http://www.freedomfchs.com/unwarranted_surveillance.pdf

http://www.freedomfchs.com

The Bush Administration’s ability to keep things secret, destroy files, and move ethical people out of positions of authority and replace them with people who have no ethics, is all that’s keeping them afloat.

The hand of Rove is everywhere, one step away from being caught at any given time.

The problem is scerecy. We need to scale back what is allowed to be classified. We need to prosecute people for destroying evidence in cases where it is mysteriously “lost”.

These people get off the hook regularly with word craft.”I didn’t EXACTLY say that” is the defense of the day.

What a load horsecrap.

Why would the FBI Director threaten to resign over a program _outside_ the FBI?

Would he even know of a prgroam at NSA?

That’s isn’t addressed by the notion that once the NSA program was changed, it was then a “different” — impliedly separate — program.

“Comment by Valiantthehater — May 16, 2007 @ 10:54 am”

Get it through your delusions: Bushit isn’t “on the left”

I think Gonzo was being quite clever, maybe a little too clever. There were serious disagreements with the program as it existed before Bush intervened at the time that Ashcroft was hospitalized. However, the program was modified, according to Comey so the program NOW is different from the program then!

Please visit the Schapira blog, “What we know so far …”

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

educational system. It’s hard to think when you

don’t know how!

Wake up, people: the program in question was not that at the NSA. It was at the FBI.

by thinkprogress.org

yes because the left loves telling our enemies what weapons we use against them.

everyone with an IQ over 100 knows that many on the left would love to see America defeated and humiliated around the world.

Comment by Valiantthehater — May 16, 2007 @ 10:54 am

You mean, of course, that were Bushit, et al., to comply with the rule of law, the result would be the defeat and humiliation of the US?

How would Bush’s complying with his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws be a defeat for the rule of law? How would obeying the rule of law be humiliating?

Come on, tell us, Mr. “Patriot” Legal Scholar: How is compliance with the rule of law a defeat and humilation to anyhone who isn’t a criminal?

Also, what counts as a separate or distinct “program” anyway? What would that word mean, from one minute to the next, to Gonzales?

And, it should go without saying, Gonzales most certainly can claim “I forgot!” whenever he feels like it. Who cares whether anyone believes him? Who cares whether he’s under oath again when he says it? It’s never failed him so far, has it?

I’m recalling the scene in The Princess Bride:

Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Yellin: Oh, you mean *this* gate key.

While I’d pay money to see Gonzales telling Congress, “Oh, you mean *that* program,” I have no idea who’s going to threaten to tear his arms off before he says it. Leahy?

good, because they did with the likes of israel the zionists. this is so obviouds anymore with the heaps, mounds, mountains of evidence and there is going to be a volcano errupting in dc. the question is will we the people see this through to the end and take back our government that we the people control and finance. and go after the REAL criminals(zionists/israel) and don’t forget the ones occupying our white house and don’t forget the irs, and don’t forget the federal reserve act of 1913, the patriot act, military commisions act.

Don’t mean to be rude or flippant [here it comes], but this issue of “other programs” has been well discussed since Gonzalez gave his Feb 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary. I’m grateful you’re talking about the “other programs,” but this isn’t news.

It would be helpful if you summarized the information — from the Gonzalez hearing in 2006 before the Senate — indicating that there were multiple “programs”; and how these “other things” have or have not undermined the Constitution; and whether the Congress has any plans to protect the Constitution.

Again, if Congress is going to do nothing, I would like to hear some discussion from you and others: What are the lawful options of the states to enforce the Constrution; and can Members of Congress be prosecuted for failing to use impeachment to enforce the Supreme Law, prevent war crimes?

War crimes issues in re NSA surveillance: How illegallly captured information was used to abuse prisoners of war. Comey’s revelations suggest that the WHite House counsel well knew of the illegalities; but have pretended taht rendition and prisoner abuse is “not discussable.” Comey indicates that there are DOJ Memoranda contradicting statemetns by formely assigned White House counsel; and that formely assigned White House and legal counsel appear to have made inconsistent statements — first arguing that the activity was illegal in memoranda; then pubicly asserting outside court that the activity could not be discussed; then asserting that the program is lawful. These statements, their inconsitencies, and their attachment to the issues COmey said are well documented raise issues of attorney professionalism, ethics, and disbarment.

Please consider reviewing the Comey revelations in light of inconstent statements by formely assigned counsel; and whether counsel assigned to the White House and DOJ have engaged in conduct that amounts to illegalities, misleading statements, or ethics violations of the attorney standards of conduct. Things do not appear to be adding up. If there have been misprepresntations by formely assigned White House counsel, then the issue turns to: Who has a legal duty to report that misconduct to their attorney disciplianry board? Answer: Legal counsel who are aware of the details. How convenient they appare to have had a meeting after 2001 to pretend there is a gag order on the supposed “things we can’t talk about” — the very things Comey well discussed.