Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping
Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping
The impact of today’s Supreme Court decision on military commissions goes well beyond Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration. From the syllabus:
Neither the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] nor the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21.
The point here is that the AUMF does not authorize activity that was not specifically contemplated in the text or legislative history. This is incredibly significant. The administration is relying on the AUMF to justify its warrantless wiretapping program. Here’s Alberto Gonzales on 12/19/05:
Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
The Bush administration doesn’t argue that warrantless wiretapping was something specifically contemplated in the text or by Congress. Rather, the administration argues that it is implied as part of a broad authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”
The Supreme Court has rejected that expansive interpretation. It’s a huge blow to the administration’s legal rationale for warrantless wiretapping.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This also proves that good ole Al got his law license out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:23 amToday is a good day to lurk the reichtwingnutz sites to see them gnash their teeth & pull out their hair.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:24 amDecision Reached By SCOTUS On GITMO And Geneva Conventions…
SCOTUS reached a decision today in the Bush Administration’s illegal treatment of detainees at GITMO. The decision also touched on violation of the Geneva Conventions and how prisoners must be given at least the barest protections under said conventio…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:24 amThat’s nice to know, but how long before one of the 20 wiretapping cases makes it to the Supreme Court? And I have to wonder whether Bush will continue to break the law, even after the SC rules against him. He thinks he’s above the law, so he will continue to do as he pleases.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:24 amIt may be a “huge blow” to Bush’s wiretapping but how much are you willing to bet the Administration will keep wiretapping. Afterall, Bush is the one who said he’s “smoke em out”. The jerk
June 29th, 2006 at 11:26 amWhy do I get the feeling that bush and his gang will have to be PHYSICALLY removed from the white house?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:27 amThat’s what I keep thinking, madashell, at 11:27 a.m.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:31 amRemember that Roberts was interviewing for the SCOTUS bench (associate justice) when he was hearing this case without defense counsel knowing it. It was an unconscionable non-recusal and not notifying Hamadan’s lawyer was borderline illegal.
Now that courts below and (at the time) above roberts have ruled the other way, his nose is lookin mighty brown.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:31 amThere’s absolutely NOTHING in the history of this Admin that tells me they’ll bother to follow the ruling.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:38 amIs there a SCOTUS equivalent for Bush of a signing statement?
If so, I give it three days before he has one drafted and signed.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:39 amOK. Now that we confirm that the Bush Cabal over-reached it’s power in many areas, what is the remedy?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:40 amIt may not slow the Bush Regime down, but I think that it could push a few more people away from his table of tyranny.
They won’t be able to steal another election if there is a landslide vote for the opposition. We juts need to hope we get a real opponent and not just another shade of Corporate Owned Politician Beige…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:41 amFinally a win for freedom-loving Americans!
The favorable Gitmo ruling makes this the perfect time to pile on Bush. Since he’s in the business of dictating, not listening, we should borrow a page from Karl Rove’s playbook and call Dub-ya what he is — a draft-dodging Nazi.
The truth is already in our side. So let’s fight back with the same fear-mongering tactics the neocons use, starting with a ruthless and unrelenting attack on the biggest threat to American liberty ever – homegrown fascism – specifically, the extreme rightwing political organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
To learn about PNAC, visit, http://www.FreedomCentralUSA.com.
Once you understand PNAC, everything falls into place. Forget about Iraq. That’s a smoke screen. It’s the neocon end game we should worry about.
Herr Bush and his goose-stepping goons want permanent control of Congress, an enduring Republican White House, conservative-packed Supreme Court, rightwing federal judges, GOP governors and legislatures in all 50 states, and a muzzled press. Simply put, total and unending dominion over our political system. The way it was in Nazi Germany before WWII.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
Hugh E. Scott, author, investigative journalist, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Goldwater conservative and ardent Ronald Reagan fan with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:44 am#12 Unbelievable, spot on to your post……..Now can we push for impeachment.?…Blessings
June 29th, 2006 at 11:46 am[...] Update: Think Progress thinks the decision spells doom for the warrantless wiretap program. Interesting point. [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 11:49 amso when are the charges being filed?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amWhere was Congress?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:53 am[...] Update from the There May Be a God After All department: Think Progress » Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping The impact of today’s Supreme Court decision on military commissions goes well beyond Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration. [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 11:53 amHugh – thank you for your candor. It is beyond me why this is never really talked about. What is it going to take? For me, the attacks of 911 was a little too convenient for their ultimate goal to really begin….
June 29th, 2006 at 11:54 amAnything that”undermines” this administration is a plus in my book. Bush’s predilection for improvisational power-wielding and selective re-interpretation of US and international law needs a rigorous daily goosing.
It’s especially satisfying that this comes from the SCOTUS George, Jr. thought he had packed in his favor.
Now, maybe we can rethink this whole program of abducting people (foreigners and citizens) and stuffing them into the Hole forever. Unlikely, but we can hope.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:55 amThe FBI should send a group of agents to the White House to put Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld under arrest for high crimes against the United States citizenry and crimes against humanity!
June 29th, 2006 at 11:55 amOversight, Coverup, and a new one– out-of-sight committee led by Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter
June 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am#13 – Your site almost entirely falsely characterizes neoconservatives. It’s simply amazing the propaganda out there against neoconservatives (by the way, little secret: President Bush is definately not a neocon).
The PNAC was just another think-think, much like the Center for American Progress, that lobbied the administration and wrote position papers. They were far from an “evil cabal” (ps. I interned there 2 summers ago, trust me, those guys are pretty mundane).
As for the decision damaging the Bush admin’s argument for wiretapping based upon the AUMF, it very well might. I need to read the entire decision first. I would say though, the AUMF may very well authorize the kind of wiretapping that has been conducted, it’s not an automatic repudiation.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#23-Chase,
You are just the person that I’ve been looking for to help in providing definitive descriptions of what the core “neo-conservative” values are and what specifically the goals of the PNAC are/were. I look forward to any information that you can provide.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:09 pmWhat is going on here? The Supreme Court is not with the Bush Cabal? They’re with the terrorists?
The Supreme Court Justices should be arrested and tortured for what they know.
The detainers at Whitmo are losing their grip.
You just never know where those homegrown terrorists are hiding. The Supreme Court Building is a perfect cover.
The Supreme Court Justices could bomb the Capitol Building and nobody would ever know.
If anyone needs to be physically removed, it’s the Supreme Court Justices.
This is treason. Hang the Supreme Court Justices.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmWhat a terrible day for America. How can we not try these men before closed-door military tribunals, without the benefit of a proper defense? Of course they are enemy combatants, by the way, didn’t you see their standard issue Al Queda uniforms? Really, we have kept them locked up without charges for this long, failing to drag them before a tribunal seems like a bit of a waste.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:12 pmhttp://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
June 29th, 2006 at 12:13 pmAs I told you yesterday and previously, let the process work itself out. I have no doubt that the wiretapping, financial records, secret interrogation facilities, etc., will all have their day in court. I think the bottom line of all of this is going to be that Congress needs to declare war in the first place, so that many of these questions aren’t so nebulous.
I am most pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the military’s detainment of these prisoners, so that the cries for “closing down GITMO” will fall on deaf ears.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:14 pmYeah….
How about an Adopt a Terrorist program. Liberals can take them home and love ‘em and sqeeze ‘em and call them their own….
Liberals get away from me. You’ll get us all killed!
:p
June 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#24 – I think the most important thing to remember about the neoconservative ideology is that there is no single definition – individuals will vary.
From my perspective, the most common belief among neoconveratives is the necessity to replace dictatorship/autocracies with democratically elected governments. Hopefully international consensus can be reached as to the methods of this replacement, there there is no inherent aversion to acting unilaterally.
On a more fundamental level, neoconveratives reject the moral eqivocation of communism, autocracy, despotism, etc with democracy as well as the equivocation of socialism and the free market. Contrary to critics, neoconservatives are more tolerant of social welfare programs than traditional conservatives and are relatively strong supporters of civil rights and equality.
I could go on but I won’t. If you questions, I can try and answer as best as possible from my inexpert perspective. I really appreciate having the opportunity to honestly discuss this.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:18 pmThe Supreme Court ruling, if read for its implications, makes George W. Bush and his ilk WAR CRIMINALS. Take that, wingnuts!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pmUnfortunately, nothing will change until we take back Congress or at least the House. Bush will ignore the ruling and continue with his unwarranted surveilance. After all, he owns the Justice Department/FBI/CIA. The rubber-stamp Congress will simply ignore the ruling and the law-breaking will continue.
There is only one solution right now. We must elect a Democratic majority in the House.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmThe PNAC was just another think-think
– Chase
Well, yes. But then they turned into the Administration (except for Kristol, who can’t BELIEVE how badly Bush is bungling his plan).
Just imagine if Judd, Faiz et al. suddenly took over the levers of power and began to implement “the TP agenda.” I can’t imagine conservatives would cast them as “just another think-tank.”
As for PNAC, no doubt they were mundane people — isn’t that what Hannah Arendt meant by “the banality of evil”? I mean, Hitler loved dogs. But I take my cues from what the PNAC’ers wrote, and what they’ve done. They are hardly being mischaracterized here.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:21 pmyup you gotta watch that “liberal” supreme court. Try making some sense macranger.
I may be wrong Jason, but if this is a taste of what is to come. It doesn’t bode well for the bush and his administration. If the Supreme courts says that he does not have the authority then they could be in trouble. I wonder also who would we declare war on? Generally, unless you mean to change the defenition of a decleration of war, it requires that we have a country listed. Given the rather fluid nature of terrorism. It would be inpossible to declare war in the traditional sense.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pmStrange how the wing-nut goosesteppers will defend all Bush?Cheney’s intrusive crap while condemning “big government.” What hypocrisy!
There’s a chnace we can reclaim the right to vote and while the flag-wrapped neo fascists will oppose but we need to fight for it.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe PNAC was just another think-think, much like the Center for American Progress, that lobbied the administration and wrote position papers. They were far from an “evil cabalâ€
They also worked with foreign powers (Saudi Arabia and Israel) to draw up plans to manipulate American power…. that makes them traitors.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pmNow can we push for impeachment.?…Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox — June 29, 2006 @ 11:46 am
I sure hope so.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#29-macranger,
I am not able to follow your logic regarding your insinuating that “liberals” are sympathetic to terrorist. Please cite specific examples.
Also, it would be useful if you could describe in detail the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” a per your understanding. Thanks.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pmChase,
Maybe Bush isn’t a neocon, but all the folks under VP Cheney and Cheney himself are. That means Rumsfield, Bolton, Perle, Feith, etc. When Powell left and Tenet caved the neocon influence was no longer tempered and Bush has been controlled by this influence unhindered since the Iraq Mission began.
I am quite sure that the folks working at PNAC are mundane, but the leaders of the movement and pundits that speak for them definitely have views which are not accepted by the majority of people, but continue to force those views in to policy which controls and affects everyone.
American Progress on the other hand puts out information of the hypocritical nature and often outright falsity of the neocon views or at least the unjustified, unethical and manytimes illegal means to get to the ends Neocons desire, which they may truly believe benefits the country, whether it does or not.
But the neocon movement is an attempt by a minority to control the majority and if the majority of people do not think it is in their best interests then IT IS NOT in their best interests.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pmLiberals get away from me. You’ll get us all killed!
Comment by macranger — June 29, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
I don’t think you have to worry none there crazy person. Peeing your pants is a good deterent for all sane people to avoid you, including liberals.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:26 pmJason is trying to walk on the sunny side of the neo-con street. ood for you guy.
Chase. About PNAC….if you look at what they’ve written since the 80’s, they’ve pushed for the US to use unilateral military force to implement a domino theory in the middle east. Far too many of this administrations KEY people come from PNAC. This Admin, has followed the PNAC roadmap, almost to the letter. They couldn’t follow it completely because, SURPRISE!, the predictions the PNAC mad reguarding the middle east becomming an American democracy loving and american loving region never materialized.
Just like the voodoo economics that state cutting the taxes for the super wealthy will balance the budgets. bushco has done so well on THAT account too.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pmCanuck,
The Supreme Court ruling, if read for its implications, makes George W. Bush and his ilk WAR CRIMINALS. Take that, wingnuts!
War criminals for trying to prosecute illegal combatants from a war. Right. This case went back and forth through the courts, and now the issue is settled. Now Bush will go to Congress with the issue, where he will most likely have what they’ve been doing passed anyways.
Judd,
Isn’t this what they call getting ahead of the news cycle? Calm down Judd, if what you say is true (I wouldn’t bet on it) then you can milk this another day. Rejoice in Bush getting a slap on the hand by the SCOTUS for today. Tomorrow you can cry yourself to sleep when Congress will probably pass some law that does basically the same thing they’ve already been doing.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAs I told you yesterday and previously, let the process work itself out. I have no doubt that the wiretapping, financial records, secret interrogation facilities, etc., will all have their day in court. I think the bottom line of all of this is going to be that Congress needs to declare war in the first place, so that many of these questions aren’t so nebulous.
I am most pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the military’s detainment of these prisoners, so that the cries for “closing down GITMO†will fall on deaf ears.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
But congress cannot declare war on a fighting tactic “terrorism” they can only declare war on a nation… so what nation would they pick? A nation with no ties to Al Qeada/911 Iraq/Iran? or a country that did Saudi Arabia/Pakistan?
If they declared war then they would have had MOST of America behind them… not the far left peace at all cost types but MOST of America. But since they did not it makes MANY Americans feel like they are being asked to forget about 911 and just look the other way while crimes are being commited in their name…. that is where I stand and so do many on the left and right. Only the Bush worshiping King loving types would be willing to forget 911 and turn the other way while PNAC executed their Iraq/Iran dreams…
June 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pmGuess who is the featured clown at at dumbass.com.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pmChase here is the letter written to Clinton urging him to do exactly what Bush did concerning Saddam Hussein. Please notice the signers at the bottom. I don’t think the PNAC is as harmless as you claim.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Tomorrow you can cry yourself to sleep when Congress will probably pass some law that does basically the same thing they’ve already been doing.
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @
Geez Seixon can you get anymore Partisan?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmWhile chimpy said he was gonna “smoke him out,” do ya think he has actually been trying to “drink him out”?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmWar criminals for trying to prosecute illegal combatants from a war. Right.
Comment by Seixon
No. Those people that helped Al Qeada SHOULD be punished… but when the US Government violates the U.S. Constitution and the treaties it has signed then it is not JUST violating Al Qeada people it is violating the American People of ALL TIMES.
And MANY people want to stop Bush from doing this because this dangerous act could be extended to include people beyond AlQeada and terrorism. You call that supporting terrorism? Why cant Al Qeada be punished AND the U.S. Constitution defended at the same time? Is there ANY reason why we cannot do both?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#30-Chase,
I appreciate your candor but your answer is a bit confusing. If “neo conservative” values vary from person to person, then how can they be considered “values”? There must be some core values that define the categorization and I would appreciate your take on what those are.
In regard to the nation building philosophy that you attribute to the neocons, is that not a direct contradiction to core conservative values? Supporting democratic development of nations I can see, especially as it relates to creating a relationship that allows for the development of commerce. However, the active imposition of “democratic structures” upon other nations is more of a “crusade” and is contradictory to the principles of free enterprise and capitalism, two core conservative philosophies. How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pmThis is a great day for the Constitution. Now the republican coverup commities do not have legal leg to stand on and must start activly investigating the illegal activities of the Bush regeim
If they keep covering and blocking investigations, the democrats need to make that a key issue. Republicans, the culture of corruption and illegal behaviour, all the way to the top office.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pmSeixon > do not be so concerned about the US since you live in Norway > apply for citizenship there and enjoy your young life and be glad you do not live in Bush’s fascist dictatorship America! Go interview the King of Norway or his Prime Minister > we all would like to know more about them!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pmDamned activist judges. They should be charged with treason!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:46 pmKrazny,
Geez Seixon can you get anymore Partisan?
Why, because I know that Congress is going to pass legislation allowing for the use of military tribunals or something similar? Again, this has nothing to do with any political party, except when you make it. You make it this, while I want to see terrorists held accountable for their crimes and know that the Congress will do this.
Gerald,
No. Those people that helped Al Qeada SHOULD be punished… but when the US Government violates the U.S. Constitution and the treaties it has signed then it is not JUST violating Al Qeada people it is violating the American People of ALL TIMES.
So what part of the Constitution was violated exactly? Violating the American people of all times? How? So in other words, when US soldiers tortured people at Abu Ghraib, that violated all Americans’ rights? Sorry, I don’t understand this form of illogical thought.
And MANY people want to stop Bush from doing this because this dangerous act could be extended to include people beyond AlQeada and terrorism. You call that supporting terrorism? Why cant Al Qeada be punished AND the U.S. Constitution defended at the same time? Is there ANY reason why we cannot do both?
What part of the Constitution is involved? Here’s the opinion from the SCOTUS:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Four of us also conclude, see Part V, infra, that the offense with which Hamdan has been charged is not an “offens[e] that by … the law of war may be tried by military commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821.
They found that the structure and procedure of the military commissions set up by Bush violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.
At what point does this involve the US Constitution or the American people?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:47 pmWhile today’s ruling is quite momentous, there’s a sinister side to what happened here too that we all need to keep our eyes on. Notice who the dissenters were here — Scalia and his twin testicles, Thomas and Alito. Roberts recused himself, but chances are HE would have voted in dissent too. All it would take to change this decision is one more fascist right wingnut justice — which King Georgie will be only too happy to appoint during his final two years in office!
This makes it even more important that we take back the Senate this year, so we can block Georgie’s uberfascist SCOTUS appointments from ever being confirmed.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI agree, its a positive step in the direct to put a stop to the mickey mouse club antics. Hmm, so is this why Rice is barking so loud about an answer from Iran? It apears that its getting to hot in the Whitehouse kitchen. Time to create another diversion. War on Iran..This way, the American public can focus on more fear, less on inpeachment proceedings. Time will tell
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmWhen are they going to start calling for the assassination of the judges?
When?
When?
When?
When?
When?
When?
And what are the Democrats going to do about it?
It’s coming.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pm[...] More huge? Huger? The hugest? A point to the syllbus from Think Progress: “The point here is that the AUMF does not authorize activity that was not specifically contemplated in the text or legislative history. This is incredibly significant. The administration is relying on the AUMF to justify its warrantless wiretapping program.” [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pmJay,
Bush’s fascist dictatorship America
You wouldn’t know fascism if it slapped you in the face. You discredit yourself by speaking in such hyperbolic terms.
Oh, and I am a citizen of Norway, but thanks for wanting me to butt out of American politics.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pmGeorge (Seixon):
At what point does this involve the US Constitution or the American people?
If it doesn’t, why would the SCOTUS conclude the military commission “lacks power to proceed”?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pmDid I hear Man Coulter request violence again?
These REICH-wing judges just can’t figure out what they want to do. Give Nazis power, or step on the Chimp’s toes. It is like watching a GOP transvestite – zippers in the front, zippers in the back….they don’t know if they’re coming or going.
Did you hear the one about the GOP – prezNIT whos daughters asked him what drag was? He said shut up and unhook my bra.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#58 Never — here’s what the Democrats are going to do about it — find your ass and charge you with the federal crime of threatening death or severe bodily harm to a federal judge. Puishable by 20-to-life. But don’t worry — I’m sure you’ll make lots of friends in federal lockup; why, some of them probably will even do to you what Georgie and the repugs have been doing to the country for 6 years now!!
June 29th, 2006 at 12:55 pmBluedog49 – just a hint: Minds are like parachutes, they only work when OPEN. Some people’s minds would not make good parachutes. Some (sex-rant) will never be able to see reason, no matter how many times you show them they are incorrect, no matter how much reasoning you do, no matter how incorrect they may be. Just like the Nazi’s in WWII – they still think they were right.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWell, the consititution implications come from the fact that the executive branch has attempted to turn itself into a semi judicial body, and has been slapped down over this. The ruling also directly states that only things explicitly authorised by congress can be taken as powers by the executive.
Can you honestly not see why these are consitiutional issues?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pmZippy,
You need to cool it.
I agree with the decision.
We don’t all support Democrats, you know.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pmI noticed right a way when I started expressing my hatred of Democrats that you progs are hot tempered, itchy-fingered titty babies.
Bush
Gonzo
Alito
Cheney
Rice
Libby
Rove
They all belong in prison. Their legacy will be that they couldn’t enforce minor laws without breaking minor laws.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pmChimpy is on record saying that the Constitution is just a Godd***ed piece of paper. He regularly breaks laws that he expects others to follow, he knows that his Residency is not only illega, it is coming to a fast and furious end. He is violently committed to power of corporations at the expense of the defensless.
Mistreatment of anyone under your power is ABUSE. This applies not only to those persons held captive by this misadministration and tortured, but to the American people as well.
A terrorist is not always someone from another country that blows things up, it can be a person from your own country that holds a very powerful position. – pResident for example.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pm[...] Think Progress – Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 1:08 pmWell, not that I agree but Bab’s Bush has said in the past that there is no problem so large that it can not be fixed with a stiff drink and some well placed explosives.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:10 pmAre these guys nuts?? We are at WAR, people. (With capital letters war looks more impressive and necessary) Now, who is going to defend us and our children (cause, you know, we care a lot about them, as long as their parents have enough money) from terrible, barbarians (those troglodytes who invented algebra, toilets, the thousand and one nights, telescope, pendulum, soap, etc.) terrorists? Dont you know we have to give away EVERY freedom we have in order to be FREE from fear?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pmH.L. Menkin: “Tis better to sleep with a drunken canibal and a sober Christian.”
June 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI noticed right a way when I started expressing my hatred of Democrats that you progs are hot tempered, itchy-fingered titty babies.
Comment by Never Gonna Vote Democrat
Now that you have vented, I hope you feel better. Dipshit.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:14 pmThis ruling means nothing for Bush, he simply does what he pleases, and the congress does absolutely nothing to stop him. Impeachment would be the answer to his lawbreaking, but this rubber stamp congress will never do that. I agree with madashell, this group will have to be physically removed from office.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:14 pmI would have to say that “neva – going to get it” is a slightly battered I-R-I /Afrodykie/Sex-rant/troll . I still believe they are all the same person/thing. Probably paid to try to disrupt with distraction. No one can be that obtuse unless financially compensated.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#77, better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmkindness –
The PNAC hasn’t been around since the 80’s – they came into being in 1997.
Bluedog49 – If you could find a source where Strauss says that, or even implies that, it would be news to me. I have a strong feeling he said nothing of the sort.
#49 – I give the caveat that they vary from person to person to mean that not every individual identified as a neocon has the same policy stances. Much the same way policy position is different amongst liberals. I didn’t mean they dont share the same core values however.
The funny thing is, I think as far as the values of civil rights, social welfare, etc, neocons and liberals/progressives are quite close. Neocons reject the traditional paleoconservative theories of isolationism and appeasement as dangerous to our own domestic security.
I think it can be safe that most (including me) feel that the drive for democracy and freedom is latent in all peoples and that by deposing tyrants and communists, that democracy can emerge.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pm-Shoot to kill at the borders (both of them)
-Stop supporting dictators.
And if the Muslims keep terrorising after we stop supporting their oppressors, drop the big one like we did on the Japanese.
Crap, piss, or get off the pot with the “Islamoterrorists”. Americans wanted to bash Muslim skull after 911. What did we do?
Gave our ports to Dubai and gave our tax dollars to the Islamic Republic of Iraq in exchange for dead soldiers.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pmYou used to be intelligent and even witty, Joe 6-
What happened?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pmI find it disgusting that the same people at ThinkProgress who would jail Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are now cheering a ruling that could put ten of the most vicious war criminals out on the streets of this world!!! Have you no decency?
I hope and pray that you feel the wrath of this decision. AND at least conservatives can rightfully laugh when liberals claim to be tough on terror or “Bush could have stopped 9/11.” Your glee for this ruling shows Bush could do almost nothing to stop 9/11.
That’s fine. We will use this ruling to expose the left’s adoration with violent criminals a la Willie Horton. I just hope good, honest Americans are not hurt by your love for terrorists and hatred for America.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pmRoberts was not allowed to vote on this. If the wiretapping gets to the Supreme Court, he will, and you know which way he will cast his vote.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm. I still believe they are all the same person/thing. Probably paid to try to disrupt with distraction. No one can be that obtuse unless financially compensated.
Comment by KJ Lovell — June 29, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
I hate to shatter your image, but IRI is a separate person who actually buys the conervative agenda – including that Muslims want to kill us and take over our country. He thinks we’re all stupid for not seeing it. And he actually hates Jimmy Carter.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmTerror Sympathizing Left,
Fighting the enemy legally is complicated. We don’t expect you to understand.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmTry to understand why you are part of the 30%, then try to to tackle these larger concepts.
The possible unintended consequence of the SCOTUS ruling is “take no prisoners”
June 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPost 60 Seixon lol > You said on other posts that you were an American living in Norway > NOW you claim you are a citizen of Norway? If in fact you are just a Norwegian, then why should you care what Bush does in the US, and how were you able to vote for Gore suppossedly in 2000 and Nader in 2004 if you are a citizen of Norway? Explain this discrepancy to all of us on this TP thread!
June 29th, 2006 at 1:43 pmYou used to be intelligent and even witty, Joe 6-
What happened?
Comment by Never Gonna Vote Democrat — June 29, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
He still is.
Just tired of the neocon desecration of our country like the rest of us. Humor doesn’t work on teh right – pretty much gotta tell them like it is, but just as loud as they are lying.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:45 pmTry to understand why you are part of the 30%, then try to to tackle these larger concepts.
Comment by Never Gonna Vote Democrat — June 29, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
You are the 30%.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:47 pm#89 – fighting the enemy for the left is NOT complicated. You do it very well. Unfortunately, the enemy to you is President Bush and to a lesser degree, the American way of life. The average American’s enemy is Al Qaeda and OBL’s limo driver.
So you’ve won this hand. Now, if the country is hit again, conservatives will point out the left’s obsession with giving terrorists the same rights as Americans. So thank you – this ruling is good for at least two more right-wing Supreme Court justices.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:50 pmNo unbelieveable, I’m part of the 0 to 3%.
Do you have your razor blades and sleeping pills ready for ‘06? It’s gonna be Gilligan’s Island for the Dumb Dems.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pmunbelievable > please ask Seixon how he was able to vote in the US in 2000, and 2004, since he claims he is a Norwegian citizen? Or does he want to claim he just became a Norwegian citizen, which begs the question of why he forfeited US citizenship to become Norwegian, but hangs out on TP threads defending the Bush Regime?
June 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pmTerror Sympathizing Left-
It’s the same ole same ole-
Rational people believe terrorism is a direct result of our support of dictators.
You’re killing ants with darts, dude.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThis is good news, but I don’t see BushCo taking it lying down.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:10 pmI love the part where this may also involve the warrantless wiretapping issue, but I am going to wait before I get too excited about it; they will surely find some way to weasel out of that one.
I should not be amazed, but I am, that Bush continues to refer to Gitmo detainees with the general characterization as “killers” and “terrorists” when when they have twice released more than a hundred of them.
The average American’s enemy is Al Qaeda and OBL’s limo driver.
Try to follow along. Osama was an extremist who killed 3000 Americans in 2001. The same year, approximately 15,000 Americans murdered other Americans. Odd were 1 in 5 that year that you would be killed by a fellow American (and 95% likely that it would be someone you know) than Osama.
One year out of 230 that terrorists killed that many Americans. Yet you’re afraid of the boogeyman your heros can’t (or won’t) even catch? Wake up.
So you’ve won this hand. Now, if the country is hit again, conservatives will point out the left’s obsession with giving terrorists the same rights as Americans. So thank you – this ruling is good for at least two more right-wing Supreme Court justices.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 29, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
You can blame George Bush for not capturing Osama, for any subsequent terrorist attacks. And you can be certain that there will be future attacks that result from his killing innocent people in Iraq.
No unbelieveable, I’m part of the 0 to 3%.
You still think Global Warming isn’t real?
Do you have your razor blades and sleeping pills ready for ‘06? It’s gonna be Gilligan’s Island for the Dumb Dems.
Comment by Never Gonna Vote Democrat — June 29, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
I’m neither a Democrat nor a fatalist. You, however, should have the number of suicide prevention handy on November 8th…
June 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmJay,
sEXXON is a pathalogical liar. I don’t believe anything he says, and I have stopped reading his 99% of posts. His fallacious logic gives me a headache.
I hope he stays in Norway. Where, instead of celebrating his college graduation by doing something, he hangs out on a blog with people who dislike him. Gotta be nuts.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:15 pmPost 103 > yep you are probably right about Seixon, or he is some kind of paid GOP operative, but I have no idea why they would want him to post on TP threads from Norway > does not make any damn sense to me! Normally I do not care about any of the Bush loving trolls on here, but Seixon is playing some kind of game on here, that goes beyond being a bored student in Norway who hangs out on blogs?!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pmGet to know Strauss and you’ll understand why neocons are such liars: their guru wants them to be liars.
Comment by Bluedog49 — June 29, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
I’m also guessing he wasn’t very likable. That would be the main reason I can think that someone would hide who they are…
June 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pmJay,
I think they pay him to post here. It makes sense if you consider he’s said that his parents don’t support him and that he doesn’t have a job, yet has hours to blog and drink. Unless he’s lied about any of that, it seems pretty plausible that KKKarl Rove is his Sugar Daddy :).
June 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pmWhat’s funny is that the conservatives cry for a country based on their agenda, when in reality, it was that very mess that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid here in the design of our Constitution.
Who specifically are the liberals in political office that the neocons consider the ‘traitors’. They refuse to say who, just make general sweeping statements about these so-called people. It’s maddening trying to understand what they are talking about when they just expect blind faith from people who don’t subscribe to that method in any aspect of tehir lives.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmStraussian ‘philosophy’ in a nutshell:
The wise
The gentelmen
The vulgar
The wise rule the gentlemen. The gentlemen (the current crop of unethical politicians) rule the vulgar.
The vulgar do all of the dirty work like dying in wars and such.
They can be lied to about how much money they’ll get for education, etc. Keeps them duped and believing that they’ll attain some sort of status, which will never happen.
The wise are the knaves and fools, but don’t tell anybody that is how it really is. The wise don’t need to know. They’re on a ‘need to know basis’ only.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:40 pmTheir philosophy is all about power in the hands of the few.
Comment by Bluedog49 — June 29, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Hypocrisy, inconsistency, and contadictions riddle nearly everythng they utter.
It’s odd that I knew someone who claimed to be a liberal who thought an oligarchy was a better way to run the country. Though he wouldn’t accept that one already was and it wasn’t working very well. I tried to explain how democracy works beautifully at a local level and so far, socialism seems to be working well at a Federal level. But I think he was just a control freak who wanted to be liberal as long as he was one of us, but would become a neocon if ever given the chance to rule. And, so, I see a correlation, from knowing that person, between the neocons and their need to control. Which, psychologically dictates that these people feel utterly out of control in their own lives and therefore try to control the external so they can avod facing their internal demons. Essentially, leaving us with very poor elistists at the wheel…
We have to fix the system. Just electing some Democrats into a broken system isn’t going to matter all that much.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#89.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pmGet real. Liberals don’t want to set dangerous criminals loose willy nilly. The difference between your view and ours is that we believe that detention of anyone needs to be done legally and morally. No matter what they did and how angry we are. Period. We have laws and a system of government we should adhere to with pride. We don’t want our country to sink to levels used elsewhere and are proud of the ethical and forthright history this country once held. We find the current administration’s excuses for immoral and illegal acts to be an abomination. It doesn’t matter WHO we arrest. If we don’t handle the situation right then we are no better than those governments we have looked down on for their human rights violations. I don’t want America to become what we hate but to be the beacon of hope and justice it should be. We need to do what needs doing, but we have to do it right.
Bluedog,
The Democrats are still owned by the Corporations. We already know they are just as susceptable of corruption as the Republicans. Granted, they would initially be better – but long term, I’m not terribly hopeful without removing the corporate money that we wouldn’t still be giving corporations better rights than people. I think we need third (fourth, fifth and sixth for that matter) party intevention.. Get rid of the majority. Let each vote stand on merits instead of party lines….
I agree and have been saying that very thing for over a year. That we need to fund the campaigns as it would cost us less in the long run to just sponsor it out right. We could even have a website where the candidates could post their stannces on issues and turn it back into a a vote for issues rather than people…
But, I have zero faith in the sheep to pull it off. I think it might take a couple states ceding from the union to get it started. But, well see. If we all talk about it enough – the word will get spread. And that is the best any of us little folks can hope for…
June 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Now that we confirm that the Bush Cabal over-reached it’s power in many areas, what is the remedy?”
The remedy lies in TITLE 50 US CODE CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1809. Criminal sanctions
1. It a high crime and/or misdemeanor
2. Each count is 5 years, $10,000
3. 1,000 warrantless wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000.00 fine
IMPEACH – REMOVE – INDICT – CONVICT
June 29th, 2006 at 3:44 pmObviously, the search for geniuses doesn’t end here (@ this site)
1. Are we at war?
2. Are the ‘detainees’ prisoners of war?
3. If yes then they are NOT protected under the U.S. Constitution.
4. The decision is so convoluted that there are ‘teams’ of lawyers sorting it out now.
5. If you are talking to a captured terrorist, you SHOULD be wiretapped!!
6. Democrats and liberals would do ANYTHING, including underminining (committing treason) our national security (ie. NY Times, LA Times, et al.)
I M out!!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:06 pmDon’t forget the Wall street journal published the same story as the NYT and LAtimes there Mike. We want to make sure they get tried as traitors too don’t we?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIf the NYT broke the story, and the LAtimes and WSJ reprinted the story, why have calls for the head of NYT and LAtimes been in the right wing shriekfest, while the WSJ has been left alone?
could it be oohhhh I don’t know how about maybe SATAN!!!!!
no its most likely because the WSJ leans towards conservative side.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:34 pm3. If yes then they are NOT protected under the U.S. Constitution.
They are under the rules of the Geneva Conventions,which the U.S. is signatorie!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pmDamn dude you dense or stupid?
I will try to keep my response to small simple words so you can understand better.
The NYT is the only one being looked at for possible charges. Highly unlikely that they will be arrested as traitors, but there it is.
In the original screamfest from the right about running this story. The only two newspapers mentioned are the NYT, and the LAtimes. the WSJ is never mentioned as a traitor or possible subversive.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:43 pmAgain, genius site—not!! If the WSJ reprinted a story, they are REPORTING info already DIVULGED by another INVESTIGATIVE source. The LA Times and NY Times will, again, do anything to make W look bad, even if it means undermining national security. Treason? Perhaps. Irresponsible–without question.
How were the GITMO terrorist suspects having their Geneva Convention rights violated? Most libs and the sycophant lawyers and press want these guys tried in criminal U.S. court, a right guaranteed to CITIZENS violating public laws, not war detainees! OI !!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:48 pmSo the supreme court tore up Bush’s blank check. Yay!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:56 pmAgain, genius site—not!!
Comment by mike — June 29, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
I love people who use 8 year old humor to disparage anyone the feel is acts intellectually but isn’t.
Mike,
The basis of the argument is over whether the Geneva conventions apply. The Bush administration has consistently placed the detainees in a legal limbo. They don’t acknowledge them as POW’s, but they don’t apply say the same status you would if we arrested a drug smuggler. They have held some of them for 4 years.
It’s time to shit or get off the pot if you know what I mean.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#87 – What source is that from? I have never read that.
And damn, reading further down you really disparage neoconservatives inaccurately.
Straus against the Enlightenment? Hardly.
It’s worthless even trying to carry a sensible conversation when you spit out shit like that. Do you really believe what you are saying?
Thank god this is the extent of your voice.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#87 – What source is that from? I have never read that.
And damn, reading further down you really disparage neoconservatives inaccurately.
Strauss against the Enlightenment? Hardly.
It’s worthless even trying to carry a sensible conversation when you spit out shit like that. Do you really believe what you are saying?
Thank god this is the extent of your voice.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:25 pm[...] If Bush dispensed with tribunals altogether and ordered the Gitmo gang held without trial for the duration of the WoT as prisoners of war, arguably that would be constitutional. As it is, if he wants tribunals, he has to go to Congress and get explicit approval. (A point which Breyer’s two-paragraph concurrence on page 82 makes clear.) Think Progress notes, correctly, that the Court’s unwillingness to read implicit grants of power into the AUMF might mean the end of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, which Gonzales has said is based on that very statute. (Stevens addresses the AUMF on the bottom of page 37, saying that if Congress wants to make special wartime exceptions to standard legal procedures, it has to be specific.) The NSA point is probably moot, though: Arlen Specter told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that Bush was already leaning towards submitting the program to the FISA courts, and now that this has come down, his hand will probably be forced. I doubt Think Progress’s point will ever be adjudicated, and if it is, the case is likely to be decided on constitutional (read: Fourth Amendment) grounds, not the specificity of the AUMF. [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 6:37 pm[...] If Bush dispensed with tribunals altogether and ordered the Gitmo gang held without trial for the duration of the WoT as prisoners of war, arguably that would be constitutional. As it is, if he wants tribunals, he has to go to Congress and get explicit approval. (A point which Breyer’s two-paragraph concurrence on page 82 makes clear.) Think Progress notes, correctly, that the Court’s unwillingness to read implicit grants of power into the AUMF might mean the end of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, which Gonzales has said is based on that very statute. (Stevens addresses the AUMF on the bottom of page 37, saying that if Congress wants to make special wartime exceptions to standard legal procedures, it has to be specific.) The NSA point is probably moot, though: Arlen Specter told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that Bush was already leaning towards submitting the program to the FISA courts, and now that this has come down, his hand will probably be forced. I doubt Think Progress’s point will ever be adjudicated, and if it is, the case is likely to be decided on constitutional (read: Fourth Amendment) grounds, not the specificity of the AUMF. [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 6:37 pmunbelievable, I don’t even know where to start with you. You’re a supposed science teacher who didn’t even know that the Sun is in fact going to get warmer,
Comment by Seixon — June 29, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Don’t be such a fifth grade science retard. You’ve been debunked already. Just move on..
You never said “going to get” you said “is getting”. And you blamed it for Global Warming. You can twist, but you cannot hide. Silly little boy in very short pants and pink panties. The sun is NOT responsible for Global Warming. It will only get temporarily hotter for a brief moment in time some 5.5 billion years from now. Not consequential to the conversation we were having about NOW.
Okay, that was all of your rant I accidentally read while scrolling through.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:44 pmmadashell #6
I’ve been asking this same question since early 2005. The Founding Fathers would be taking to the streets over the blatantly criminal activities of BushCo.
I have often wondered what it would take for Americans to storm the Bastille, as it were, and physically remove this menace. Romania 1989, anyone?
What will it take for Americans to wake up? Reinstitution of the draft? Suspension or cancellation of national elections?
Regarding the latter scenario, does anyone really truly believe that he will go gentle into that good night? All he has to do is repeat his old mantra “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″ and voila– suspension of the 2006 elections or the 2008 elections in the name of “national security.”
People scoff when I present this scenario. “BUT THAT’S ILLEGAL!” they insist; “THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN!”
Since when has Bush ever cared about what’s legal?
June 29th, 2006 at 7:55 pmFirst we take back the house.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:35 pmThen we start investigations and impeachment.
We must put things in order.
Didn’t the NYT, LAT, and WSJ all print the story on the exact same day? All I’ve ever read from Bush supporters is NYT, NYT, NYT. And if there is a crime, bring charges – don’t just threaten to in a never-ending intimidation.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:44 pmright on, marie!
and more of this too:
June 29th, 2006 at 9:18 pmWe need some serious investigations to bring things into the light. And, if we really want to fix the system, we need public financing of elections and mandated controls on the media with respect to elections. The networks got their airspace for fee with the caveat that they would provide a service to the public. They’re not providing the service and maybe they need to pay.
Comment by Bluedog49 — June 29, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
F*CK BUSH and the New World Order. However, we do posess the power to change our government before it gets to a point where we’ll be forced to overthrow our government. Vote Democrat.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:45 pmCorrection: Vote DEMOCRATIC.
but, yea, tha’ts what has to happen…
June 30th, 2006 at 12:05 am[...] Other takes: SCOTUS blog (also here), Greenwald, Balkin, ACSBlog, Unspeak (on Scalia’s typically hypocritical and contradictory dissent), ThinkProgress (more on Thomas the chickenhawk’s ad hominem attacks on veteran Stevens) [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:16 am[...] I guess we’ll just have to settle for those small victories the Supreme Court hands down now and then telling the king there is a limit to even his power. The Supreme’s ruling today is encouraging. From Think Progress, [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#6 – you might want to read Rich Miles article He’s Not Leaving 6/30/06 – you can find it on Buzzflash. It details how dumbya will probably stay well past his second illegal term in office is up. Something i have been saying since 2000.
Another good read about just how invasive the NSA spying is would be 27B Stroke 6 by Ryan Singel and Kevin Poulsen, also available on buzzflash or blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog. From a command prompt type “tracert (and any website)” it maps out what to look for if you are being monitored. FYI – if you look at buzzflas, thinkprogress or michaelmoore.com – you ARE. Most every site I look at is being monitored.
Now do you still think halliburton’s $385 mill contract is building concentration camps just for illegal aliens? The law has been changed to allow the residents of the camps to be forced into labor. Sound like any mad man in power in the 1940’s yet?
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:33 pmFor instance from the command prompt type : tracert hotmail.com
Just watch what happens. If you see anything like att.net (if you don’t use them) or sffca.ip.att.net you ARE BEING WATCHED.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:37 pmCheck out this game about executive power –
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmhttp://intuitivelearningcircle.com/news/
IT IS TIME FOR A REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!! THE “BUSH CRIME FAMILY” NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT……JUST LIKE HITLER BEFORE HIM
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pmLARRY
[...] I had every intention of discussing the Supreme Court’s Guantanamo detainee ruling -Clarence Thomas waking from his coma to deliver a few jingoistic platitudes, lest we forget his poor constitutional scholarship; Scalia drinking from Thomas’s Diet Coke can before dismissing the checks and balances established by the Marshall court and further eschewing any doubt that, in lieu of his personal relationship with the Bushies, he should recuse himself from virtually every major court case – but we’ve seen the same thing for six years. And every two weeks, for six years, something new came up. So I’m going to try to stay more current, because no one can sustain the outrage or attention span to actually go back and look at the disgusting things already wrought. [...]
July 4th, 2006 at 1:00 amWhat is everyone’s problem with Bush? He is the first President in a while to actually stand up for America. If most of the people in this forum had their way, all laws would be outlawed and all law enforcers fired!! Thank God we have a President that is looking out for for our people and our Nation. I have no problem with wiretapping or treating the Gitmo babykillers like the dogs they are. I have nothing to hide. Terrorists will not negotiate.(that’s a PERIOD!) Why do you want to try. They don’t like us because we are protecting ourselves and our way of life. America has been protecting her way of life and national interests for over 100 years just like every other country in this world since the beginning of time. Unfortunately, it is usually over natural resources, which we, ALL AMERICANS, scarf down on a daily basis. You want to make a difference, then impose term limits for congress so we can get this country pointed in the right direction.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 pmComrades,
Will do away with Warrantless Wiretapping, Gitmo, Relgion, displaying of the American Flag in public and all that patriotic decadence we detest when we take back the Congress!
But, you’re loosing focus again! There is a greater, clearer and more dangerous threat too our party that will shortly perpetrate our air-waves on ABC’s “The Path to 9/11â€
These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.
For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.
I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir�
Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.
Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:
“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”
It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.
We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.
It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!
Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.
If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.
If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.
Where are our great defenders the A.C.L.U.? There silence is deafening. Their founder; Roger Nash Baldwin a supporter of the Communist Party would not let this despicable propaganda go unchallenged.
Remember comrades, we destroyed Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950’s while attempting to exploit and expose us.
This should be an easy task. We already have many supporters in positions of power. If we wish to control this country, then we must be more diligent in our efforts to stop this ABC film.
You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.
Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our “elected officials†below by e-mail or call:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact
Reid, Harry- (D – NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Levin, Carl- (D – MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Durbin, Richard- (D – IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D – IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Dayton, Mark- (D – MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) Class III
September 10th, 2006 at 8:59 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
Dearest in christ,
I am Mr Michael Ezeocha, and i got your contact on my personal search of the person i want to will my money to. Please i willed the sum of THREE MILLION US DOLLARS to you ,that is the only money left in my account right now. Please if you really want to know why i have willed this money to you and you want this money to be transferred to you please contact the bank manager whose name and address i will give you as soon as you reply this mail. He will help you transfer this money that i have willed to you. Right now i am in the hospital and i will tell you my story.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:47 pmGod Bless you.
Michael Ezeocha
[...] The beast that you saw existed once but now exists no longer. It will come up from the abyss and is headed for destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world shall be amazed when they see the beast, because it existed once but exists no longer, and yet it will come again. – Revelation (17 : Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence. – A. Gonzales on 12/19/05 [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm