand if you run off again, the weakness of your answer shows you haven’t really thought about it much.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:10 pmI have to disagree with the headline. He didn’t “cave” because he never had any intention of standing up in the first place. He’s the GOP mop-up guy. When the really bad stuff hits the news, he talks like he’s going to do something, then he buries it. His track record on this is without parallel.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:10 pmBottom line is that he is GOP. Period. The GOP are traitors to this country. They owe their allegiance to Bushland.
What Bush did with the NSA is far more impeachable then anything Clinton ever did; the NSA is only a small part of it, anyway. Rumsfeld’s lieutenant Stephen Cambone is running the DIA and all the rest of the Pentagon Intelligence; I imagine they spend more time worrying about the anti-war movement then they do about terrorists in Iraq. Then you have Gonzales and Mueller and their own domestic FBI political surveillance programs. If you really are so desperate and frightened by the spectre of ‘international terrorism’ that you are willing to give up all your consititutional rights, why not just ask the government to lock you up in solitary confinement, where noone can get at you?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThe social/political situation in post-war Japan, is a far cry from the situation in Iraq. While you are technically correct. The two nations are not comparable.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThere’s a reason why this is happening, has anyone figured it out yet? I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Orgtanized Crime but this wasn’t any ordinary crime system. They bragged about it being “The World’s Largest Criminal System” and for good reason.
The Government/Military wiretapping effort which now appears to be headed into a coverup is part of a major effort by criminal elements within out Government to spy on us. But there are other reasons that have yet to surface.
Do you know what they are?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:12 pmHmmmm…I guess Barfly left or he’s getting his computer fixed…Oh well. Maybe he’ll check in later.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pmExley,
Where did you study Constitutional Law? Where are you a professor of Constitutional Law?
And where did you come up with the insane notion that the Administration is limiting surveilance to foreign intelligence gathering???
Me? I studied at an ABA law school, graduated in the top 15% of my class, and took a constitutional rights course from a Supreme Court Justice.
Your ignorance is dangerous, both to you and to whomever you manage to sway with your falacious arguments. You may wish to live under totalitarian rule, but I, and many others, do not.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#79 - Ahhhh, a breath of fresh air.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pmKrazny, I grant you that the two situations are not identical. There are few — if any –historical analogies that are. But given the parameters of Barfly’s question, the answer of post-WWII Japan is appropriate.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pmHow nice of you to change the criterion:
You asked for examples of undemocratic nations that became democracies after being defeated militarily by democracies…I have already said two or three times, Japan following WWII.
That’s not the question and you know it. I see you still haven’t figured out what “invasion” means. Let me help. “Invasion” means initial incursion. In this sense our “invasion” was to counter their initial invasion. The semantics are important; the Japs “invaded” us first, so your point about our later instilling democracy there is invalid - they attacked us first (like we did to Iraq). They were the “invaders” not us. Your point would be valid if the Japs had invaded us to “install democracy,” which they obviously didn’t intend. Same with the Germans - they started it. You still haven’t given me a valid example of an “invading’ (I hope this is clear now) force installing democracy.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pmExley—
First of all, I never apologized to you, simply because there is no reason to.
Second, your insistence that giving the Preznit a blank check to conduct wiretaps will somehow only affect “foreign†calls is disingenuous. The two issues (foreign surveillance and domestic) ARE related.
The current administration has already shown that it cares little for the other two branches of government. To think that it will suddenly not use unchecked power to spy on domestic-only calls is to throw all logic and reasoning out the window.
So it’s not me that doesn’t understand the issue – it is you who can’t see the broader implications of Specter’s “compromise.â€
Also, you do realize that your boy Bush won’t always be President, right? What happens when someone you don’t support or even like gets elected? Will you still think unchecked power is just dandy?
I’m guessing not.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:26 pmExley - I think your clock has officially been cleaned (see post 79).
Maybe you can head out to the playground and impress some of the slower kids with your knowledge of constitutional law but that shit don’t play around here!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmExley - I think your clock has officially been cleaned (see post 79).
Maybe you can head out to the playground and impress some of the slower kids with your knowledge of constitutional law but that shit don’t play around here!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBriseadh na Faire,
You may have graduated law school, but your knowledge of the facts and the legal issues involved in this matter appear to be seriously lacking. I suggest you read John Schmidt’s Dec. 21, 2005 op-ed which appeared in teh Chicago Tribune discussing the president’s legal and constitutional authority to order the NSA program under discussion. John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States.
Or are you going to argue that you are more qualified to discuss this issue than he is?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRead it and then get back to us.
The vast majority of people will not act unless they see an issue as affecting them directly. For all the news of the above activities, the one issue that motivated hundreds of thousands to the streets was the immigration issue. Why? It affected them or their families directly. It was also a direct response to the underlying bigotry in the immigration issue.
The war may not generate that kind of response until kids are drafted.
But in answer to “what’s it going to take?”
A charismatic leader. One whom the Corporate Media cannot ignore. Such a leader is coming. The question is, will it be a new Hitler, or a new Ghandi?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBarfly…”the Japs” ????????
Um, kinda offensive, don’t ya think?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBarfly…â€the Japs†????????
Um, kinda offensive, don’t ya think?
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006
I take that as your admission of defeat on this issue. I was speaking in historical context; sorry if it went over your head.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pmExley, you still haven’t answered:
if it is legal as you say, what is the need for amnesty?
You cannot answer it because if it were not illegal, amnesty would not be needed.
and you must be seeing things, I never apologised to you
June 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#86 - The op-ed page of the Chicago Tribune? Well, I guess we should throw out the Constitution and all laws and legal prescedent, because the Chicago Tribune’s got it all handled.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pmG.W.SuperChrist and Unholy Moses,
I find it amusing that neither one of you has responded to the fact the the U.S. Supreme Court said in the 1972 decision UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) that the president has the inherent authority to order wireless wiretaps to combat threats from abroad.
Nor has anyone addressed the fact that the FISA Court said in the 2002 matter In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
Now why don’t you kids address those two points in a mature and civilized manner? I will wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pmracketeering (n) - a pattern of illegal activity that is carried out in furtherance of an enterprise which is owned or controlled by those engaged in such activity; example - “The Republican Party was accused of political racketeering, and they offered neither defense nor apology.”
June 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmExley is a provocateur and an antagonist. Her flawed position and arguments have already been sufficiently exposed, addressed, and debunked yet you all continue to allow her to sway the course of your discussion. I would suggest that you all move on and allow her to wallow in the ignorance that she is obviously intent upon maintaining.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI would suggest that you all move on and allow her to wallow in the ignorance that she is obviously intent upon maintaining.
Comment by Humanist
Agreed. I am moving on…
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmAs head of the judiciary committee, spector decides how these things go. He’s the decider when bush is not in the room.
After all, we can be sure spector is being an impartial judge in this case because he’s clearly not mixing up his anger (as expressed in a 9-page letter to cheney) with his clear-headed judgment.
Or maybe that’s what we’re supposed to think; maybe that’s why we got the story about the boys being angry at each other.
Bullshit. That’s propaganda. I think it’s healthy to assume that you are being lied to all the time, and that the administration has found a way to infiltrate the internet with their straw men.
Think ann coulter…what was that all about? She’s no worse than ever before…why the buzz on the internet? Did we drop the ball?
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmI will wait.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Comedic gold, I tell ‘ya!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmNice try, Zookeeper. Read what Clinton’s formers associate attorney general wrote about the president’s legal and constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance of foreign threats and than get back to me. You might also want to read some court decisions I referenced above UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) and In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001.
I’ll wait.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pmNow why don’t you kids address those two points in a mature and civilized manner? I will wait.
Comment by Exley
You seem to be avoiding my question, troll
June 9th, 2006 at 2:44 pmif you demand an answer to your question, then answer the ones asked of you. But you can’t
just very sad, he makes the big splash all over the newswires then just panders his way out of it, we are fading fast under this completely secretive government that plays by their own rules regardless of what the LAWS are, i”m disgusted
June 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pmHumanist–
You are correct — Exley cannot reconcile the facts:
1. If the program was legal, then no amnesty would be needed;
2. That no war was actually declared (use of force does not equal a declaration of war), thus making the cases she cites moot;
3. The inability to see the broader implications and how domestic wiretapping would also be allowed.
I’ve taken too long a lunch break anyway. Thanks for the prod.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI hate to be an I-told-you-so, but I told you so.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmDon’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.
Specter is a Republican first and foremost - and the word came down from on high - this is the way it will be. Specter bows down, kisses Cheney’s ring, wipes Bush’s ass and declares it done.
AH, yes, Wayne. Your question. As you are reading the court decisions I sent, I will answer. The amnesty provisions provided by Specter’s proposal are in fact unnecessary. As I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt the NSA program is legal and constitutional.
Now, go do your homework and read the opinions I sent and get back to me. Okay? Good!
And yes, you are correct, it was not you who apologized to me. That was Unholy Moses. I already correct that.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWasn’t there a change in executive powers in 1976, after Nixon’s resignation. I don’t know exactly what happened, but there was a change in presidential powers, because of the watergate phone taps. If so It may be that the 1976 changes overruled the 1972 ruling Exley keeps refering too.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pmYou seem to be avoiding my question, troll
if you demand an answer to your question, then answer the ones asked of you. But you can’t
Comment by Wayne — June 9, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
At least not honestly.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmUnholy Moses, it is very apparent that you have not read the legal opinions I sent. Neither one of them rests on the fact that there was congressional declaration of war. The distinction you are trying to draw is not supported by the facts and the two courts’ opinions.
Try again.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmExley–
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmI never apologized to you. Nor will, nor should, I.
Exley -
Do you mean this article?
Next time, it would be helpful if you posted your own links to support your arguments.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm[…] This ThinkProgress post led me to Glenn Greenwald's excellent discussion of the issue: Observing and commenting on the behavior of Arlen Specter is one of the most unpleasant obligations a person can have, but for anyone following the NSA eavesdropping scandal specifically, and the Bush administration's abuses of executive power generally, it is a necessary evil. The principal reason that the Bush administration has been able to impose its radical theories of lawbreaking on the country is because Congress, with an unseemly eagerness, has permitted itself to be humiliated over and over by an administration which does not hide its contempt for the notion that Congress has any role to play in limiting and checking the executive branch. And few people have more vividly illustrated that institutional debasement than Arlen Specter, who, along with Pat Roberts, has done more than anyone else to ensure that Congress completely relinquishes its constitutional powers to the President. […]
June 9th, 2006 at 2:54 pmIsn’t that Spectre clever. He was right there at the beginning like a honey pot difusing the outrage until he could present THIS! So clever.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:54 pmeveryone please read How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values by Glen Greenwald and you will see how this administration is completely lawless
June 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pmYep, that’s it Briseadh na Faire …And as you can see if you read Schmidt’s piece and the opinions he cites, it is quite clear that the president — any president — has the inherent constitutional authority to order wireless surveillance to combat international threats to the United States.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:03 pmGiving illegal immigrants amesty for breaking the law will be the (?) coute des grates[sp] in this country’s seizure. Talking tough (we are making English the official language…) is just more useless rhetoric. Since Asians represent the “brightest” of the ethenic groups, should they aspire strong leadership, they will probably control the future state that occupies this territory that we now know as the United States.
Illegal immigrants must bare a good deal of the blame of the desparity(?) of wealth in our nation. (The greedy and selfish rich and our too unsophisticated congress people of the past must carry the most blame, however). What is left of our middle class is over burden with taxes, out-of-control spending (trying to maintain a lifestyle that is really beyond their means), under educated and are a devoid of character due to the deterioration of the family. (The character values set by most middle-class American families are of such low standards and phantom-like in their substance that openly practicing homosexuals declare that they should have identical right to this debaucle[sp]; and rightfully so).
Back to the point, giving amesty to another illegal would just substantiate what the terrorist were trying to demostrate in the 911 act of terror. It is the same old axiom, “Money talks, b.s. walks”. Others say any of us can be bought with the right price. Illegals know that, for now, the right price is “affordable (cheap) labor.”
Democracy only works when the majority of the electorate are intelligent, the majority of the electorate agree in the sovereignty and the direction of the country and when most of the electorate believe the country is going to provide them with anexcellent chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That has not been this country in a long time.
Because of the basic unspoken agreement between white Americans and the insignificance of the statue of others, this country once functioned on, sort of, a class dictatorship. Others are want to call it racism, (I am African-American) but anyperson who describs him/herself, within the first five adjectives of description, with a racial distinction is most probably a racist. Biggotry is another matter. At any rate, the country functioned. Now, there is an increasing divide between people with money and those who have very llittle. And, too offen, our basic services are being provided by people from third world nations. And inspite of all of the good qualities ascribed to theses “hard-working” people, those good qualities did little to afford them the kind of life and country which has evolved in these United States.
The President and his pals remind me of Jerry Krause, a former general manager of the Chicago Bulls. Rather than see the “dynasty” Bulls as a unique gift from on-high, Mr. Krause took the (unfortunately usual male) egotistical position of believing that his efforts were what made the winning Bulls who they were. Even the stupid (me) would have slided Michael Jeffery Jordan’s name in there before Mr. Krause’s. However, power makes men drunk. Mr. Bush could use a stay at Betty Ford’s. This is not the time to thrust this kind debaucle[sp] on the American people. The American People who can count at least five generations.
We need to feel that we matter and know that securing this country means securing us, also. Amesty for illegals does not do it.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:05 pmExley–
I’ve read both cases, and in both cases your interpretation is incorrect:
From here:
As far as the 2002 issue, one can only conduct a warrant for 15 days AFTER A DECLARATION OF WAR. Of course, you can all read the statute itself here and draw your own conclusions (it’s pretty clear, but apparently some have reading comprehension issues).
Well, I gotta go now. Have fun …
June 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pmBy the way, here is another in-depth (and unassailable) legal analysis demonstrating that the president had the legal and constitutional authority to to create and implement the post 9/11 NSA warrantless anti-terrorism surveillance program. It is written by H. Bryan Cunningam, a former career national security lawyer for the CIA and DOJ under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Twenty-four (24) pages and chock full of footnotes. It should answer all your questions and clear up the rather considerable confusion surrounding this topic.
http://www.morgancunningham.net/downloads/article_18.pdf
Read it and learn. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have when you have finished it.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:12 pmRead the book exley, all the president has to do is ask, he NEVER did, then lied about it afterward, always the same story with these people
June 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#103 Krazny,
June 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pmI believe you are correct. The corrupt Nixon administration brought new laws to prevent such abuse of power. And FISA has been amended many times since the late 70’s to accommodate technology, and other advances.
exley
June 9th, 2006 at 3:33 pmwithout a law making it a crime for murder would you feel killing was alright?.there are things understood as obvious and whether or not a politician passes a law or not these remain inalienable rights ,this includes the right as specified in our constitution and in the U.N. charter of human rights.to privacy in our own homes .The nazi,s made it legal to push jews into ovens ,but that didnt make it right!Unfortunately as long as we need to have laws to make people behave morally there will always be lawyers whose job it is to use the law to protect the criminal (if he has enuf $)
The handwriting was on the wall when Specter refused to have Gonsalez sworn in befpre testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, Specter didn’t hesitate swearing in the Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division who works for Gonorrhea, so it’s not that Specter is averse to swearing people in. There’s only one criminal class in America and it’s Congress. Mark Twain.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmAs long as these son of a bitches have unchecked power, they will be ABOVE EVERY F$#*ING LAW THERE IS.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmWith diebold and the msm in their pockets, we are in for a world of hurt.
Without legit elections, there is only one way to take back our Country.
By hand.
It is rapidly becoming time.
November will be the last straw.
100’sof thousands of deaths and the incalculable miseries of of the loved ones left behind and all we can discuss is whether the lawyers dotted their I,s and crossed their T,s in the final document ?
June 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pmdon’t tread on me
June 9th, 2006 at 3:48 pmExley,
Last I checked, Marbury v. Madison has not been overturned. It is up to the Supreme Court to determine what is, and what is not Constitutional, not lawyers writing op-ed pieces.
Your entire argument focuses on the proper use of the NSA. Yet that is not the issue. The issue is the improper use of the NSA. No one here is arguing that the proper use of the NSA, with the supervision and oversight of the NSA court is unconstitutional.
However, the Constitutionality of the magnitude and scope of the information gathering by this administration without either Congressional nor Court oversight is certainly in question. You seem oblivious to that distinction.
I close with this quote from the above-linked article:
Enough said.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:48 pmFROM CNN: “Cell phone tracking helped find al-Zarqawi
Intelligence from cell phone technology helped U.S. forces find and kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said an Iraqi army colonel in an exclusive interview with CNN. Col. Dhiya Tamimi said he worked with U.S. forces to monitor al-Zarqawi and his associates’ cell phones, helping to lead to Wednesday night’s airstrike on a safe house near Baquba.”
MY GOD! I hope they got a warrant first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pmArlen Sphincter’s muscle has atrophied; everything slides through him easily after he lets out a bit of noxious gas.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmIt didn’t happen in the US. Noone is arguing over whether a warrant was needed in Iraq. I already explained that. What is being discussed is the use of warrantless wiretaps in domestic situations.
get with the program Exley.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmArlen Sphincter’s muscle has atrophied; everything slides through him easily after he lets out a bit of noxious gas.
Comment by GG — June 9, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Nice analagy, I am warning others as to avoid any visuals.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pmWell, at least Exley writes better than MA.
I’m refering to the quality of the writing, not the quality of arguments, by the way. The arguments are still dogmatic and beg the question.
Back to my studies now….
June 9th, 2006 at 4:04 pmBriseadh na Faire, I agree that the constitutional questions are not decided by lawyers writing op-eds in newspapers. Nor are they decided on ThinkProgress message boards. But as you know as a lawyer, the courts are normally pretty reticent to get involved in controversies involving national security between the executive and legislative branches, so it seems unlikely SCOTUS will ever make a final determination on this issue. All I ask is that people take a sober look at the issue and the legal and constitutional questions involved. Too often I see emptyi and simplistic sloganeering about “illegal warrantless wiretaps” and “domestic spying” by people who really don’t know anything about the issue or will even take the time to learn. I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:04 pmMY GOD! I hope they got a warrant first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
You only need a warrant if U.S. citizens are involved. Though… Zarqawi could have been knowing the Bush Regime…
And if he called someone, they have 72 hours to get one retroactively. No problem. Unless you’re too lazy to follow the law… Is that that you’re saying - you’re too lazy?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:05 pmKrazny…It was kind of a joke. Relax, dude.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:06 pmI think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Hate to rain on your parade, but - no you have not. The law and Constitution are quite clear.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pmUnbelievable….See my note to Krazny. Relax. It’s Friday.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pm“Hate to rain on your parade, but - no you have not. The law and Constitution are quite clear.”
Oh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:10 pmUnbelievable….See my note to Krazny. Relax. It’s Friday.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I am very relaxed. Normal operating procedure for me. You should take your own advice though. After all, you are the one typing in caps (shouting) and using multiple exclamation points (lunacy)
June 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmDon’t worry about your privacy their here to protct you from the evil terrorists.With our record of supporting the worst dictatorships on the planet and assasinating the democratically elected leaders of weaker countries it a wonder we have this few enemies !!! Is that un american?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI don’t write all in caps. The odd word here and there to emphasize them as if in a conversation. In fact, I don’t anyonehere on this thread has used all caps.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmOh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Lemme fix that for you….
Oh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal - as long as you get a warrant if an American citizen is involved in the wire tap.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmExley, I merely made a point, you are the one with the exclamation points, and other hysterical writing.
I do think its funny, that in post #126 you state:
I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
then you state in post #131
Oh, I agree…The law and the Constitution are QUITE clear that the NSA program is perfectly legal.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Nice little flip flop.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI see the Gitmo torturers have gotten to Specter. Of course W and Co. will get a pass for breaking the law. Did anyone expect anything otherwise?
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
AN OUTRIGHT THREAT AGAINST ANN COULTER. WHO’S WITH LCL?
Only on LCL
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
An exclusive interview with U.S. Rep. Jim Davis:
And
Was al-Zarqawi murdered after he survived the “fatal” bombing?
Only on SSA
June 9th, 2006 at 4:15 pmExley - you were using all caps quite a bit in the Zarqawi thread…
June 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI still haven’t seen any Repubs tell us what they really think of the Constitution here. Whenever the Constitution is referenced, they never directly respond to it, like its some inconvienience, or besides the point. I am left to assume Repubs really think the Constitution is inconvienient for them.
Any Republicans care to comment on what they really think of that document?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmyou are the one with the exclamation points, and other hysterical writing.
I assume you are referring to “My God, I hope they got a warrant first.” Ummm..again, that was kind of a joke.
As for post # 126, where I wrote: “I think I have shown that the issue is not nearly as clear cut as people here like to make it out to be..” Yeah, well…I was just trying to be nice. I am pretty convinced that I am right.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pmMan I am so happy to hear Zarqawi didn’t die a quick and painless death, he got to suffer a bit, and know who bombed him. /sarcasm.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#137, LC Liberal,
No Sir, I never expected otherwise.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.”
June 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmMaybe if the Constitution was re-printed on the same material currency is printed on the Repubs will pay more attention to it.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmWhenever the Constitution is referenced, they never directly respond to it, like its some inconvienience, or besides the point. I am left to assume Repubs really think the Constitution is inconvienient for them. Any Republicans care to comment on what they really think of that document?
Comment by For Truth — June 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
An impudent bit of irrelevence, created by a bunch of upstart colonial secessionists - and bad for business to boot.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pmrumsfeld armed hussein because we were having no luck over throwing the government of Iran ,we are getting some of our best intellegence about our terrorist enemy from Karamov in uzbekistan whom the former brittish ambassador says uses boiling alive as a prreferred interrogation method,and we just sent him millions to continue the fine job of information gathering he’s doing for us, sort of like the way we got involved with Saddam ! dont worry this wont create any more terrorists the Uzbekki’sprobably just love us for it.ANd dont worry that could never happen here! just let the gestapo go about protecting us .The right to privacy is so over rated anyway
June 9th, 2006 at 4:25 pmrest easy .go back to sleep xley and when you wake up you’ll be in fascist state!!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.â€
Comment by Exley
Must be because both of you spew crap that you cannot back up and both of you are intelectually dishonest. That makes it easy to confuse you with most of the trolls here
June 9th, 2006 at 4:33 pmHi Wayne! Good to hear from you again, buddy! As pleasant as always, I see.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pmlets get back to all the legal arguments for our oppression as a people Im sure their lawyer in the white house has taken care of all the legalese
June 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pmUnbelievable, you have me confused with someone else. I did not write in all caps on the Zarqawi thread. That was someone named “Anvilhead.â€
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
I’m not easily confused…
HAHAHAHAHHAHAA! “Unbelievable†is sooooooooooo bitter that his hero Zarqawi bit the dust yesterday! Poor guy!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 10:56 am
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Don’t worry Zawarhi, Allah-willing, you’ll be seeing him soon.
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 11:38 am
This keeps getting better and BETTER! Zarqawi was alive when we found him! That’s fantastic!!! Not only did we kill this animal, but he suffered before he went and he knew it was the U.S. that got him!!! Hahahahahahahhahaa! Enjoy your time in Hell, you fanatic!!!!
Comment by Exley — June 9, 2006 @ 10:11 am
June 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAre you oppressed, freeman? I don’t feel oppressed. How ’bout you, Wayne????
June 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pmlets bring back the good old days bfore WW1 when all our enemies were domestic ones and we had this much fun over the 8 hour work day and the end of child labour
June 9th, 2006 at 4:42 pmthe price of freedom is eternal vigilance
June 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pmyour middle class existance has only been around since after the GI returned from the second WW its an anomaly in history and in need of somer protecting !do u think this is a real democracy?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pmAre you talking to me, freeman?
No, this is not a democracy. It’s a republic.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmand yes mass murder and being spied on oppress me
June 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmis that unpatriotic?