Bush NSA spies on Americans

[Lurker]

Seen this report? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

Why not go thru the legal process with warrants? Why do it illegally?

Lurker

[headscratcher4]

First, it may not be illegal.

Second, it may not be something that a democracy should put up with.

The matters are different. The President MAY have the power to order such intelligence gathering. Certainly, it seems likely to generate a court challenge. Fortunately for Bush, however, his party runs the Congress so oversight of any meaningful degree -- was this wise, was it executed well, was it legal, should it be legal, is it being abused -- will not take place.

Also, few in the public will question it as they should because a). it isn't about them and b). they fear terrorism, so what's the lose of some potentally important Constitutional rights for the reality of security (though the Security may only be a blanket, it will seem better than the mesh of un-checked freedom).

Those who do question it will, ultimately, be accuesed of undermining the President and through him our war against Terrorism and our soldiers in the Field -- lost will be the symbolism of fighting to replace despotic tyranny in Afghanastan and Iraq (secret police, lack of civil rights, lack of rule of law) by employing potentially devestating tactics domestically.

If it isn't illegal, it should be, or at least subject to numerous checks to ensure that it isn't abused. Sadly, this will be yet another tempest in a tea-pot. I hope I'm wrong.

[Lurker]

I was under the impression that to tap a phone line you needed a warrant?

Lurker

[headscratcher4]

You might think so....

When you get into these "national security" findings, it still gets murkey. Hopefully you are right...but don't count on it.

[rikzilla]

First, it may not be illegal.

We can't be sure of that. The article says the Bush admin suspended the practise a year ago because their own legal counsel questioned the legality of it.

Second, it may not be something that a democracy should put up with.
I agree. The degree of percieved threat should inform such decisions.

The matters are different. The President MAY have the power to order such intelligence gathering. Certainly, it seems likely to generate a court challenge. Fortunately for Bush, however, his party runs the Congress so oversight of any meaningful degree -- was this wise, was it executed well, was it legal, should it be legal, is it being abused -- will not take place.

I don't believe you can rightly say meaningful oversight "will not take place". The Republican senators are not monolithic...and the Dem minority has a serious responsibility to keep the White House honest. I doubt they would shirk such an opportunity to throw darts at Bushco.

Also, few in the public will question it as they should because a). it isn't about them and b). they fear terrorism, so what's the lose of some potentally important Constitutional rights for the reality of security (though the Security may only be a blanket, it will seem better than the mesh of un-checked freedom).

True. In past times of war civil liberties have been widely rolled back without much dissent from the American people. Propaganda, disinformation, censorship, and even the overtly racist internment of a target ethnic group has been tolerated. All in the name of national security during wartime.

We at least have a good record of repealing such curtailment of liberties once the threat has passed.

Those who do question it will, ultimately, be accuesed of undermining the President and through him our war against Terrorism and our soldiers in the Field -- lost will be the symbolism of fighting to replace despotic tyranny in Afghanastan and Iraq (secret police, lack of civil rights, lack of rule of law) by employing potentially devestating tactics domestically.

Not really. Reasonable debate that involves offering viable alternatives to the administration's terrorism fighting plans does not undermine the efforts of the troops. Crying that the whole thing is unwinnable; or that our guys are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night; or that we should run away and leave Iraq to disintegrate...these are the actions that undermine the troops and go against the national security of the USA. One must not ever place their own political interests above the general good of the entire nation. This is the mistake of the current leadership of the Democratic party. They have placed themselves in a position to profit from American strategic defeat. In essence Dean has climbed into political bed with the very factions we are at war with.



If it isn't illegal, it should be, or at least subject to numerous checks to ensure that it isn't abused. Sadly, this will be yet another tempest in a tea-pot. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree...but I have the opposite hope...I hope you're right. I can't imagine that much good would come from another investigation. The Plame investigation seems to be off the tracks the same way the "Whitewater" one went. Start looking for evidence of corruption and end up with perjury over a BJ charges....start looking at evidence of outting the CIA agent and you end up with obstruction charges.

George Clooney in "Syriana" said it best...in Washington you are innocent until investigated.

-z

[headscratcher4]

Z -- some agreement here :)

But, as an observer, I have to say that -- whether National Security or housing programs -- this Congress (today, dominated by Republicans) has been terriically bad at "oversight."

We may disagree here, but oversight of things like AbuGrab, Gitmo, etc. have been cursory at best.

However, having said that, the fact that there is a battle shapping up in the Senate over the Patriot Act gives me some hope.

[hgc]

...
I don't believe you can rightly say meaningful oversight "will not take place". The Republican senators are not monolithic...and the Dem minority has a serious responsibility to keep the White House honest. I doubt they would shirk such an opportunity to throw darts at Bushco.
...Dems throwing darts is not the same as Congressional oversight. Congressional oversight comes from committee hearings where the executive branch is questioned about its performance, particularly in applying the laws that the Congress makes. The evidence of the last 5 years indicates to me that there will be NO OVERSIGHT from Congress regarding this matter. I hope I'm wrong.

[rikzilla]

Dems throwing darts is not the same as Congressional oversight.
Tomat-o; tom-ah-to

Congressional oversight comes from committee hearings where the executive branch is questioned about its performance, particularly in applying the laws that the Congress makes. The evidence of the last 5 years indicates to me that there will be NO OVERSIGHT from Congress regarding this matter. I hope I'm wrong.

No oversight...that's pretty strong. Here's something that may interest you:
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there would be hearings early next year and that they would have "a very, very high priority."

So the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is promising oversight. Your pessimistic view of the system seems to have been refuted.

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

So the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is promising oversight. Your pessimistic view of the system seems to have been refuted.


Promising oversight and actually performing it are two different things. Politicians promise lots of things that they never even intend to deliver. So this promise refutes his 'pessimistic view of the system'...how?

[punchdrunk]

Tomat-o; tom-ah-to


No oversight...that's pretty strong. Here's something that may interest you:


So the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is promising oversight. Your pessimistic view of the system seems to have been refuted.

-z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

At the time of the report's release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope that "phase two" of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."

On March 10, 2005, during a question-and-answer session after a speech he had given at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said of the failure to complete phase two, "[T]hat is basically on the back burner." Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), vice chairman of the Committee, made a statement later that day in which he said, "The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment... While the completion of phase two is long overdue, the committee has continued this important work, and I expect that we will finish the review in the very near future."

In a statement regarding the release of the report of the presidential WMD commission on March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote, "I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

On April 10, 2005, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press program. In response to a question about the completion of phase two of the investigation, Roberts said, "I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important."

Moderator Tim Russert then asked Senator Rockefeller if he believed phase two would be completed, and he replied, "I hope so. Pat and I have agreed to do it. We've shaken hands on it, and we agreed to do it after the elections so it wouldn't be any sort of sense of a political attack. I mean that was my view; it shouldn't be viewed that way."

On August 2, 2005, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) released the text of a letter she had sent to Senator Roberts, saying, in part, “I am increasingly dismayed by the delay in completing the Committee’s ‘Phase II’ investigation into intelligence prior to the Iraq War... I stand ready to participate in this investigation in any way possible."

On November 1, 2005, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate minority leader, invoked a seldom-used provision of the Senate rules to place the body in a closed session. During a three-and-a-half hour discussion, agreement was reached on the creation of a six-member Senate panel to report by November 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."[5]

Phase two of the investgation has not yet been completed.

[rikzilla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

Ah the wheels of government grind slowly onward.... So your point is what? That the Congress is slow? Here's another flash for you: Fire is hot.

But not to worry...in Washington you're innocent until investigated...so Bushitler is already guilty! You folks should be rather happy I'd think. :rolleyes:

Carry on

-z

[kalen]

True. In past times of war civil liberties have been widely rolled back without much dissent from the American people. Propaganda, disinformation, censorship, and even the overtly racist internment of a target ethnic group has been tolerated. All in the name of national security during wartime.

We at least have a good record of repealing such curtailment of liberties once the threat has passed.

-z

I'm afraid this current "threat" is one which will never pass.

[kalen]

I seem to recall the NSA was doing this anyway through ECHELON.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).

[punchdrunk]

Ah the wheels of government grind slowly onward.... So your point is what? That the Congress is slow? Here's another flash for you: Fire is hot.

No, the point is, promises from Republican committee chairmen about their oversight priorities should be taken with a big grain of salt; hgc's concerns are not refuted.

But not to worry...in Washington you're innocent until investigated...so Bushitler is already guilty! You folks should be rather happy I'd think. :rolleyes:

I'd be happy if you could stay away from straw-man arguments when responding to me. But who am I to criticize someone with such stunning skill and logic that he uses "rolleyes" as a debate tactic?

Carry on

-z

I will.

[rikzilla]

No, the point is, promises from Republican committee chairmen about their oversight priorities should be taken with a big grain of salt; hgc's concerns are not refuted.

Well this information about the NSA just came out. Do you expect an inquisitor to be dispatched immediately? You got a promise from the Judiciary Committee Chairman. What more would you have the government do today?
Even a "rush-to-judgement" takes a bit of time you know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I'd be happy if you could stay away from straw-man arguments when responding to me. But who am I to criticize someone with such stunning skill and logic that he uses "rolleyes" as a debate tactic?

Sarcasm is not made of straw...but I suppose it's hard to discern on a message board. As for the "rolleyes; well I am a man of many various talents. I am also adept at :dl:
:big:
and :hit:
-z



I will.

I bet.

-z

[punchdrunk]

Well this information about the NSA just came out. Do you expect an inquisitor to be dispatched immediately? You got a promise from the Judiciary Committee Chairman. What more would you have the government do today?
-z

You are still missing the point. My post showed a past example of a Republican chairman promising to make oversight a priority, only to subsequently drag his heels and call it a "monumental waste of time". hgc's concerns are valid because he, as I, have seen this dog and pony show before. What more would I have the Republican leadership in Congress to today? How about fullfilling its past promises before making new ones?

[punchdrunk]

I don't believe you can rightly say meaningful oversight "will not take place". The Republican senators are not monolithic...and the Dem minority has a serious responsibility to keep the White House honest. I doubt they would shirk such an opportunity to throw darts at Bushco.

-z

I missed this the first time through. What are some of the things the Dem minority can do to keep the Bush administration honest? And since it's their "serious responsibility", when they do "throw darts", I can assume you are backing them 100%?

[hgc]

I missed this the first time through. What are some of the things the Dem minority can do to keep the Bush administration honest? And since it's their "serious responsibility", when they do "throw darts", I can assume you are backing them 100%?I'd also like to learn more about this.

What do you mean, Rik, by "throw darts?" Is that meant disparagingly? Is that the appropriate label of any and all Dem criticism of this administration?

What power do Dems have in congress to provide oversight when they don't control the committees or the agenda of either house?

[hgc]

Something to consider about Arlen Spector. He almost was denied the chairmanship of Judiciary by the Rep leadership, despite his seniority, due to his pro-choice stance and other quasi-liberal positions. If he throws a wrench into the Alito confirmation, he will be dispatched forthwith. I wonder how much the Rep leadership will let out his leash on illegal domestic spying, if he actually is interested in providing oversight. I predict we'll find out soon if Spector puts greater value on his principles or his chairmanship. And that's no false dilemma.

[Manny]

Is it OK to at least be pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he found a way to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, or that the fertilizer truck-bomb plot in England was thwarted?

[hgc]

Is it OK to at least be pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he found a way to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, or that the fertilizer truck-bomb plot in England was thwarted?Feel any way you like about it. Is it OK for the president to break the law?

[hammegk]

Feel any way you like about it. Is it OK for the president to break the law?
No, but at least some US citizens prefer to maximize the chance that while in the US we will be alive to discuss it, rather than being a cloud of expanding particles in a fission bomb explosion, or dead from some man-made bioweapon.

[Manny]

The Times article did not make a clear case that the program was illegal.

Thank you for the permission to feel relieved at not being dumped into the East River. Are you pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he was able to find a way to accomplish his mission?

[Melendwyr]

Thank you for the permission to feel relieved at not being dumped into the East River. Are you pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he was able to find a way to accomplish his mission? I can't speak for others, but for me, it depends on how the intended attempt was learned about. If we uncovered it because of illegal methods, or unethical methods that have been made legal, then I disapprove.

[Random]

The sad thing is that Bush’s orders were was completely unnecessary. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act covers everything that Bush could have wanted. It allows for starting a wiretap without a warrant if there is no time to get one, you just have to apply for the warrant retroactively within 72 hours. It’s not like the FICA court has a higher standard for issuing warrants (http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html). In the past 25 years they have approved about eighteen thousand requests, and have rejected four (that’s it, just four). The whole mechanism for getting questionable but legal wiretaps is already in place.

All the Bushies had to do was walk down a hall and have a sleepy FISA judge sign a piece of paper that he might not even read and they could have had their intel legally (at least technically). Instead, they cook up some phony-baloney extra-judicial process whose sole purpose seems to be to violate the constitution. Now we have a president who is engaged in what can only be considered an unconstitutional enterprise, a bunch of republicans who want to find the person who leaked this information to the press, and yet another news story for the so-called “liberal” media to screw up.

Bush- The morals of Nixon, the brains of Quayle...

[TragicMonkey]

I think it'll be hilarious when the next Democrat to get elected starts using all these new and exciting presidential powers. Naturally the Republicans will not protest at all, of course, because such powers are necessary to the security of the nation.

[Luke T.]

Is it OK to at least be pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he found a way to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, or that the fertilizer truck-bomb plot in England was thwarted?

Is it okay if Mr. Faris is released because the evidence against him was obtained illegally?

[Luke T.]

I seem to recall the NSA was doing this anyway through ECHELON.

ECHELON monitors all traffic for key words. It does not target specific individuals.

If the NSA was monitoring specific individuals phones without a warrant, and the President was Bill Clinton, he'd be impeached by next week.

[shecky]

Is it okay if Mr. Faris is released because the evidence against him was obtained illegally?

That would only happen if you don't ignore the law.

[TragicMonkey]

That would only happen if you don't ignore the law.

Or if he gets, you know, a trial or something at all. They're going out of fashion for accused terrorists.

[thaiboxerken]

C'mon, people. Dictators don't live under the same rules as the people he dictates. What's the problem here?

[demon]

quote:
Senate refuses to extend Patriot Act amid eavesdropping row
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday December 17, 2005
The Guardian

The White House yesterday suffered a new assault on its conduct of the war on terror when the Senate refused to renew provisions of the Patriot Act.
The rebuff, which leaves the anti-terror law in limbo before crucial portions expire on December 31, was delivered amid growing outrage at reports that President George Bush secretly authorised eavesdropping on Americans inside the US without court oversight.

It was the second setback for the White House in two days after Mr Bush yielded to Congress and agreed to ban cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1669540,00.html



In a sane world this would be regarded as an outrageous sentence:

"It was the second setback for the White House in two days after Mr Bush yielded to Congress and agreed to ban cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees."

[Melendwyr]

All the Bushies had to do was walk down a hall and have a sleepy FISA judge sign a piece of paper that he might not even read and they could have had their intel legally (at least technically). Instead, they cook up some phony-baloney extra-judicial process whose sole purpose seems to be to violate the constitution. Now we have a president who is engaged in what can only be considered an unconstitutional enterprise, a bunch of republicans who want to find the person who leaked this information to the press, and yet another news story for the so-called “liberal” media to screw up. Getting a FISA warrant wouldn't have achieved the real goal: getting Americans to accept anything as long as it's covered by the mantle of "protecting American lives from terror".

[thaiboxerken]

Megalomaniacs tend to think that they can and should use any means to get their ends met.

[gnome]

I agree. The degree of percieved threat should inform such decisions.

"perceived threat" is so fluid these days. This administration has proven excellent at getting the population to perceive serious threats--which is not to say they're not real. However, here we show a direct connection between the amount of fear generated and the amount of power the executive branch can claim. This isn't very reassuring.

True. In past times of war civil liberties have been widely rolled back without much dissent from the American people. Propaganda, disinformation, censorship, and even the overtly racist internment of a target ethnic group has been tolerated. All in the name of national security during wartime.

Don't forget, this power has been abused in the past for political means other than national security as well...

We at least have a good record of repealing such curtailment of liberties once the threat has passed.

As another poster mentioned--this threat can be presented indefinitely.

[gnome]

Another side point--is it just me, or has the news media suddenly woken up? I never would have expected the major news sources to present such an item, under a democratic OR republican president--such nuances as citizens' privacy seems in the past to be barely worth a footnote. I always thought they would much rather present news about whatever trumped-up controversy is distracting from the real issues.

Instead we see the president on TV forced to explain and justify a rather serious point of national policy. Whether he is right or wrong, it can only be healthy that he must do so.

[CFLarsen]

(whistles "The Battle Hymn of the Republic")

[Mark]

Another side point--is it just me, or has the news media suddenly woken up? I never would have expected the major news sources to present such an item, under a democratic OR republican president--such nuances as citizens' privacy seems in the past to be barely worth a footnote. I always thought they would much rather present news about whatever trumped-up controversy is distracting from the real issues.

Instead we see the president on TV forced to explain and justify a rather serious point of national policy. Whether he is right or wrong, it can only be healthy that he must do so.

It is a good sign. One of the more alarming trends over the last few years has been for the news media to abandon their crucial role as government watchdogs.

[Kopji]

Details on the fisa:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

The act is published on the Cornell Law site, linked early on.

A cursory reading certainly seems to cover what a President might want to do and the procedures to follow in order to be within the law.

It might have been more difficult to get approval for things like spying on peace protesters or tens of thousands of Americans though.

[joe1347]

. . . It might have been more difficult to get approval for things like spying on peace protesters . . .

Something disturbing to comtemplate since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) seemed to already allow wiretaps on suspected terrorists. What (or who else) is Bush secretly monitoring that he couldn't count on FISA to authorize? Or is it time for me to take off my tin foil hat?

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

[Dr Adequate]

Something disturbing to comtemplate since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) seemed to already allow wiretaps on suspected terrorists. What (or who else) is Bush secretly monitoring that he couldn't count on FISA to authorize?
Radical militant librarians (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121105A.shtml), maybe?

That's the most dangerous type of librarian.

[thaiboxerken]

If the NSA was monitoring specific individuals phones without a warrant, and the President was Bill Clinton, he'd be impeached by next week.


Whoa.. what happened? I thought you were a conservative nut-rider.

PS. Are you enjoying the snow and ice on the roads today?

[Luke T.]

Something disturbing to comtemplate since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) seemed to already allow wiretaps on suspected terrorists. What (or who else) is Bush secretly monitoring that he couldn't count on FISA to authorize?


Quakers (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/), among others.

[Luke T.]

Whoa.. what happened? I thought you were a conservative nut-rider.

I have been quite steadfast and consistent on here and elsewhere in my opposition to the Patriot Act ever since it was enacted. It is not an unusual position for a Conservative.

PS. Are you enjoying the snow and ice on the roads today?

I might not be able to go to work tomorrow because of it, so no, I am not enjoying it.

[corplinx]

It is a good sign. One of the more alarming trends over the last few years has been for the news media to abandon their crucial role as government watchdogs.

Evidence? No offense, but when Clinton was elected the wingnuts claimed the media was to blame. When Bush was elected wingnuts like you claimed the same. Same story, different wingnut.

[thaiboxerken]

Evidence? Ok.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5058710

[Dr Adequate]

Quakers (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/), among others.
That's terrifying. If the Quakers joined forces with the librarians, just think what havoc they could wreak.

There's something about Trappist monks that makes me think they may be in on the plot too. I hope someone's been eavesdropping on them, that would be funny for so many reasons.

[Skeptic]

Another side point--is it just me, or has the news media suddenly woken up? I never would have expected the major news sources to present such an item, under a democratic OR republican president--such nuances as citizens' privacy seems in the past to be barely worth a footnote. I always thought they would much rather present news about whatever trumped-up controversy is distracting from the real issues.

A simpler explanation is that this enormously important discovery (not) was published on the same news day as the Iraqi elections, which turned out to be succesful, just as Bush hoped and exactly the opposite as most of the newpapers and journalists in the USA had hoped. So the New York Times & co. needed something--anything--else as its headline, lest they be percieved as giving comfort to the real enemy, which is, of course, not the "insurgents" in Iraq, but G. W. Bush and other evil neo-cons.

If this non-story (surprise surprise: the most secret spying agency in the USA sometimes does thing that are legally dubious in its spying work) makes Bush look bad, so much the better. But if it was a slower news day, the NYT and Washington Post would rather have had as a headline "Teen Wins Essay-Writing Competition in Local School" than say something good about the Iraqi elections.

[gnome]

Evidence? No offense, but when Clinton was elected the wingnuts claimed the media was to blame. When Bush was elected wingnuts like you claimed the same. Same story, different wingnut.

I have observed that on some topics the media tend to give a free pass to whomever is in power. This was already going on during Clinton's time and probably before.

[gnome]

Another side point--is it just me, or has the news media suddenly woken up? I never would have expected the major news sources to present such an item, under a democratic OR republican president--such nuances as citizens' privacy seems in the past to be barely worth a footnote. I always thought they would much rather present news about whatever trumped-up controversy is distracting from the real issues.

A simpler explanation is that this enormously important discovery (not) was published on the same news day as the Iraqi elections, which turned out to be succesful, just as Bush hoped and exactly the opposite as most of the newpapers and journalists in the USA had hoped. So the New York Times & co. needed something--anything--else as its headline, lest they be percieved as giving comfort to the real enemy, which is, of course, not the "insurgents" in Iraq, but G. W. Bush and other evil neo-cons.

If this non-story (surprise surprise: the most secret spying agency in the USA sometimes does thing that are legally dubious in its spying work) makes Bush look bad, so much the better. But if it was a slower news day, the NYT and Washington Post would rather have had as a headline "Teen Wins Essay-Writing Competition in Local School" than say something good about the Iraqi elections.
Yes, the simpler explanation that the liberal media is so anti-Bush they're against democracy in Iraq. Yep, that's the ticket. Would it be any less valid for me to argue that you're so anti-liberal that you're against democracy in America?

[hammegk]

Would it be any less valid for me to argue that you're so anti-liberal that you're against democracy in America?
Go for it. America is a republic, not a democracy, even though SCOTUS & the congress have done their best over the last 50 years or so to make it one.

[Skeptic]

Yes, the simpler explanation that the liberal media is so anti-Bush they're against democracy in Iraq.

Why, yes, actually.

[Luke T.]

That's terrifying. If the Quakers joined forces with the librarians, just think what havoc they could wreak.

There's something about Trappist monks that makes me think they may be in on the plot too. I hope someone's been eavesdropping on them, that would be funny for so many reasons.

This whole thing is wrong on so many levels.

For instance, does our government really have such vast resources that they can spare time and expense to listen in on Quakers? I seriously doubt it, but it can give that impression and feed the "men in black" conspiracy theories out there. The reality is that the government probably doesn't have the resources to spare and are wasting valuable time cracking the oatmeal forumula rather than looking out for, oh, I don't know, terrorists, maybe.

[rikzilla]

Yes, the simpler explanation that the liberal media is so anti-Bush they're against democracy in Iraq. Yep, that's the ticket. Would it be any less valid for me to argue that you're so anti-liberal that you're against democracy in America?

Well it does make one wonder why the NYT sat on this story for a year only to drop it like a bomb on a busy news day which should have belonged solely to the historic Iraqi elections.

Also one must wonder why the liberal media cries so loudly about the outting of the identity of Ms. Plame when they are willing to publicize this NSA story which is in fact a far more important secret to national security than Valerie's CIA employment.

It makes you wonder who's side the MSM is really on.

-z

[Luke T.]

Well it does make one wonder why the NYT sat on this story for a year only to drop it like a bomb on a busy news day which should have belonged solely to the historic Iraqi elections.




Yeah, especially since we were having our own elections a year ago.

[Garrette]

Random beat me to the punch about FISA.

Assuming that the surveillance happened as claimed (I haven't been able to follow it closely), then it is illegal and a Very Bad Thing.

If Bush kept key personnel in the Senate/House informed, this does not mitigate the level of Badness which characterizes this Very Bad Thing; it merely increases the circle of the guilty.

If it is proven beyond a doubt today that the Terribly Liberally Biased Media withheld publication of this story so as to publish it on a date best suited for diverting attentiong from the Very Good Thing That Is The Iraqi Elections, it is irrelevant.

Yell at the media all you like for being biased and partisan, but do it separately from your condemnation of the Very Bad Thing.

[rikzilla]

Random beat me to the punch about FISA.

Assuming that the surveillance happened as claimed (I haven't been able to follow it closely), then it is illegal and a Very Bad Thing.

If Bush kept key personnel in the Senate/House informed, this does not mitigate the level of Badness which characterizes this Very Bad Thing; it merely increases the circle of the guilty.

If it is proven beyond a doubt today that the Terribly Liberally Biased Media withheld publication of this story so as to publish it on a date best suited for diverting attentiong from the Very Good Thing That Is The Iraqi Elections, it is irrelevant.

Yell at the media all you like for being biased and partisan, but do it separately from your condemnation of the Very Bad Thing.


The Very Bad Thing may well have been a Very Legal Thing....which means that it may not have been Very Bad and only rises to the level of "Thing". Seems to me that the Very Historic Voting in Iraq easily should trump an ambiguous noun which has been kept in cold storage for a year.

After all; wasn't the outting of Plame a "Very Bad Thing" when we could pin it on the Bush White House? But then faded into the background as soon as Bob Woodward let out that he had known about it even before Scooter Libby supposedly blabbed. It sounds like Val's "license to kill" was a very poorly kept secret indeed.

-z

[Lurker]

After all; wasn't the outting of Plame a "Very Bad Thing" when we could pin it on the Bush White House? But then faded into the background as soon as Bob Woodward let out that he had known about it even before Scooter Libby supposedly blabbed. It sounds like Val's "license to kill" was a very poorly kept secret indeed.


Who did Woodward learn about Plame from? That question remains unanswered, correct?

Lurker

[Garrette]

Rikzilla,

If it was a Legal Thing after all, then okay, I'll agree it was only a Thing. That's why I opened with the statement I did.

The little I have seen, however, does not indicate that it will turn out to be Legal.

And the business about one Thing "trumping" another Thing is, I think, specious.

There can be multiple Good Things and Bad Things to be discussed. There can even be multiple discussions on whether One Thing In Particular is Good Or Bad.

If the NYT posted this story (whether the Thing is Good, Bad or Only) at the time they did with the motive of "trumping" Iraq, then they should be taken to task (I don't know in what manner, though).

But you can take them to task for that and still ask for accountability regarding the surveillance.

And you can do both of the above while still crowing about the elections. (And I am).

[Luke T.]

The Very Bad Thing may well have been a Very Legal Thing....which means that it may not have been Very Bad and only rises to the level of "Thing".

Somehow, even if spying on Quakers was done legally, I just don't see how a Very Legal Thing still makes a Very Bad Thing just a Thing.

For example, I am opposed to abortion. You can see how a Very Legal Abortion is still a Very Bad Thing in my mind. In fact, government approval just makes the situation all the more Bad.

So it is with spying on Americans simply because they oppose the war. As much as I hate Marxist Blame-America-First losers with seven pounds of brain damage and a megaphone, there is no excuse for the government to spy on them. Or Quakers. WTF does this have to do with preventing terrorist attacks? It's the very abuse of power which made me opposed to the Patriot Act from the get-go.

[Luke T.]

If the NYT posted this story (whether the Thing is Good, Bad or Only) at the time they did with the motive of "trumping" Iraq, then they should be taken to task (I don't know in what manner, though).

What if the NYT knew about this spying prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential elections? If they were really out to undermine Bush, wouldn't they have accomplished more damage by releasing the information at that time?

[Cleon]

Somehow, even if spying on Quakers was done legally, I just don't see how a Very Legal Thing still makes a Very Bad Thing just a Thing.

Well, it transforms a Very Bad Illegal Thing into just a Very Bad Thing.

Unless Rik's contention is that it's only "Very Bad" if it's illegal. In which case I'd guffaw loudly.

[rikzilla]

Who did Woodward learn about Plame from? That question remains unanswered, correct?

Lurker

Yes, but he has admitted that his knowledge of Plame predates the "outting" by Scooter Libby....therefore Libby is not the leaker. He has however screwed himself up legally in other ways...dumb. Dumb but not unusual. There was apparently nothing substantive to the Whitewater allegations; but during the investigation Clinton perjured himself on an unrelated issue. Dumb.

Personally I think all these politically motivated investigations should cease. It's counterproductive. No matter who is in the WhiteHouse the one sure thing is that he or she will be investigated. :rolleyes:
-z

[Mark]

Evidence? No offense, but when Clinton was elected the wingnuts claimed the media was to blame. When Bush was elected wingnuts like you claimed the same. Same story, different wingnut.

Was there a point here? I never made that claim. And name calling is just childish. Not that I expect anything else from you.

I am sorry a free press offends you...perhaps you should move to China?

[rikzilla]

Well, it transforms a Very Bad Illegal Thing into just a Very Bad Thing.

Unless Rik's contention is that it's only "Very Bad" if it's illegal. In which case I'd guffaw loudly.


It is certainly only bad for Bush if it is deemed "illegal". That's what I meant. If it's legal then who care whether you or I dislike the thing and call it bad? But if it is illegal then bad it is for the person(s) who violate it.

-z

[Random]

The Very Bad Thing may well have been a Very Legal Thing....which means that it may not have been Very Bad and only rises to the level of "Thing". Seems to me that the Very Historic Voting in Iraq easily should trump an ambiguous noun which has been kept in cold storage for a year.
What historic Iraqi elections? We seem to have elections in Iraq every few months. Granted, lots of stuff is happening politically over there (what with all the voting between anti-American secular Sunnis, anti-American religious Shiites, anti-American secular Shiites, the continually f’d over Kurds, and Iranians who really shouldn’t be voting but are so thrilled about democracy they can’t help themselves), but I’m not sure way this Iraqi election would be so “historic” compared to the other two we’ve had so far.
After all; wasn't the outting of Plame a "Very Bad Thing" when we could pin it on the Bush White House? But then faded into the background as soon as Bob Woodward let out that he had known about it even before Scooter Libby supposedly blabbed. It sounds like Val's "license to kill" was a very poorly kept secret indeed.
Um, that’s still being investigated actually. Fitz basically come out and said that so many people had lied to him that he was having a hard time figuring out who was telling the truth, but he was able to determine that Libby’s story was a lie, so he indicted him for lying. The media hasn’t been reporting so much on this story lately because they really don’t have anything to report on other than blanket republican denials. This is because unlike Ken “Ok media, here’s what I want you to say tomorrow” Starr, Fitz has kept a tight lid on what is going on in his investigation.

[Cleon]

It is certainly only bad for Bush if it is deemed "illegal". That's what I meant. If it's legal then who care whether you or I dislike the thing and call it bad? But if it is illegal then bad it is for the person(s) who violate it.

Well, see Rik, the thing about people in power is, if they do something that's Bad--whether it's legal or not--it's going to affect the rest of us. I don't care about whether Bush is affected by his actions; in reality, the rest of us ARE. Who cares? I do, and frankly, so should you.

When Dear Leader is using federal resources to spy on the freaking QUAKERS, it's a Bad Thing--legal or not.

[Luke T.]

If it's legal then who care whether you or I dislike the thing and call it bad?

I care because it means we need to repeal, or challenge in court, a law that allows the President or anyone else to spy on people just because they don't like them.

[Lurker]

Yes, but he has admitted that his knowledge of Plame predates the "outting" by Scooter Libby....therefore Libby is not the leaker.

What if someone leaked it to Woodward, and Woodward kept quiet about it. Then Libby leaked to Novak and Novak wrote his column?

As you can see, Libby can still be a leaker. But it increasingly looks like we will never know how it all went down. Those responsible are keeping quiet.

Lurker

[Nyarlathotep]

It is certainly only bad for Bush if it is deemed "illegal". That's what I meant. If it's legal then who care whether you or I dislike the thing and call it bad? But if it is illegal then bad it is for the person(s) who violate it.

-z

Jim Crow laws were legal. Were they bad?

[Mark]

Jim Crow laws were legal. Were they bad?

Depends on whether or not a Republican was president at the time.

[corplinx]

Was there a point here? I never made that claim. And name calling is just childish. Not that I expect anything else from you.

I am sorry a free press offends you...perhaps you should move to China?

Mark, I respect the wry, sarcasm, wit, humor, barbs, and jabs of some great minds with whom I disagree with on this board.

Unfortunately, you are not one of those great minds and your posts will be unread as I am adding you to my ignore list. Best of luck trolling other people into responding to you. Cheers.

[Mark]

Mark, I respect the wry, sarcasm, wit, humor, barbs, and jabs of some great minds with whom I disagree with on this board.

Unfortunately, you are not one of those great minds and your posts will be unread as I am adding you to my ignore list. Best of luck trolling other people into responding to you. Cheers.

You're funny...you call me names, completely unprovoked, and then I am the troll. I like you; you say funny things.

[rikzilla]

What historic Iraqi elections?

Ahhhh the stuff of legendary sig quotes! ;)

I won't though...out of context quotes are not my style...but it's still funny that you'd actually post this ludicrous sentence!

Besides, boring old elections that happen regularly are one of the things we've been fighting to create over there. Elections; like good investments; should be boring.

-z

[Random]

Ahhhh the stuff of legendary sig quotes! ;)

I won't though...out of context quotes are not my style...but it's still funny that you'd actually post this ludicrous sentence!

Besides, boring old elections that happen regularly are one of the things we've been fighting to create over there. Elections; like good investments; should be boring.
Well, I just get fed up with the way some people treat these artificial political benchmarks. Every time something constitution-ish gets signed, or a bunch of people trundle off to vote, some people act as if this is some great thing that will change everything in that poor benighted region of the globe. And the body count keeps creeping up. Nation building doesn’t work that way.

The big issues that make that place so messed up (the lack of a Kurdistan, religious feuds, easy to obtain oil, the interests of neighboring countries, etc.) really are not being addressed by any of this purple finger waving as far as I can tell.

And now, back to the thread topic...

[gnome]

Yes, the simpler explanation that the liberal media is so anti-Bush they're against democracy in Iraq.

Why, yes, actually.

Way to ignore the question in the other part of my post. So easy to make cheap shots without having to defend them.

[gnome]

Well it does make one wonder why the NYT sat on this story for a year only to drop it like a bomb on a busy news day which should have belonged solely to the historic Iraqi elections.

Also one must wonder why the liberal media cries so loudly about the outting of the identity of Ms. Plame when they are willing to publicize this NSA story which is in fact a far more important secret to national security than Valerie's CIA employment.

It makes you wonder who's side the MSM is really on.

-z
Thanks Rik! Some questions that are actually worth answering, instead of cheap-shot generalizations about the liberal media.

To begin: If the release of the story was timed simply to bash President Bush during a day that would otherwise have been good news for him, why wouldn't NYT have released it before the US election, instead? Such a motive doesn't fit the facts. But, there was a more significant reason to print when they did, that happened to coincide with the Iraqi elections--there was an important vote going on regarding the Patriot Act. In fact, I daresay printing the article changed the outcome. That's not an unprincipled attack--that's a relevant disclosure on the eve of an important vote. It's their JOB.

Regarding the conflict between objecting to leaks regarding Plame, and lauding a leak regarding NSA behavior... that one's pretty simple. Violating secrecy for purposes of a political retaliation is reprehensible. Violating secrecy for purposes of blowing the whistle on a possibly unconstitutional invasion of privacy is why the free press exists. It's about as different a situation as you can get. I actually have a hard time figuring out why you see them as the same.

[gnome]

Go for it. America is a republic, not a democracy, even though SCOTUS & the congress have done their best over the last 50 years or so to make it one.

Changing the subject with a word game. Substitute "civil rights" for "democracy" if it makes you understand the question better.

[Lurker]

Regarding the conflict between objecting to leaks regarding Plame, and lauding a leak regarding NSA behavior... that one's pretty simple. Violating secrecy for purposes of a political retaliation is reprehensible. Violating secrecy for purposes of blowing the whistle on a possibly unconstitutional invasion of privacy is why the free press exists. It's about as different a situation as you can get. I actually have a hard time figuring out why you see them as the same.

See, I was thinking along these lines but had trouble articulating it this well.

Lurker

[hammegk]

To begin: If the release of the story was timed simply to bash President Bush during a day that would otherwise have been good news for him, why wouldn't NYT have released it before the election, instead? Such a motive doesn't fit the facts. But, there was a more significant reason to print when they did, that happened to coincide with the Iraqi elections--there was an important vote going on regarding the Patriot Act. In fact, I daresay printing the article changed the outcome. That's not an unprincipled attack--that's a relevant disclosure on the eve of an important vote. It's their JOB.
To some degree it apears the leak was timed to maximize sales possibilities for one of their hack's books soon to be released.

Also, at one time, courts realized that freedom of press, civil rights, blah blah should not become a suicide pact.


Regarding the conflict between objecting to leaks regarding Plame, and lauding a leak regarding NSA behavior... that one's pretty simple. Violating secrecy for purposes of a political retaliation is reprehensible. Violating secrecy for purposes of blowing the whistle on a possibly unconstitutional invasion of privacy is why the free press exists. It's about as different a situation as you can get. I actually have a hard time figuring out why you see them as the same.
The Plame crapola has and had no bearing on the real world except the real world of politicians not in power striving to get some power.

Ed only knows what intelligence assets we've lost by discussing current NSA operations.


Please Ed, let the first suitcase nuke on US soil be close to a large group of the blithering idiots who see no danger except that posed by Bush etal.

[gnome]

To some degree it apears the leak was timed to maximize sales possibilities for one of their hack's books soon to be released.

Also, at one time, courts realized that freedom of press, civil rights, blah blah should not become a suicide pact.


The Plame crapola has and had no bearing on the real world except the real world of politicians not in power striving to get some power.

Ed only knows what intelligence assets we've lost by discussing current NSA operations.


Please Ed, let the first suitcase nuke on US soil be close to a large group of the blithering idiots who see no danger except that posed by Bush etal.
I'm not getting into this again with you. You've made it explicitly clear in another thread that you believe the President should have no restraints whatsoever in pursuit of national security (and, as far as I can tell, even if he uses this power for personal or political gain instead of national security--though you haven't said that). This is not a disagreement you and I can resolve by arguing. Especially since you see no middle ground between absolute impunity and suicide pact.

[jnelso99]

That's terrifying. If the Quakers joined forces with the librarians, just think what havoc they could wreak.

There's something about Trappist monks that makes me think they may be in on the plot too. I hope someone's been eavesdropping on them, that would be funny for so many reasons.

This sounds like a game of Illuminati (http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/)...

Hmm...wait a minute...

[hammegk]

You've made it explicitly clear in another thread that you believe the President should have no restraints whatsoever in pursuit of national security (and, as far as I can tell, even if he uses this power for personal or political gain instead of national security--though you haven't said that).
Evidence? I don't recall stating anything that could reasonably be construed as that position. If I did, I was certainly in error.

[ImaginalDisc]

Evidence? I don't recall stating anything that could reasonably be construed as that position. If I did, I was certainly in error.

Then why don't you elaborate more fully on your position instead of praying for a neuclear attack on journalists?

[Random]

To some degree it apears the leak was timed to maximize sales possibilities for one of their hack's books soon to be released.

Also, at one time, courts realized that freedom of press, civil rights, blah blah should not become a suicide pact.


The Plame crapola has and had no bearing on the real world except the real world of politicians not in power striving to get some power.

Ed only knows what intelligence assets we've lost by discussing current NSA operations.
Well, it may be that the conservative New York Times (yes I think they are conservative, so sue me) found themselves in a position where they could not keep the story hushed up anymore. It would look kinda silly if a book with this major scandal in it was published and it turned out the NYT had the story for over a year and did nothing about it.

I’m not sure exactly what kind of damage this revelation would do, it’s not like we have been discussing specific names of people who have been spied on or anything. I don’t think that it was a secret that the government was engaged in wiretapping operations, that’s just common sense. The problem was how the Bush administration went about it.

They had the ability to secretly get the warrants that they needed, and decided not to. Why wouldn’t they at least try to get the warrants? There are very few possible answers to that question, and none of them are very good.

[rikzilla]

Thanks Rik! Some questions that are actually worth answering, instead of cheap-shot generalizations about the liberal media.

You're welcome Gnome! :) According to you those questions are worth answering,...before you show that they're NOT worth answering! Here again we travel to the bizarro world of "fake but true"...and "voted for it before voting against it".

The liberal media and liberals in general get what they deserve. When the target has cheapened itself through blatant bias and lies one can hardly blame the "shot" for being cheap itself.

To begin: If the release of the story was timed simply to bash President Bush during a day that would otherwise have been good news for him, why wouldn't NYT have released it before the US election, instead?
I don't know. Why don't you pose your question to the editor of the NYT. It is obvious that the release was timed since the story was held. The timing was entirely up to the NYT editor...perhaps it was aimed at the PA debate instead?

Such a motive doesn't fit the facts. But, there was a more significant reason to print when they did, that happened to coincide with the Iraqi elections--there was an important vote going on regarding the Patriot Act. In fact, I daresay printing the article changed the outcome. That's not an unprincipled attack--that's a relevant disclosure on the eve of an important vote. It's their JOB.

Bullsh!t. The JOB of the press is to report the news; not make the news. By pushing this story to influence the vote on the PA the NYT editor is attempting to influence law. It's not their JOB...it's chutzpah, hubris, meddling.

Regarding the conflict between objecting to leaks regarding Plame, and lauding a leak regarding NSA behavior... that one's pretty simple. Violating secrecy for purposes of a political retaliation is reprehensible.
Okay I'll bite. You're right...but since Bob Woodward had this info before Libby "leaked" it...then Libby (and Rove) are not the leakers. There goes your political retaliation scenario. No wonder the limo-libs are busy shooting Woodward the evil-eye. Luckily Bob had too much integrity to sit silently by. Good for him!

Violating secrecy for purposes of blowing the whistle on a possibly unconstitutional invasion of privacy is why the free press exists. It's about as different a situation as you can get. I actually have a hard time figuring out why you see them as the same.

Possibly...and yet Bush has seen no problem with signing many exec orders that are part of the record. At the very most you have a POTUS who was given bad legal advice...at the least you have nothing at all because it's likely legal all around. We're at war. It's post 9/11...the President must use all powers at his disposal to protect the nation. The editor of the NYT's wishes notwithstanding...after all who is he to attempt to use his unelected position to influence the PA debate in the US Senate and cloak his meddling under the lofty title of: "The Free Press"??

-z

[TragicMonkey]

I thought I read, when this story first broke, that the Times was going to publish the story a year ago, but agreed not to when asked by the White House on the grounds of national security? I can't find that line again in any of the news stories...did I imagine it? Or was it a mistake that they corrected almost as soon as they posted the story?

I have to say, the Times agreeing to sit on such a story seems rather incredible. If true, then how can they be indignant now, since they were involved in the coverup for a full year?

[hammegk]

Well, it may be that the conservative New York Times (yes I think they are conservative, so sue me)
Er, your crummy opinion is your business. Thanks for sharing, though.


They had the ability to secretly get the warrants that they needed, and decided not to. Why wouldn’t they at least try to get the warrants? There are very few possible answers to that question, and none of them are very good.
As the Pres attempted to explain to the Bush-haters posing as a press corps (not to mention posing as rational posters here), a time-is-of-the-essence problem was perceived, and dealt with, in the cases in question. When time permits warrants were and are requested.


Then why don't you elaborate more fully on your position instead of praying for a neuclear attack on journalists?
Elaborate on a position I don't hold? Not today, thanks. And did I request nukes be directed at "journalists"? I think not.

[Luke T.]

Bullsh!t. The JOB of the press is to report the news; not make the news. By pushing this story to influence the vote on the PA the NYT editor is attempting to influence law. It's not their JOB...it's chutzpah, hubris, meddling.

Actually, it is the press's job to serve as a government watchdog. That's why we have a First Amendment.

As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the "primary purpose" of the First Amendment was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches" (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary).

And, oh, look, that comes from a Government website!

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodale.htm

[Luke T.]

There are certain nations which have peculiar reasons for cherishing the liberty of the press, independently of the general motives that I have just pointed out. For in certain countries which profess to be free, every individual agent of the government may violate the laws with impunity, since the constitution does not give to those who are injured a right of complaint before the courts of justice. In this case the liberty of the press is not merely one of the guarantees, but it is the only guarantee of their liberty and security that the citizens possess.

My pal Al (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch11.htm). Democracy. In. America.

[Random]

As the Pres attempted to explain to the Bush-haters posing as a press corps (not to mention posing as rational posters here), a time-is-of-the-essence problem was perceived, and dealt with, in the cases in question. When time permits warrants were and are requested.
The law allows for requesting a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours after the tap has begun. It takes a lot less time to request the warrant, as the court that approves such warrants is designed to issue them quickly.

[hammegk]

I agree that some people apparently interpret The Law to say such; I admit I don't know what the true interpretation is.

I suspect SCOTUS will eventually let us all know.

[Luke T.]

The law allows for requesting a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours after the tap has begun. It takes a lot less time to request the warrant, as the court that approves such warrants is designed to issue them quickly.

Here's what I wonder about a retroactive warrant. Is the information that is gained from a wiretap used as evidence to support the warrant?

In other words, let's say the cops search your house without a warrant and they find a pound of cocaine. Then they go to the judge and ask for a retroactive warrant. And the judge wants to know why he should grant it. "Well, we found a pound a cocaine."

You see what I mean? That's plainly an unlawful search and seizure.

[back2basics]

The Times article did not make a clear case that the program was illegal.

Thank you for the permission to feel relieved at not being dumped into the East River. Are you pleased that Mr. Faris was discovered before he was able to find a way to accomplish his mission?

If you want to take seriously a "threat" of a man cutting 15" thick suspension cables, with blow torches, that’s up to you.

[ImaginalDisc]

Elaborate on a position I don't hold? Not today, thanks. And did I request nukes be directed at "journalists"? I think not.

You sir, are a liar.


Please Ed, let the first suitcase nuke on US soil be close to a large group of the blithering idiots who see no danger except that posed by Bush etal.

go look at your post, see it in context.

[thaiboxerken]

Here's what I wonder about a retroactive warrant. Is the information that is gained from a wiretap used as evidence to support the warrant?

In other words, let's say the cops search your house without a warrant and they find a pound of cocaine. Then they go to the judge and ask for a retroactive warrant. And the judge wants to know why he should grant it. "Well, we found a pound a cocaine."

You see what I mean? That's plainly an unlawful search and seizure.

I agree. They should justify the reason for the search with evidence they had BEFORE the search.

[back2basics]

The other point is, that if Bush broke a law then we cannot punish them in the courts, any evidence this gives us would not be allowed to be entered in to evidence.

Which is why Mr. Faris has a closed hearing, and the results of the hearing were also sealed. We don't even know if he had a lawyer.

Like half the people held in Cuba, these people will end up being released at some stage in the future. Released with a grudge, is this the security you people crave?

[gnome]

Evidence? I don't recall stating anything that could reasonably be construed as that position. If I did, I was certainly in error.

It was an exchange on another message board (my error for mistaking the forum):

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6656

This exchange:

Gnome:

Well, claiming "no recollection" of whether one ordered illegal funding for a terrorist group based on illegally selling weapons to a terrorist state, isn't quite the same as "no recollection" of whether he'd had membership in a group.

Hammegk:

Now there is a question for Roberts: What should POTUS (and his administration) do when faced with actual geopolitical reality but hindered by bad, verging on insane, "law"?

Gnome:

Um... I don't know. I guess you think he should violate his oath of office and authority under the Constitution, and then plead ignorance and let an underling take the rap.

Hammegk:

Erm, yes. The old Better Red than Dead position. Screw the Pres's responsibility for national defense. Got it!

Gnome:

Make the president an unaccountable dictator in handling national defense. Got it.

Hammegk:

You do understand that in our hair-trigger world that is the fact? Nah, probably not.


Ring a bell? If this is not an endorsement of the president being unaccountable on matters of national security, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you could explain what you meant instead.

Or, if you simply wish to back off of this position and argue something different, I'm listening.

[Luke T.]

The other point is, that if Bush broke a law then we cannot punish them in the courts, any evidence this gives us would not be allowed to be entered in to evidence.

Which is why Mr. Faris has a closed hearing, and the results of the hearing were also sealed. We don't even know if he had a lawyer.

Like half the people held in Cuba, these people will end up being released at some stage in the future. Released with a grudge, is this the security you people crave?

You are making an assumption.

It could be a closed hearing because it would reveal surveillance methods that are still being used. We wouldn't want to tip Al Queda off which communication methods of theirs we have cracked and are monitoring.

[hammegk]

You sir, are a liar.
And you are a dunce with comprehension problems.

go look at your post, see it in context.
I don't see "nuke a journalist" anywhere in it, context or not.



Ring a bell? If this is not an endorsement of the president being unaccountable on matters of national security, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you could explain what you meant instead.
Hmm. Next you'll accuse me, here, of being the hammegk who posts there ... (no comment).

And that exchange with my final comment "You do understand that in our hair-trigger world that is the fact? Nah, probably not." is much broader in scope than this current tempest-in-a-peapot and covers POTUS responsibility that has been de-facto since the beginning of the Cold War.

Nor does it cover personal/political wrongdoing by POTUS.

[gnome]

And that exchange with my final comment "You do understand that in our hair-trigger world that is the fact? Nah, probably not." is much broader in scope than this current tempest-in-a-peapot and covers POTUS responsibility that has been de-facto since the beginning of the Cold War.

Nor does it cover personal/political wrongdoing by POTUS.
Please explain the scope then, because it was posted in response to my direct comment that you seemed to advocate no accountability for the president on national security matters. Do you feel that it should be so or not?

If the answer is no, it will take more explanation from you to make your opinion distinct from that. If the answer is yes, then personal/political wrongdoing is moot without accountability.

[hammegk]

Please explain the scope then, because it was posted in response to my direct comment that you seemed to advocate no accountability for the president on national security matters. Do you feel that it should be so or not?
That is a good question. If only conventional weapons are the threat, I prefer higher accountability. In the current world -- one zealot, or maniac -- equals megadeaths, I prefer action to inaction and I see a POTUS hamstrung if accountability is his foremost thought. After-the-fact accountability is hard to dodge for POTUS as for all of us.


If the answer is no, it will take more explanation from you to make your opinion distinct from that. If the answer is yes, then personal/political wrongdoing is moot without accountability.
Huh?

[gnome]

That is a good question. If only conventional weapons are the threat, I prefer higher accountability. In the current world -- one zealot, or maniac -- equals megadeaths, I prefer action to inaction and I see a POTUS hamstrung if accountability is his foremost thought. After-the-fact accountability is hard to dodge for POTUS as for all of us.

This is something approaching rational as at least you acknowlede a spectrum of levels of accountability. Today it's a fact that we're faced with possibly single maniacs with the power of megadeath in their hands. So, right now, you prefer no safeguards against the abuse of power? Or some? More interesting would be a discussion of which safeguards you find acceptable and which ones you don't. The ones discussed in this thread, for example.

Huh?

My point is, if you remove accountability, it doesn't matter if the president is bucking the law for national security or for personal reasons--he's unaccountable.

[Kopji]

Newsweek's latest editorial is amazing in its bluntness:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

[Regnad Kcin]

...Please Ed, let the first suitcase nuke on US soil be close to a large group of the blithering idiots who see no danger except that posed by Bush etal.Apologize.

[Regnad Kcin]

Bullsh!t. The JOB of the press is to report the news; not make the news. By pushing this story to influence the vote on the PA the NYT editor is attempting to influence law. It's not their JOB...it's chutzpah, hubris, meddling.Actually, it is the press's job to serve as a government watchdog. That's why we have a First Amendment.Correct.

Incidentally Luke, I admire your thoughtful posts in this thread.

[Luke T.]

Correct.

Incidentally Luke, I admire your thoughtful posts in this thread.

Aw, shucks. Thanks!

[Elind]

Seen this report? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa



Why not go thru the legal process with warrants? Why do it illegally?

Lurker
It's a reasonable question, but not hard to imagine situations where you don't have time. An obvious one would be an internationally intercepted call to the US or a call from the US to an international location (not sure if that means they should stop listening without a warrant), but then the conversation is heard to involve calling someone else in the US to pass an urgent message and so on.

Not unlikely I think, and this is in real time; impossible to track if warrants are needed.

HOWEVER, I believe there are provisions for warrants to be obtained AFTER the fact, and I'm not sure why that has not been discussed more.

Edited to ask: Why the administration hasn't done this, or if they have why they haven't said so.

[Elind]

Here's what I wonder about a retroactive warrant. Is the information that is gained from a wiretap used as evidence to support the warrant?

In other words, let's say the cops search your house without a warrant and they find a pound of cocaine. Then they go to the judge and ask for a retroactive warrant. And the judge wants to know why he should grant it. "Well, we found a pound a cocaine."

You see what I mean? That's plainly an unlawful search and seizure.

(I'm not reading all posts first, obviously, as I have already mentioned this)

They would need to show cause to have searched, before finding anything, just like in a normal situation.

[Kopji]

I think a return of the of media to a role as The Fourth Estate would be welcome. They have a long way to go to earn that title of honor back.

The New York Times is usually thought of as being more liberal than not isn't it? Hard to tell these days. It would be sadly telling, but not unexpected if they held the story back in order to obtain more favorable access to newsmakers. Idle speculation.

Bush is not really worth hating. Corruption, arrogance, and
"legal-is-defined-as-what-we-want" are worth hating, but hardly limited to one individual. If we willingly tolerate these things due to our irrational fears and let them go unchallenged we deserve the crappy kind of government we'll get.

If we die of a suitcase nuke because we didn't let these guys do whatever they want, at least we'd die free and with honor and not in paranoid fright of preintelligent retro religious fanatics.

Borders are porous, containers on ships still go uninspected, chartered & corporate flights are still easy air targets. Various public service groups still could not communicate in a disaster. This is the same administration that got "F"'s just a couple weeks ago by the 911 commission. I doubt that being able to spy on Americans is way up there on the to-do list and gonna make a big difference.

The tone of the Newsweek editorial is an ominous sign of what may come, and sad for anyone of any political party.

[Roadtoad]

Coming in late...

If FISA was in place, and workable, (I'm hearing Bush claim that the whole thing was and is unwieldly), it would tend to indicate that wiretaps without warrants was pointless, and it would suggest another political blunder on the part of Bush.

For me, this is a deal-breaker. Had I known about it, I'd have written in Lieberman.

[Questioninggeller]

I seem to recall the NSA was doing this anyway through ECHELON.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON


ECHELON, NSA spooks face Congress scrutiny
The wages of sin: legislative oversight
Published Saturday 27th November 1999 09:11 GMT


Conspiracy paranoiacs rejoice: the controversial spy operation known as ECHELON, reportedly run by the US National Security Agency (NSA), is going under the microscope when Congress returns from the holidays.

In a double blow to the spook agency's sense of immunity, Congress has drafted a bill requiring it to account for itself, while the House Government Reform Committee has decided to grill NSA officials in hearings early next year.

The struggle warmed up earlier this year as the House Select Committee on Intelligence requested documents from the NSA explaining its operating standards. NSA officials refused to deliver the information, invoking attorney/client privilege, a sadly thin defence.

Public relations has never been the NSA's strong suit, though its aloof character does have its uses in terms of 'deniability.' But snubbing Congress was a foolish move, as legislators will now, on principle, demand a good deal more information than they had originally sought, and probably vote themselves some form of oversight power.

Oversight is a bit tricky, as Congress is not empowered to supervise military operations per se, though it has the power of the purse and can, when aroused, limit funds for operations of which it disapproves. In one famous example, former President Richard Nixon learned of this power the hard way when a disgusted Congress cut off financing for the Vietnam War, effectively shutting it down.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/27/echelon_nsa_spooks_face_congress/

[TragicMonkey]

If FISA is so unworkable, why didn't it get reformed? After all, so much attention and time and energy was spent overhauling things after 9/11. If the administration had a problem with FISA, why didn't they try to reform it, instead of bypassing it and breaking the law?

[gnome]

If FISA is so unworkable, why didn't it get reformed? After all, so much attention and time and energy was spent overhauling things after 9/11. If the administration had a problem with FISA, why didn't they try to reform it, instead of bypassing it and breaking the law?

A speculation, not an assertion: by reforming the law, they would acknowledge that sensible laws can restrain them and still preserve national security. They would rather argue that the laws are NOT sensible and the only alternative is to remove all restraints.

[joobie]

If FISA is so unworkable, why didn't it get reformed? After all, so much attention and time and energy was spent overhauling things after 9/11. If the administration had a problem with FISA, why didn't they try to reform it, instead of bypassing it and breaking the law?

GWB has told me that even asking those questions is shameful.

really.

[Roadtoad]

GWB has told me that even asking those questions is shameful.

really.

Great. I hope I become an absolute disgrace.

[Garrette]

For a pretty good FAQ on FISA, go here:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html)

It appears to be objective but also slightly anti-FISA, in the sense it thinks it grants too much power, not too little.

Key points:

1. FISA treats US citizens and non-US citizens differently.

2. It’s primary purpose is the collection of Foreign Intelligence Information, not criminal information; however, criminal information collected incidental to the collection of FII is admissible in criminal court.

3. The FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), comprises 7 judges who meet two days per month. In addition, 2 of the 7 judges are on call at all times.

4. FISC does not actually issue warrants in the sense normally meant. Legal experts on this forum can explain this better than I.

5. Defendants facing charges based upon information collected under FISA do have the right to challenge its legality and to have it suppressed. However, the deck is stacked against them because the government can claim national security reasons to avoid revealing the collected information.

6. I’ll quote the entire #16 answer (How Does FISA Work?). It’s informative:

Under FISA, requests for counterintelligence warrants are funneled through the Justice Department, which reviews applications by the CIA as well as other agencies before submitting them to the FISA court. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a), 1822(a)(1) (1994). Each application to the FISA court must first be personally approved by the Attorney General. See 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a).

The application must contain, among other things,

a statement of reasons to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, specified information on the implementation of the surveillance, and a "certification" from a high-ranking executive branch official stating that the official "deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information" and that the information sought "cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques."
See generally 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7), 1805(a) (setting forth the findings necessary to support the issuance of an order authorizing surveillance).

Particular facts or representations required include: statements regarding all previous applications involving the target; "detailed description of the nature of the information sought and of the type of communication or activities to be subject to the surveillance," § 1804(a)(6); the length of time surveillance is required, § 1804(a)(10); whether physical entry into a premises is necessary, and proposed procedures to minimize the acquisition, use, and retention of information concerning nonconsenting U.S. persons. § 1804(b).

On the basis of the application, a FISC judge must find probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, and that the facilities where the surveillance is directed are or will be used by the target.

For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met: (1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which "may involve" a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power pursuant to the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways.

Courts have attached conditions to the executive's use of warrantless surveillance, including the requirement that the President or Attorney General authorize the search, the search targets a foreign power or its agents, and the primary purpose of the search is to gather foreign intelligence information. See Exec. Order No. 12,333, § 2.5, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1982), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 note (1994) (requiring approval of attorney general for warrantless searches).

An order of the FISC may approve electronic surveillance of an agent of a foreign power for ninety days and of a foreign power for a year. Extensions may be granted on the same terms, except that targets who are foreign powers may be subject to surveillance for an additional year if there is probable cause to believe that no communication of any U.S. person will be acquired.


The entire page is an interesting and fairly easy read, so I recommend it.

It belies the arguments put forth suggesting that FISA is unwieldy or untimely.

My egotistical opinion: If Bush and/or his representatives authorized surveillance/searches of US citizens (and possibly non-US citizens) without going through FISA, they were wrong wrong wrong and must be held accountable. Notifying members of Congress does not change this; instead, it brings those members of Congress into the fold of the culpable.

Edited for spacing

[rikzilla]

Coming in late...

If FISA was in place, and workable, (I'm hearing Bush claim that the whole thing was and is unwieldly), it would tend to indicate that wiretaps without warrants was pointless, and it would suggest another political blunder on the part of Bush.

For me, this is a deal-breaker. Had I known about it, I'd have written in Lieberman.

...and your vote would have been wasted on an ineffective protest. (I did that in 2000 with my Nader vote)

But this points up the larger problem of allowing the loony moonbat left to hijack the Democratic Party. There was no viable choice offered by the Dems. Kerry is no Lieberman. Bush was the only possible choice left for an American voter who cared about winning the WOT.

-z

[Random]

My egotistical opinion: If Bush and/or his representatives authorized surveillance/searches of US citizens (and possibly non-US citizens) without going through FISA, they were wrong wrong wrong and must be held accountable. Notifying members of Congress does not change this; instead, it brings those members of Congress into the fold of the culpable.

Edited for spacing
I’m not sure that it would make members of congress culpable. What we seem to hearing from some of those congressmen that knew about it is that they did not approve of it, and were then prohibited from discussing it with anybody due to secrecy issues. If the president tells you, “I’m doing something illegal, but if you tell anybody you will be tried for treason” what sort of responsibilities do you hold?

[back2basics]

I don't know. Why don't you pose your question to the editor of the NYT. It is obvious that the release was timed since the story was held. The timing was entirely up to the NYT editor...perhaps it was aimed at the PA debate instead?


-z

Correct! And if the NY Times had reported the news rather than made the news, let’s see what would have happened;

Just prior to the election;

1) If it weren’t for a certain reporter "standing up for freedom of the press", the American public would have known at least two members of the Whitehouse were being investigated or would have been indicted. (Fitzgerald said he wanted to have it tied up in 2004, when indicting Libby).
2) Because of this they would have know the stories printed by said reporter were bogus, and the reasons for going to war were bogus.
3) That the NSA was being spied on.

All this was in the hands of the NY Times. Liberal paper it may be, but the owner certainly is not. That’s an amazing effort to keep facts from the people prior to an election, reporting the news not making it.. when will the NY Time actually start doing that? How many more stories are they hiding?

It's amazing the small band of Bush apologists (and the large section of values/evangelical voters) that are left continue to defend him. The economic conservative left, the independent left and now we have a few people who still trust him. You guys are beginning to sound a little silly right now.

I wonder if there were a group of people who supported Nixon to the end as well? I know many Germans supported Hitler to the end. So is this a "backed in to a corner" reaction or is it something else? Defending you World view to the end is great though. I want you guys to keep justifying torcher, and breaking the constitution. The conservative dogma RIP for many, many years.

The country is now back in our control, get used to it. Here is to a decade of liberal progress. We will pick up the pieces, don't you worry.

When Rove is gone (this week) what are you left with? Bush calling the shots? We saw what happened when he calls the shots with Myers. Its going to be fun watching him go down in flames, what remains to be seen is how long the vocal minority on the right continue to parrot talking points.

[hammegk]

eta: directed at last post previous page ... damned page break anyhow.

Wow. Are you smoking something or do you inject it?

[back2basics]

eta: directed at last post previous page ... damned page break anyhow.

Wow. Are you smoking something or do you inject it?

You disagree with which part?

[Garrette]

If the president tells you, “I’m doing something illegal, but if you tell anybody you will be tried for treason” what sort of responsibilities do you hold?

Reporting it.

[Elind]

If FISA is so unworkable, why didn't it get reformed? After all, so much attention and time and energy was spent overhauling things after 9/11. If the administration had a problem with FISA, why didn't they try to reform it, instead of bypassing it and breaking the law?

From what I read the President does have power to do such things in the name of national security, and I don't see lists of those spied upon showing that they were mostly Americans either.

It also seems that our system of checks and balances is working as we speak.

What's the problem?

[back2basics]

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

[Random]

From what I read the President does have power to do such things in the name of national security, and I don't see lists of those spied upon showing that they were mostly Americans either.

It also seems that our system of checks and balances is working as we speak.

What's the problem?
The president does have the power to do things like what he is saying, but there are legal requirements, procedures, and safeguards in place in order to make these actions legal. Bush didn’t try to comply with any of them, he just decided to create his own pseudo-legal procedure out of whole cloth, and he doesn’t have the authority to do that.

[Mark]

The president does have the power to do things like what he is saying, but there are legal requirements, procedures, and safeguards in place in order to make these actions legal. Bush didn’t try to comply with any of them, he just decided to create his own pseudo-legal procedure out of whole cloth, and he doesn’t have the authority to do that.

And if someone has absolute, 100% faith in their leader they won't have a problem with that. For those of us who do not have such blind trust/faith, it is a rather large problem.

[Complexity]

I think Bush's behavior is grounds for impeachment.

[punchdrunk]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Great catch b2b. From the same event: "September the 11th -- when the President says something, he better mean it. See, in order to make the world more peaceful, it's essential that those of us in positions of high responsibility speak clearly and mean what we say ..... When the President speaks, he better mean it."

Bwahahahaaahaa

[Roadtoad]

I think Bush's behavior is grounds for impeachment.

That may be, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Interesting stuff is coming out. Apparently, a lot of this began with Reagan, and continued on until today. I'm still chasing it down, but it seems that Clinton pulled something similar, and when called on it, his staff said that it was well within the President's powers to do this. This would undercut any attempt at impeachment if it's so. Precedent has been set.

[hgc]

That may be, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Interesting stuff is coming out. Apparently, a lot of this began with Reagan, and continued on until today. I'm still chasing it down, but it seems that Clinton pulled something similar, and when called on it, his staff said that it was well within the President's powers to do this. This would undercut any attempt at impeachment if it's so. Precedent has been set.Citations, please.

[Roadtoad]

Citations, please.

As I said. I'm looking. This could prove false, too.

[Random]

Cater and Clinton both granted their attorney generals the authority to do warrantles wiretaps, provided they obeyed the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act. The law allows for warrantless wiretaps with some limitation. Bush went outside the bounds of the law it looks like, that is the problem.

This will probably do nothing to change the right-wing talking point however.

[Ed]

It's a reasonable question, but not hard to imagine situations where you don't have time. An obvious one would be an internationally intercepted call to the US or a call from the US to an international location (not sure if that means they should stop listening without a warrant), but then the conversation is heard to involve calling someone else in the US to pass an urgent message and so on.

.

My understanding is that they can listen and then they have 72 hours to get the warrent. Seems they didn't bother.

[Melendwyr]

Bush went outside the bounds of the law it looks like, that is the problem. Hadn't you heard? Bush's whims ARE the Law. No wonder he's such a fan of its rule.

[Random]

Hadn't you heard? Bush's whims ARE the Law. No wonder he's such a fan of its rule.
If we are going to abandon our constitutional democracy and adopt a totalitarian dictatorship, could we at the very least select a dictator who is, oh I don’t know, smart?

[hammegk]

With 5 more Rep senate seats providing a lock (assuming the House stays R) it'll be fun to see how many Dem incumbents of the 33 up for grabs in 2006 will be willing to go to the mat on this issue.

"Terrorist supporter" will look good in the campaign adds. Have they truly floated so far from reality with the Hate Bush (non)agenda? :)

[Mark]

I think Bush's behavior is grounds for impeachment.

Not possible; he isn't a Democrat.

[Random]

With 5 more Rep senate seats providing a lock (assuming the House stays R) it'll be fun to see how many Dem incumbents of the 33 up for grabs in 2006 will be willing to go to the mat on this issue.

"Terrorist supporter" will look good in the campaign adds. Have they truly floated so far from reality with the Hate Bush (non)agenda? :)
I for one can’t wait to see how the Republican party reacts when President Hillary Clinton starts using these newfangled powers after Bush goes back to Crawford. :D

[Mark]

I for one can’t wait to see how the Republican party reacts when President Hillary Clinton starts using these newfangled powers after Bush goes back to Crawford. :D

I can already tell you: they will act like they never supported the powers in the first place. Apologists will demand that we show exactly where and when they did support them...and if we don't have a link to an exact, word for word quote, they will deny it ever happened.

Don't think so? I remind everyone that conservatives all over are now making the claim---with straight faces---that Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11.

Oh...and they will spend millions and millions of tax payer dollars to find dirt on her and won't find a thing.

[rikzilla]

I can already tell you: they will act like they never supported the powers in the first place. Apologists will demand that we show exactly where and when they did support them...and if we don't have a link to an exact, word for word quote, they will deny it ever happened.

Don't think so? I remind everyone that conservatives all over are now making the claim---with straight faces---that Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11.

Oh...and they will spend millions and millions of tax payer dollars to find dirt on her and won't find a thing.

Whether he did or did not...it's fairly easy to see that he didn't have to:
http://www.fahs.org/our-troops/Saddam%20Pict.jpg

[ImaginalDisc]

Is there any possibility that the picutre might be black propoganda?

[Mark]

Whether he did or did not...it's fairly easy to see that he didn't have to:


Iraq had nothing to do with that event. But thanks for playing...we'll give you a nice version of the home game as a parting gift.

[hammegk]

I for one can’t wait to see how the Republican party reacts when President Hillary Clinton starts using these newfangled powers after Bush goes back to Crawford. :D
I'll agree a lot of prayers have been answered if Hil is the candidate in 08. ;)

[Mark]

I'll agree a lot of prayers have been answered if Hil is the candidate in 08. ;)

Don't be so sure...I suspect that she has a real shot at it. Besides, it would be fun to see the apoplectic rage from people like, well, you, hammy. :)

[Cleon]

Don't be so sure...I suspect that she has a real shot at it. Besides, it would be fun to see the apoplectic rage from people like, well, you, hammy. :)

I think that would be the only positive part of a Clinton presidency.

[Mark]

I think that would be the only positive part of a Clinton presidency.

I don't know...I suspect she would do a fairly good job. Certainly better than the current regime. But, then, a group of dyspeptic chimpanzees could manage that. ;)

[Random]

I can already tell you: they will act like they never supported the powers in the first place. Apologists will demand that we show exactly where and when they did support them...and if we don't have a link to an exact, word for word quote, they will deny it ever happened.

Don't think so? I remind everyone that conservatives all over are now making the claim---with straight faces---that Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11.
Bush never did link Iraq and 9/11. I remarked on it during the buildup to the war. He would say a bunch of stuff that was designed to convince people of a linkage like, “Saddam has WMDs. BinLaden wants WMDS. BinLaden is a Muslim. Saddam is a Muslim. BinLaden hates America. Saddam hates America” and so on. But he never came out and said that Saddam was responsible for or played a part in 9/11. He just put out a whole lot of dots in a certain shape, then let people connect them.

[Mark]

Bush never did link Iraq and 9/11. I remarked on it during the buildup to the war. He would say a bunch of stuff that was designed to convince people of a linkage like, “Saddam has WMDs. BinLaden wants WMDS. BinLaden is a Muslim. Saddam is a Muslim. BinLaden hates America. Saddam hates America” and so on. But he never came out and said that Saddam was responsible for or played a part in 9/11. He just put out a whole lot of dots in a certain shape, then let people connect them.

He put them in the same sentence dozens of times (44 by some counts), and used the term "imminent threat." I really think that is a little more than letting other people "connect the dots."

More like handing someone loaded dice and then claiming "I didn't know what numbers would come up!"

[rikzilla]

I think that would be the only positive part of a Clinton presidency.

C'mon man admit it...You only find Hillary unpalatable because I, rikzilla, have myself very nearly come to a place where I can endorse her and that's a place you're seriously not ready to go. ;)

-z

[Cleon]

Bush never did link Iraq and 9/11. I remarked on it during the buildup to the war. He would say a bunch of stuff that was designed to convince people of a linkage like, “Saddam has WMDs. BinLaden wants WMDS. BinLaden is a Muslim. Saddam is a Muslim. BinLaden hates America. Saddam hates America” and so on. But he never came out and said that Saddam was responsible for or played a part in 9/11. He just put out a whole lot of dots in a certain shape, then let people connect them.

It was a very clever piece of propaganda, actually. He never actually said there was a connection, but whenever he was asked about Iraq, he'd immediately start by talking about 9/11. The Party faithful associated the two, and the conservative talking heads--Hannity, Limbaugh, Orielly, etc.--picked up on the habit and did the same. That way nobody could say they'd made the link; they just always made the association, and let the Faithful make the link.

[Mark]

C'mon man admit it...You only find Hillary unpalatable because I, rikzilla, have myself very nearly come to a place where I can endorse her and that's a place you're seriously not ready to go. ;)

-z

Thanks just loads, Rik...I just did a spit take and sprayed Mountain Dew all over my lap.

If you endorse Hillary, I will join the Republican Women's League. :)

[rikzilla]

I don't know...I suspect she would do a fairly good job. Certainly better than the current regime. But, then, a group of dyspeptic chimpanzees could manage that. ;)

Also known as the "Anybody but Bush" school of political thought. Discredited by the result of 2004. Bush remains "un-re-defeated" simply because the ABB campaign model fails. You need better ideas sir....Hillary is the Dems best bet for providing sane and mainstream better ideas. Unfortunately; Dean and the other Dem moonbats seem to be determined to sabotage Hillary. Dean is therefore a better DNC chairman than Karl Rove and the neocon conspiracy could ever have
created on their own.

-z

[rikzilla]

Thanks just loads, Rik...I just did a spit take and sprayed Mountain Dew all over my lap.

If you endorse Hillary, I will join the Republican Women's League. :)

Domo Arigato
-z

[Garrette]

I'm hoping for a McCain/Lieberman ticket.

[ImaginalDisc]

Also known as the "Anybody but Bush" school of political thought. Discredited by the result of 2004. Bush remains "un-re-defeated" simply because the ABB campaign model fails. You need better ideas sir....Hillary is the Dems best bet for providing sane and mainstream better ideas.
-z

Bush < Lichen < Dyspeptic Chimapnzees < Hillary Clinton

You're both right.

[BobK]

Here's what former Clinton Assoc. Attorney General John Schmidt has to say on the subject.
President had legal authority to OK taps (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed)

[rikzilla]

Is there any possibility that the picutre might be black propoganda?

All I know is that it was found in Iraq during the initial part of the invasion. By itself of course it means little. Possibly a bit of Iraqi folk art to please the dictator? At worst it was commissioned by the regime. Of course any publicly displayed art in a tyranny would be defacto endorsed by said tyranny; since the tyranny controlled every aspect of the public square.

All-in-all it means that Saddam's regime at least approved of 9/11...at most it was attempting to link itself to the attack...either of these possibilities show varying levels of Saddam regime support for the 9/11 attacks.

So if Bush laid out the dots and invited you to draw the picture yourself...Saddam was being even less circumspect.

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

No, no. I mean, is it *possible* that it could be black propoganda. Is it possible that someone may have painted it in order to appear to be depicting Hussein's position.

Is it possible it was done a piece of commentary by an Iraqi, who wanted to illustrate how they think Hussein felt?

Do you have a link where we can go look at the details of the discovery of this image?

[rikzilla]

No, no. I mean, is it *possible* that it could be black propoganda. Is it possible that someone may have painted it in order to appear to be depicting Hussein's position.

Is it possible it was done a piece of commentary by an Iraqi, who wanted to illustrate how they think Hussein felt?

Do you have a link where we can go look at the details of the discovery of this image?

I wish I did. The website where I linked the image from is run by a high school chum of mine for alums. Since we were mil brats alot of alums are still serving. I don't know if it was taken by one of our alums...I kinda doubt it as I've seen it other places before...not sure where.

-z

[Random]

I don’t know anything about Arabic, but I am sure that the painting is actually an advertisement for some sort of “male enhancement” medication.

[ImaginalDisc]

I wish I did. The website where I linked the image from is run by a high school chum of mine for alums. Since we were mil brats alot of alums are still serving. I don't know if it was taken by one of our alums...I kinda doubt it as I've seen it other places before...not sure where.

-z

Shame, I wish I could read it. I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator and a war criminal, I'm just saying that unless we know who made that painting, and what it says, there's not much we can say about it.

[rikzilla]

Shame, I wish I could read it. I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator and a war criminal, I'm just saying that unless we know who made that painting, and what it says, there's not much we can say about it.

That's true. But as they say "a picture is worth a thousand words". So maybe there's not much we need say about it either?

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

rik, that's exactly the wrong attitude to take towards it. Unless we know who created it, and for what purpose, are you just going assume that Saddam commisioned it, and posed for it?

[rikzilla]

I don’t know anything about Arabic, but I am sure that the painting is actually an advertisement for some sort of “male enhancement” medication.

He does look pretty self-satisfied as he observes the "hot" phallic symbols while he puffs on yet another! :D

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

Why yes he does. Bush looks quite self-satisfied here. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushbombardier.htm
Does that mean he commisioned or endorsed this image?

[Garrette]

Regarding the picture, I think it's safe to assume it's legitimately Iraqi, but that does not prove any kind of connection to Al Qaeda.

I root for the Dallas Cowboys when they win a game (it's been a while now) and I celebrate about it, but I have no connection to them.

I have a lighter (the old flip-top, butane kind) that I purchased from a street vendor in Baghdad in May of 2003. On the front is a relief of the WTC and an airplane flying towards them. When the top is flipped up, a red light illuminates some 'smoke' coming out of the WTC.

Nasty piece of work, but not proof of a connection.

[rikzilla]

rik, that's exactly the wrong attitude to take towards it. Unless we know who created it, and for what purpose, are you just going assume that Saddam commisioned it, and posed for it?


My sister tells me this all the time...and sometimes she's even right about it;
"Sometimes you think too much for your own good!"

I am willing to bet she'd tell you that now ID. But as you say it would indeed be intersting to find the provenance of that picture. I'll try; but please go try yourself too as you may find some good info before I do. I'm not that great at online research. Short attention span you see...ADHD a distinct possibility...

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

But as you say it would indeed be intersting to find the provenance of that picture. I'll try; but please go try yourself too as you may find some good info before I do. I'm not that great at online research. Short attention span you see...ADHD a distinct possibility...

-z

So, because you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim, you're willing to make up a fairy tale about it that serves your poltical purpose? You're the one who brought up the subject of this picture. Just as it's irresponsible to quote someone out of context without a link or reference to the source, so too is it irresponsible to post this picutre to support your position, and then insist that others go corroborate it for you.

[rikzilla]

Why yes he does. Bush looks quite self-satisfied here. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushbombardier.htm
Does that mean he commisioned or endorsed this image?

Hehe... :)
Funny but you miss my point. In a tyranny public art is indeed a de facto endorsement from the tyrant. The tyrant controls the public square entirely; so the Iraqi painting has a link (even if admittedly tenuous) to the regime.

No so with obvious satire directed at GWB.

Of course...if someone here on the forums could translate the arabic we might learn that this is some kind of satire or joke itself, eh? I wonder if anyone knows someone who can do that?

-z

[gnome]

With 5 more Rep senate seats providing a lock (assuming the House stays R) it'll be fun to see how many Dem incumbents of the 33 up for grabs in 2006 will be willing to go to the mat on this issue.

"Terrorist supporter" will look good in the campaign adds. Have they truly floated so far from reality with the Hate Bush (non)agenda? :)

Can you explain how following the law in this case would have helped the terrorists?

[ImaginalDisc]

Hehe... :)
Funny but you miss my point. In a tyranny public art is indeed a de facto endorsement from the tyrant. The tyrant controls the public square entirely; so the Iraqi painting has a link (even if admittedly tenuous) to the regime.

No so with obvious satire directed at GWB.

Of course...if someone here on the forums could translate the arabic we might learn that this is some kind of satire or joke itself, eh? I wonder if anyone knows someone who can do that?

-z

It could just as easily have been painted by an Iraqi in order to make Saddam look bad, and express support for the U.S. invasion during the initial invasion.

[rikzilla]

So, because you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim, you're willing to make up a fairy tale about it that serves your poltical purpose? You're the one who brought up the subject of this picture. Just as it's irresponsible to quote someone out of context without a link or reference to the source, so too is it irresponsible to post this picutre to support your position, and then insist that others go corroborate it for you.

No need to get nasty my friend. All I did was post a pic. It was an admittedly flippant post made in a spirit of defending Bush's oblique inferences of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. You can take the pic in any way you like...yes...even as an arabic viagra endorsement ;) ! But there's clearly no need for you to get huffy about it. If you don't wish to research it then perhaps I will when I have a moment...after all you're the one who wanted to know where it came from. Personally I've seen lots of pictures shot my our troops in Iraq and this looks to be in the same vein.

In other words, my posting of that pic was not an attempt to make "a fantastic assertion" that would require "fantastic evidence". the idea that Saddam looked on 9/11 and smoked a celebratory cigar is not that fantastic. He likely did...so what? A great deal of the Arab world secretly applauded Bin Laden on 9/11....Saddam simply did it with "art". Not an incredible assertion at all really.

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

In other words, my posting of that pic was not an attempt to make "a fantastic assertion" that would require "fantastic evidence". the idea that Saddam looked on 9/11 and smoked a celebratory cigar is not that fantastic. He likely did...so what? A great deal of the Arab world secretly applauded Bin Laden on 9/11....Saddam simply did it with "art". Not an incredible assertion at all really.

-z

Yes, it's a plausible assertion, but the burden of proof remains on you. Fanastic or not, the burden of proof on a claim rests on the claimant, not the skeptic.

[rikzilla]

It could just as easily have been painted by an Iraqi in order to make Saddam look bad, and express support for the U.S. invasion during the initial invasion.

No; not as easily. You paint a big mural with the dear leader as the subject it had better be to his liking. The inside of Abu Ghraib, and the mass graves were filled with people who tried to get the better of Saddam.
-z

[rikzilla]

Yes, it's a plausible assertion, but the burden of proof remains on you. Fanastic or not, the burden of proof on a claim rests on the claimant, not the skeptic.

Now you're just being obtuse. If you don't like the pic feel free to close your eyes to it. There is not always a 100% availability of proof for anything. Hell I've never been to Tokyo but if someone here made an unsupported claim that the place is chock full of asians I wouldn't ask them to "prove it!"

Lighten up man...

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

Fair enough. I'll rephrase that. I could just as easily assert that it was painted by an Iraqi in support of the invasion. Propaganda is full of baseless assertions about photographs, people, and events. Are we going to behave better than propagandists?

[rikzilla]

Fair enough. I'll rephrase that. I could just as easily assert that it was painted by an Iraqi in support of the invasion. Propaganda is full of baseless assertions about photographs, people, and events. Are we going to behave better than propagandists?

Propagandists are people just as we are. We all make mistakes; and all have biases and unknowable ulterior motives. I would assert that indeed here at JREF we do behave better than propagandists. Please don't ask me to prove that assertion though. I have no objective evidence to offer. :rolleyes:

-z

[Cleon]

C'mon man admit it...You only find Hillary unpalatable because I, rikzilla, have myself very nearly come to a place where I can endorse her and that's a place you're seriously not ready to go. ;)


That DOES it. There is not enough room on this board for your ego and...Well, anything else.

(I'd post a laundry list of beefs I have with the Clintons, but A) it would take too much damn space and B) it would start with "Democrats.")

[rikzilla]

That DOES it. There is not enough room on this board for your ego and...Well, anything else.

(I'd post a laundry list of beefs I have with the Clintons, but A) it would take too much damn space and B) it would start with "Democrats.")


LOL!

Well that post made Mark spray Mountain Dew all over his keyboard...so it wasn't without some merit! ;)

-z

PS: I'm gonna go and buy my ego a beer now...a big beer.

[Roadtoad]

Note to HGC: Having trouble finding the links I'd heard about. That's the problem with trying to check out stuff you hear on talk radio on the fly while you're trying to dodge traffic on I-80. Like I said: It could all be complete BS.

Still looking. If you hear of anything, pass it on.

[Mark]

Also known as the "Anybody but Bush" school of political thought. Discredited by the result of 2004. Bush remains "un-re-defeated" simply because the ABB campaign model fails. You need better ideas sir....Hillary is the Dems best bet for providing sane and mainstream better ideas. Unfortunately; Dean and the other Dem moonbats seem to be determined to sabotage Hillary. Dean is therefore a better DNC chairman than Karl Rove and the neocon conspiracy could ever have
created on their own.

-z

You are making the assumption that I meant a tribe of dyspeptic chimpanzees would deafeat Bush; I do not think that...he enjoys far too much uncritical Republican support no matter what he screws up. I just think the chimps could hardly be any worse for the country.

My main take on Dean is that he acts like a Republican with his tactics...so I find it amusing when conservatives attack him for being a "moonbat" or whatever.

What is this "neocon conspiracy" you mentioned? Is there one? I thought all their dastardly deeds were pretty much right in our faces. Was there more hidden malfeasance that I missed?

[rikzilla]

You are making the assumption that I meant a tribe of dyspeptic chimpanzees would deafeat Bush; I do not think that...he enjoys far too much uncritical Republican support no matter what he screws up. I just think the chimps could hardly be any worse for the country.

Whatever...

My main take on Dean is that he acts like a Republican with his tactics...so I find it amusing when conservatives attack him for being a "moonbat" or whatever.
Eh? How exactly does Howard Dean "act like Republicans"??

What is this "neocon conspiracy" you mentioned? Is there one? I thought all their dastardly deeds were pretty much right in our faces. Was there more hidden malfeasance that I missed?

Generally the neocon conspiracy is said to be led from the smoke filled back room of PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac). But that's another thread.... :rolleyes:

-z

[Mark]

Whatever...

Eh? How exactly does Howard Dean "act like Republicans"??
Hystrionics...demonizing the opponent, those sorts of things.


Generally the neocon conspiracy is said to be led from the smoke filled back room of PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac). But that's another thread.... :rolleyes:

-z

Oh. Well, never having called the neocon movement a "conspiracy" (it's way too in our faces for that), I admit I must bow to your knowledge of the idea. Can something be a conspiracy when it is in full public view, with the enthusiastic support of most of the party faithfill? Doesn't sound Like any conspiracy I ever heard of...

[rikzilla]

Hystrionics...demonizing the opponent, those sorts of things.

I still don't understand. I haven't seen hystrionics for example from anyone else that I can think of left or right...but nevermind. I think this is a clearly good sign that you and I can agree that Dean's a fanatic. He's obviously pushing the party left at the same time that Hillary is trying to capture that special portion of the center that saw her husband to the WhiteHouse twice. Makes me wonder if Dean has something against Hillary? I applaud Hillary's choices and I like her chances. By 2008 maybe I'll be ready to vote Dem again? I just want the terrorist war knocked down to a manageable threat level before I can see voting for another Dem. Hillary and Lieberman seem to be tracking with me on this issue.


Oh. Well, never having called the neocon movement a "conspiracy" (it's way too in our faces for that), I admit I must bow to your knowledge of the idea. Can something be a conspiracy when it is in full public view, with the enthusiastic support of most of the party faithfill? Doesn't sound Like any conspiracy I ever heard of...

:) Well I doubt it too...I just posted the PNAC info for fun...I don't believe there's a nefarious threat from them any more than I believe in the tri-lateral commission or elves. but some folks do!

-z

[Mark]

I still don't understand. I haven't seen hystrionics for example from anyone else that I can think of left or right...but nevermind. I think this is a clearly good sign that you and I can agree that Dean's a fanatic. He's obviously pushing the party left at the same time that Hillary is trying to capture that special portion of the center that saw her husband to the WhiteHouse twice. Makes me wonder if Dean has something against Hillary? I applaud Hillary's choices and I like her chances. By 2008 maybe I'll be ready to vote Dem again? I just want the terrorist war knocked down to a manageable threat level before I can see voting for another Dem. Hillary and Lieberman seem to be tracking with me on this issue.



:) Well I doubt it too...I just posted the PNAC info for fun...I don't believe there's a nefarious threat from them any more than I believe in the tri-lateral commission or elves. but some folks do!

-z


I really do like Hillary. I don't expect most people here to agree with that, but I do like her. Always have.

I don't believe in the Tri-Lateral Commission either. But elves? Well...:)

[Bjorn]

President Bush, April 2004:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html Are you insinuating that the president lied to the American people in April 2004?

[hgc]

Are you insinuating that the president lied to the American people in April 2004?It's not, strictly speaking, a lie. It was the truth then, as now, that a wiretap requires a court order. What he didn't say then is that he's ignoring the law and doing it his own way.

[hammegk]

You assert that whatever NSA does to collect info is a "wiretap"?

[Bjorn]

You assert that whatever NSA does to collect info is a "wiretap"?No, but it happens to be the topic of this thread.

[Bjorn]

It's not, strictly speaking, a lie. It was the truth then, as now, that a wiretap requires a court order. What he didn't say then is that he's ignoring the law and doing it his own way.Are you insinuating that he lied when he said:

"Nothing has changed, by the way." :confused:

[hammegk]

No, but it happens to be the topic of this thread.
I thought the topic is "Bush NSA spies on Americans". Wiretaps are so old school doncha know. That, and NSA has been spying on Americans (and everyone else) since its' inception. That what it was designed to do.

What our govt CAN'T do is use that "illegally obtained" info in criminal prosecutions of US citizens in US courts.

[Bjorn]

I thought the topic is "Bush NSA spies on Americans". Sure, and the main quote in the OP had this:

"monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States"

That, and NSA has been spying on Americans (and everyone else) since its' inception. That what it was designed to do.They even made some rules about it, court orders and such. As the President pointed out:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.

[hammegk]

NSA stands for No Such Agency, so how do those wiretap rules apply to something that doesn't exist?

Other than that, yes, the info cannot be used in a US court proceeding, unless a valid court order allowing it was in place.

[Lurker]

NSA stands for No Such Agency, so how do those wiretap rules apply to something that doesn't exist?

Other than that, yes, the info cannot be used in a US court proceeding, unless a valid court order allowing it was in place.

Can the President use the NSA to spy on Democrats? Tap their phone lines for useful info for the campaign trail? As long as it is not used in court, right? I mean, that seems to be the logical extension of your argument. What would stop him, legally?

Lurker

[hgc]

NSA stands for No Such Agency, so how do those wiretap rules apply to something that doesn't exist?
...On the off-chance you're not being entirely facecious, the NSA has been publicy acknowledged for many years now. This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling, I can't hear you!

[Cleon]

On the off-chance you're not being entirely facecious, the NSA has been publicy acknowledged for many years now. This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling, I can't hear you!
You know, for a secret outfit that doesn't officially exist, they put out a pretty interesting Linux distribution. (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/)

[hammegk]

... the NSA has been publicy acknowledged for many years now. ...
Oooh. Can we say that here?


Can the President use the NSA to spy on Democrats? Tap their phone lines for useful info for the campaign trail? As long as it is not used in court, right? I mean, that seems to be the logical extension of your argument. What would stop him, legally?
Sould that come to light, I'll join the "legal" impeachment proceedings. If you have knowledge of such activities, I'd suggest alerting the FBI.

And even then he might beat the rap citing evidence of Clear and Present Danger.

[Lurker]

On the off-chance you're not being entirely facecious, the NSA has been publicy acknowledged for many years now. This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling, I can't hear you!

The NSA goes to my undergrad university to recruit. They don't hide who they are.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Sould that come to light, I'll join the "legal" impeachment proceedings. If you have knowledge of such activities, I'd suggest alerting the FBI.

And even then he might beat the rap citing evidence of Clear and Present Danger.

On what grounds would you impeach? You have already said that he can legally wiretap so on what charge would you impeach?

Lurker

[hammegk]

"High crimes and misdemeaners" iirc. We'll find a lawyer to fill in the blanks; some of them may be Democrats, and all we need is one.

courtesy of wkipedia Procedurally, it is a two-step process. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity of President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This would include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself. In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the Senators present is required.

Following conviction, the Senate may vote to punish the individual only by removing him from office, or by barring him from holding future office, or both. Alternatively, it may impose no punishment. However in the case of executive officers, removal follows automatically upon conviction. The defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated his office in order to disqualify the person from such emoluments of office as a pension.

[Lurker]

Yes, fine and dandy. But what high crime has been committed? Crime being the operative word. Or what misdemeanor? Again, if there is no law against the President using the NSA to spy on Democrats how can you impeach him?

Lurker

[hgc]

Yes, fine and dandy. But what high crime has been committed? Crime being the operative word. Or what misdemeanor? Again, if there is no law against the President using the NSA to spy on Democrats how can you impeach him?

LurkerNot coming to hammy's defense, but... impeachment/removal of president is a political process, even though it has some of the trappings of criminal procedure, such as the constitutional words high crime and misdemeanor, and a Senate "trial." There need not be a prior conviction of a crime in a court of law, and real criminal procedure, with all its protections, is not included in the constitutional prescription or in practice (evidence: Clinton impeachment).

But then you've all let hammy take you down a pointless digression all over again. You ask if the president can legally spy domestically for political purposes, he starts rambling on about impeachment, which he correctly implies doesn't really involve questions of crime, in the legal sense, anyway, and he's got plenty of fish for his bait.

Don't be a sucker! Don't follow hammy's line of reasoning anywhere!

[hammegk]

But then you've all let hammy take you down a pointless digression all over again. You ask if the president can legally spy domestically for political purposes, he starts rambling on about impeachment, which he correctly implies doesn't really involve questions of crime, in the legal sense, anyway, and he's got plenty of fish for his bait.

Don't be a sucker! Don't follow hammy's line of reasoning anywhere!
Yeah, I'm such a dunce.

Crimes ... conspiracy is a favorite ... trot out the facts, we'll find an illegality. What law did Nixon break?

[rikzilla]

Can the President use the NSA to spy on Democrats? Tap their phone lines for useful info for the campaign trail? As long as it is not used in court, right? I mean, that seems to be the logical extension of your argument. What would stop him, legally?

Lurker

I'd say no. Nixon would agree were he still above ground. However; political partisans who end up with great power do abuse said power in predictable ways. Witness the Filegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate) scandal during the Clinton presidency.

-z

[Mark]

Yeah, I'm such a dunce.

Crimes ... conspiracy is a favorite ... trot out the facts, we'll find an illegality. What law did Nixon break?

Breaking and entering, obstruction of justice.

[hammegk]

Breaking and entering, obstruction of justice.
Umm,no, I don't think Nixon did any B&E, Obstruction, that would have stuck (w/out the pardon).

[Mark]

Umm,no, I don't think Nixon did any B&E, Obstruction, that would have stuck (w/out the pardon).

Conspiracy re. B&E if you want to be that technical. But you're right, the main charges involved obstruction of justice.

[peptoabysmal]

I gotta get my flight bags packed now and get ready to fly out. No my arms won't get tired.

After re-reading through this thread I leave you with this thought:

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.

Are we caught between Iraq and a hard place?

Happy Holidays!

:D

[ImaginalDisc]

...Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.

Are we caught between Iraq and a hard place?

Happy Holidays!

:D

That's our official holiday strawman.

[Regnad Kcin]

That's our official holiday strawman.All it needs is a carrot nose and an old top hat.

[Roadtoad]

That's our official holiday strawman.

Straw burns pretty good. Especially when you add the Constitution to it, like our elected "leaders" seem to want to do.

[hammegk]

That's our official holiday strawman.
What do find about the statement that allows classification as a strawman?

What are Democrats doing?

[Melendwyr]

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans. Since we claim to revere those who risk their lives to protect our Constitutional rights, repealing or ignoring those rights to protect our lives seems to contradict our patriotic propaganda.

[fishbob]

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.

Just goes to show - there ARE fates worse than death.

[gnome]

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.

This statement deserves further examination. As far as the Republicans protecting us from terrorists... they have proven in the past that when they bend the rules, ostensibly for our safety, they cannot resist the temptation to instead (or also) use that position for shenanigans having nothing to do with making us safe.

So, I would say, "Republicans risk our constitutional rights and say it's to protect our lives from terrorists. Democrats risk lives to protect our constitutional rights."

That's even if you consider whistleblowing on wrongdoing to be life-threatening (what should happen instead, allow wrongdoing with impunity?) ... and if you consider the news media to be "Democrats".

[Elind]

This statement deserves further examination. As far as the Republicans protecting us from terrorists... they have proven in the past that when they bend the rules, ostensibly for our safety, they cannot resist the temptation to instead (or also) use that position for shenanigans having nothing to do with making us safe.

I'm not a Republican and I don't ask this question in their defense (or Democrats for that matter), but with regard to terrorism and shenanigans, are you taking another swipe at the WMD issue, or do you have other examples in mind?

[gnome]

I'm not a Republican and I don't ask this question in their defense (or Democrats for that matter), but with regard to terrorism and shenanigans, are you taking another swipe at the WMD issue, or do you have other examples in mind?
not the WMD issue, in fact... one example is COINTELPRO. Now, I accept President Johnson as well as Nixon were complicit there... but I think it's an excellent example of abuse of surveillance power.

I throw this at Republicans' feet because currently they are the only party demanding this amount of power.

[Mark]

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.



What an utter load.

[luchog]

not the WMD issue, in fact... one example is COINTELPRO. Now, I accept President Johnson as well as Nixon were complicit there... but I think it's an excellent example of abuse of surveillance power.

I throw this at Republicans' feet because currently they are the only party demanding this amount of power.
No, not really. The Democrats have always pushed for similar powers. One of the worst escalations of the War on Drugs, and concurrent violations of civil rights (such as expanded wire-tap powers) was during Clinton's presidency, and many bad laws were signed by him. The original Communications Decency Act, which would have greatly restricted speech on the Internet and many other places, was a creation of the Democrats (sen. Exon, to be precise). LBJ was responsible for just as much nastiness as Nixon when it came to chipping away at Constitutional protections.

Regardless of the various issues and principles that they pay lip service to; the primary goal of both parties is simply to increase their own power as much as possible.

[Nyarlathotep]

Republicans seem to be willing to risk our constitutional rights to protect our lives from terrorists, yet Democrats seem to be willing to risk our lives to protect us from Republicans.



Because, as we all know, the only way to fight terrorism is to let the Government Do whatever it darn well pleases, civil liberties be damned, they're for wussies anyway.

(One good Strawman deserves another)

[gnome]

No, not really. The Democrats have always pushed for similar powers. One of the worst escalations of the War on Drugs, and concurrent violations of civil rights (such as expanded wire-tap powers) was during Clinton's presidency, and many bad laws were signed by him. The original Communications Decency Act, which would have greatly restricted speech on the Internet and many other places, was a creation of the Democrats (sen. Exon, to be precise). LBJ was responsible for just as much nastiness as Nixon when it came to chipping away at Constitutional protections.

Regardless of the various issues and principles that they pay lip service to; the primary goal of both parties is simply to increase their own power as much as possible.
A good reason to make sure the Supreme Court is balanced, especially when one party controls the other two branches of government. Why, oh why, Sandra, did you have to retire NOW?

Just to make the point, I have been an opponent of the excesses of the War on Drugs and the CDA... I am happy to speak against abuses of power even when a Democrat is in charge. Perhaps it is just the partisan in me that sees the current style of republicans in charge as excessively power-hungry... everyone can make up their own mind about that I suppose.

[Elind]

A good reason to make sure the Supreme Court is balanced, especially when one party controls the other two branches of government. Why, oh why, Sandra, did you have to retire NOW?

Just to make the point, I have been an opponent of the excesses of the War on Drugs and the CDA... I am happy to speak against abuses of power even when a Democrat is in charge. Perhaps it is just the partisan in me that sees the current style of republicans in charge as excessively power-hungry... everyone can make up their own mind about that I suppose.

Just a little bump here.


When you speak of abuses of power, are you specifically referring to spying on fanatical terrorists, or just those they may be ordering pizza from?

Since spying is by definition something you don't let the other guy know you are doing, shouldn't we just ban all spying since it might inadvertently involve the pizza guy?

Clearly the whole point is secrecy and we know very well that nobody can keep secrets (except about captured UFOs and certain key assasinations), and since it seems obvious now that even the NSA can't keep secrets, so why don't we just abolish this whole farce of intelligence operations and hope the bad guys just screw up from time to time, so we can let the pizza guy have his privacy??????:boxedin:

[gnome]

Just a little bump here.


When you speak of abuses of power, are you specifically referring to spying on fanatical terrorists, or just those they may be ordering pizza from?

Since spying is by definition something you don't let the other guy know you are doing, shouldn't we just ban all spying since it might inadvertently involve the pizza guy?

Clearly the whole point is secrecy and we know very well that nobody can keep secrets (except about captured UFOs and certain key assasinations), and since it seems obvious now that even the NSA can't keep secrets, so why don't we just abolish this whole farce of intelligence operations and hope the bad guys just screw up from time to time, so we can let the pizza guy have his privacy??????:boxedin:

Or, we can just allow domestic spying, except they have to follow the rules that exist about it, how about that?

[Elind]

Or, we can just allow domestic spying, except they have to follow the rules that exist about it, how about that?

I'm just saying that the rules that exist (including the right to exceptions to them, as is still being debated) quite clearly would not allow any secrecy. Since even the NSA can't kep a secret, do you think possibly hundreds of judges and their staff could?

[fishbob]

I'm just saying that the rules that exist (including the right to exceptions to them, as is still being debated) quite clearly would not allow any secrecy. Since even the NSA can't kep a secret, do you think possibly hundreds of judges and their staff could?

FISA called for about 11 judges. Authorization by a single judge is all that is required to obtain a warrent. I don't recall any secrecy problems from the judges under this program. Quite clearly, legal secrecy has been doing just fine thank you.

[Elind]

FISA called for about 11 judges. Authorization by a single judge is all that is required to obtain a warrent. I don't recall any secrecy problems from the judges under this program. Quite clearly, legal secrecy has been doing just fine thank you.

You may be right. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I do know that when secrecy is important the less involved the better, and I also know that normal legal standards of suspicion probably require more than a hint of a connection, which might never be obtained if the hint cannot be investigated.

The truth is that we can live with such standards when it concerns "normal" criminal behaviour. When it concerns war, of any kind, all nations, always, have had to make some concessions to win. I get the impression that many of those so afraid of being wrongly connected to terrorism (or some conspiracy against democracy) don't think there is a war to begin with.

[gnome]

You may be right. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I do know that when secrecy is important the less involved the better, and I also know that normal legal standards of suspicion probably require more than a hint of a connection, which might never be obtained if the hint cannot be investigated.

The truth is that we can live with such standards when it concerns "normal" criminal behaviour. When it concerns war, of any kind, all nations, always, have had to make some concessions to win. I get the impression that many of those so afraid of being wrongly connected to terrorism (or some conspiracy against democracy) don't think there is a war to begin with.
I'm perfectly satisfied to lower the burden of proof when the risk is increased that much. I just want to have a rule about it, and follow it.

[Elind]

I'm perfectly satisfied to lower the burden of proof when the risk is increased that much. I just want to have a rule about it, and follow it.

But what do we know of what the "burden of proof" is in these cases? You may be prepared to lower it, but what does the law say (I don't know)?