It's Time ! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-06-2007, 08:35 AM

In December, 2005, John Dean wrote that a sitting president had admitted committing an "impeachable offense". Today., a three judge appellate confirms that Dean was correct. The first news report to "hit" Google news, spun the court ruling in the opposite way....but Judge Batchelor's opinion in the Sixth District's ruling today, is quite clear.

Could it be more clear that the ruling states that Bush violated the FISA law? Did Bush publicly admit to doing so? Is this a serious enough violation, especially considering Bush's open admission, and the clear examples to back Judge Batchelor's majority decision, to begin hearings to impeach Bush for breaking the FISA law.

I think that it is. It is also a test for this congress. This is the highest court ruling that they can expect to receive, on a matter of open and admitted lawbreaking at the felony level, by president Bush.

Quote:

http://alaskareport.com/news/z46324_wiretapping.htm
Bush appointed appeals court tosses domestic spying lawsuit
July 6, 2007

Washington, DC - A Republican slanted federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a pending ACLU lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
A Republican slanted federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a pending ACLU lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

In a 2-1 vote, two Bush appointees of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati concluded a coalition of journalists, scholars, and legal advocates had no legal "standing" to pursue their claims, since they have not been able to show they may have been personally targeted by the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless spying program, which was designed to monitor domestic terrorist activity.

A Democratic appointee judge disagreed, saying it was clear to him that the post-9/11 warrantless surveillance program aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The Justice Department argued it had constitutional protection under the state secrets privilege.

"The plaintiffs have not shown that they were actually the target of, or subject to, the NSA's surveillance," wrote Judge Alice Batchelder. "They cannot establish they are 'aggrieved persons.'"

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003615.php
Breaking: Judge Finds Warrantless Surveillance Illegal -- But Still Sides With Gov't
By Spencer Ackerman - July 6, 2007, 11:03 AM

So much for the ACLU's suit against the National Security Agency over the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Last year, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan ordered an injunction against the NSA program, an action crucial to the Justice Department's January announcement that the Bush administration would get out of the warrantless wiretapping business. This morning, Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Taylor's injunction based on the plaintiffs' (a group of journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas) lack of standing.

Yet Batchelder, who was appointed by the president's father, agrees with Taylor that the program itself is illegal:

"Without expressing an opinion concerning the analysis of the district court, I would affirm its judgment because <h3>I conclude that the TSP violates FISA and Title III and that the President does not have the inherent authority to act in disregard of those statutes.</h3> The clearest ground for deciding the merits of this appeal is the plaintiffs’ statutory claim, just as the clearest argument for standing is presented by the attorney-plaintiffs. This is not to say that the plaintiffs’ other causes of action lack merit, but simply that this case can, and therefore should, be decided on the narrowest grounds possible."

More soon.

Update: The judge was equally clear in her conclusion:

"The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier. Mootness is not a problem because of <h3>the government’s position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses. Its AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and the rules of statutory construction. Finally, when faced with the clear wording of FISA and Title III that these statutes provide the “exclusive means” for the government to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the TSP was unlawful.</h3> I would therefore affirm the judgment of the district court."

Quote:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html
----
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

<h3>Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.</h3>

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Column continues below ↓

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action that Followed

Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.

Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.

Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.

The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.

Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps, Was Congress' Call to Make

No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.

What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.

Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?

The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.

No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture -- the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.

Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View

Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.

Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.

Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)

Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been -- and will be in the future -- circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."

Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.

Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively.

Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.

Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.

But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.

Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.

No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.

But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.

To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book -- one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.

Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."

To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.

Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.

In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress -- discover that he is using them?

the president's Dec. 17, 2005 radio address, and the opening of the NY Times reporting, from the day before....:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20051217.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 17, 2005

President's Radio Address

....To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. <h3>Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports</h3>, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country. ....

.....The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and <b>I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.</b>

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...gewanted=print
Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

<b>"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."</b>

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times <h3>because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.......</h3>

<h2>Update !!!</h2>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003615.php
Breaking: Judge Sides With Gov't In Warrantless Surveillance Case
By Spencer Ackerman - July 6, 2007, 11:03 AM

So much for the ACLU's suit against the National Security Agency over the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Last year, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan ordered an injunction against the NSA program, an action crucial to the Justice Department's January announcement that the Bush administration would get out of the warrantless wiretapping business. This morning, Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Taylor's injunction based on the plaintiffs' (a group of journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas) lack of standing.

<h3>Update: This post initially attributed dissenting views on the legality of the warrantless surveillance program to Batchelder's majority opinion. We deeply regret the error.</h3>

.....so, it turns out that the republican appointees to the sixth district court appellate panel ruled on the narrow, procedural grounds of plaintiff standing only....this leaves us with just one of thress judges on that panel, and Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan....saying publicly that the president's actions are illegal. IMO, this leaves the obligation to determine whether the president is breaking the Fisa law, in the hands of house and senate judiciary committees.....

Frosstbyte · 07-06-2007, 09:33 AM

In some unbiased, empirical universe, I have no doubt that Bush would be impeached and removed from office. His administration has committed some egregious errors against the people of the United States and against the Constitution, any of which would, in my opinion, be sufficient grounds for those to go forward. However, I think going down that road at the current time is a pretty useless course of action.

Regardless of who is at fault, this country has a lot of problems that we need to deal with internally and externally. With the next election coming up, it would be very easy to cast prolonged impeachment proceedings as a partisan waste of time when there are more important things on the line. Frankly, I agree. Bush is a lame duck and is going to act accordingly. Nothing is really gained from going through all of that except for a possible feeling of vindication. Show how bad he was by doing things right and by using the time to solve problems that make a difference instead of punishing a 5 year old who mistakenly got elected (twice).

roachboy · 07-06-2007, 09:39 AM

i have read two or three arguments about the bypassing of the church act..(1) that it is in itself an unconstitutional abrogation of executive privilege
(2) that is was de facto authorized by congress when it approved "use of force" in the context of this idiotic war on terror
(3) the arguments re. state of emergency outlined by dean with reference to nixon/lincoln.

the first of these is obviously straight cheneythought. i was not aware that an administration can simply decide for itself which laws it deems worthy of following like this. so the other arguments are the operative ones: the legitimacy of it's (adjective deleted) "state of emergency" also known as the bush "war on terror"....

so the first "patriot act" was broad enough to enable this farce to get going. the reauthorization, however, contained a whole series of supposed "safeguards" on civil liberties:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=232

so i would think that the problem with assuming that these actions constitute grounds for impeachment seems to me to sit with the reading of the two patriot acts--particularly the second--and information about what the nsa program has actually been doing--which is not available to us little people.

behind this, the obvious problem of what was wrought by the republican controlled congress, a fine reactionary politoburo-type operation.

so it seems to me that the separation between whether bush *should* be impeached (a politico-ethical argument) vs. whether there is some way to imagine a justification for these actions that rests not just on the cheneythought of argument 1 above, but on what the republican lackies in congress authorized these assholes to do. then there is the problem of the effects of the bush people having exercised the prerogative that seems somehow normal to stack the courts with rightwing ideologues (in the name of putting a "stop to judicial activism" naturlich)...which leads me to my side question re. the 6th circuit decision--i dont understand the thinking behind declaring the aclu not an "aggreived party" and so "without standing to bring suit."--could someone explain this to me?

anyway, backstory infotainment:

here is a webpage with a series of excerpts from david cole and james dempsey's 2002 book "terrorism and the constitution" which provides something of the backstory to the "patriot act" and other, equivalent idiocies:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ci...stitution.html

extensive documentation of the activities associated with the nsa wiretaping program and its predecessor in poindexters "total information awareness" program can be found at the electronic frontier foundation's website:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/

which includes links to this critique of the bush people's conduct by a former fisa judge, royce lambeth:

Quote:

Judge Criticizes Warrantless Wiretaps

Jun 23, 3:28 PM (ET)

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorist and espionage cases criticized President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Royce Lamberth, a district court judge in Washington, said Saturday it was proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said at the American Library Association's convention.

"We have to understand you can fight the war (on terrorism) and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Lamberth, who was appointed by President Reagan.

The judge disagreed with letting the executive branch alone decide which people to spy on in national security cases.

"The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," Lamberth said. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive."

Lamberth was named chief of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 1995 by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Lamberth held that post until 2002.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 established the court after domestic spying scandals in the 1970s.

The court meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in terrorist or espionage cases. Each application is signed by the attorney general. The court has approved more than 99 percent of them.

Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without FISA court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could and that the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush put it under FISA court supervision this year. The president still claims the power to order warrantless spying.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush believes in the program, which is classified because its purpose is to stop terrorists' planning.

The program "is lawful, limited, safeguarded and - most importantly - effective in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks," Fratto said. "It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties."

Lamberth took issue with Bush's approach.

"I haven't seen a proposal for a better way than presenting an application to the FISA court and having an independent judge decide if it's really the kind of thing that we ought to be doing, recognizing that how we view civil liberties is different in time of war," he said.

"I have seen a proposal for a worse way and that's what the president did with the NSA program."

Lamberth said the FISA court met the challenge of acting quickly after Sept. 11. Lamberth was stuck in a car pool lane near the Pentagon when a hijacked jet slammed into it that day. With his car enveloped in smoke, he called marshals to help him get into the District of Columbia.

By the time officers reached him, "I had approved five FISA coverages (warrants) on my cell phone," Lamberth said. He also approved other warrants at his home at 3 a.m. and on Saturdays.

"In a time of national emergency like that, changes have to be made in procedures. We changed a number of FISA procedures," Lamberth said.

Normal FISA warrant applications run 40 to 50 pages, but he said he issued orders in the days after Sept. 11 "based on the oral briefing by the director of the FBI to the chief judge of the FISA court."

Lamberth would not say whether he thought Bush's warrantless surveillance was constitutional. "Judges shouldn't give advisory opinions and I was never asked to give an opinion in court," he said.

But he said when the NSA briefed him about the program, he advised them to keep good records so that if any applications came to the FISA court based on information obtained from warrantless surveillance, the court could rule on the legality.

He said he never got such an application before leaving the court in 2002.

Lamberth defended the court against those who say it is rubber stamp and said if the government is working properly, most applications should be approved.

"We're making sure there's not some political shenanigan going on or some improper motive for the surveillance," Lamberth said. "The fact that they have to submit it to us keeps them honest."

Lambert also criticized FBI Director Robert Mueller for allowing the agents in charge of all 56 FBI field offices to approve National Security Letters. These allow agents to demand information from phone companies, Internet service providers and corporations without court warrants in national security cases.

The Justice Department's inspector general recently estimated there were 3,000 violations of law between 2002 and 2005 in the FBI's use of the letters.

"Once they saw how the field offices had screwed this all up, I thought that would be a good time to centralize the approvals" in one Washington office that could enforce the rules uniformly, Lamberth said. "Unfortunately, Mueller and (Attorney General Alberto) Gonzales did not do that."

source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070623/D8PUN9IG0.html

pan6467 · 07-06-2007, 09:46 AM

Yes he did. Should he be impeached? Absolutely, however, after Clinton and the atmosphere of politics today, it would be suicide for the Democratic party. Bush has enough supporters that would continue the hate politics, and I fear many Americans while they dislike Bush and feel he has been a lousy president, would in fact, start supporting him, which sounds absurd, but for some reason we are that way.

No, what we need to do to Bush and especially Cheney is go in collect everything that can be considered evidence and then wait till he is out of office and try them for treasonous actions, violation of the people's trust, grievous misconduct and whatever else you can find. The people may be more open to this, especially if you have enough evidence.

But to go after him now? Is suicide.

If tried and found guilty when out of office, I believe we need should send them all to Guantanamo and show them what their non torture is truly like.

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 09:54 AM

I was hoping the Iraq and/or upcoming Iran war would be the impeachable offense(s), but I'll settle on the illegal bypassing of the FISA court to lead to impeachment. Anyone who understands the formation of the FISA court understands that the President was never intended to have the power to bypass it. Remember that Watergate resulted in the Church Act, which led to FISA.

Go back to Texas, Bush.

Kpax · 07-06-2007, 10:35 AM

Well, the President even has the right to order someone killed, such as they have been trying with Castro (not all of that story is a myth). You know, Arafat didn't die of a "liver disease." That was either us or Israel, or collaboration.

That's crazy because I wonder if there's anyone he DOESN'T have the right to order killed, where the line is drawn. You? Me? It's scary...

So I can't imagine how we could impeach the president for cutting corners around FISA. All we're talking about is privacy.

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 10:38 AM

Capone was brought in for federal income taxes. You take what you can get.

aceventura3 · 07-06-2007, 10:43 AM

I suggested a while ago that the victims of Bush's "domestic spy program" come forward and testify in front of Congress. It looks like the appellate court would like to see the real victims come forward as well.

Quote:

"The plaintiffs have not shown that they were actually the target of, or subject to, the NSA's surveillance," wrote Judge Alice Batchelder. "They cannot establish they are 'aggrieved persons.'"

Taken from Host's OP.

If the victims of the "domestic spy program" were in fact terrorist or those communicating with terrorists, we may agree that there was a technical violation of the law, but not a violation of the spirit of the law. If you would want Congress to attempt to impeach Bush on a technical violation of the law, I am sure Bush would be up for the challenge and the American people would see it for what it truly would be - pure political grandstanding.

roachboy · 07-06-2007, 11:03 AM

horseshit, ace.
if you do even the slightest bit of research on this program--and i mean ANY research--you will find a number of problems that, like it or not, are real: to wit

1. it really is not within any accepted definition of executive power that a president (well, vice-president) can decide that a law he does not like can be ignored. congress did not repeal the church act and it is therefore binding. that this administration does not like the law does not mean it is not bound by it. the administration is not sovereign, it is not the Source of Law which cannot be Bound by Law because it is the Source--so cheney's carl schmitt fantasies reach their limit (look up carl schmitt sometime)

2. given that the law has not been repealed and is therefore binding, all acts which have been authorized by way of signing orders and the like are violations. the are all actionable.

but if there were such legal cases that went to trial, the outcome would not be given in advance simply because there is a raison d'etat argument that the administration DOES have available to it which has as its base teh actions of a grovelling republican-controlled congress.

so while it is not obvious how such a process would go, it IS nonetheless clear that what is happening in this situation is real--and not simply "political grandstanding"--by which i take it you mean "initiated by parties which are not republican" as a synonym for "without merit" simply because if a is true then b is as well and even saying the two statements one after the other is almost a tautology.

or so it appears from your posts, ace: hell, i dont even know why you bother to type them. they seem implied--you could just post an empty box and everyone could fill in the phrase "x is political grandstanding" if the situation involves parties who are not the bush administration and "y was entirely justified" if the situation involves the bush administration.

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 11:09 AM

I could be a victim and not ever know it simply because of my opposition to the president. I have a funny feeling host and others could be, too. So how do you suggest we come forward and say we've been spied on when we don't know? The list should be made public, then impeachment will be certain.

Frosstbyte · 07-06-2007, 11:52 AM

Where does it say in the constitution that the president has the power to order anyone on the planet killed just because he feels like it? I do not remember reading that.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the constitution specifically provides that the government CANNOT do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis mine)

You might also take a look at the 4th Amendment. Oddly enough, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are important and contain provisions designed to protect you and me and everyone else in this country from overzealous politicians trying to do exactly what Bush et al are trying to do. They're not just old pieces of paper.

aceventura3 · 07-06-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

horseshit, ace.
if you do even the slightest bit of research on this program--and i mean ANY research--you will find a number of problems that, like it or not, are real: to wit

1. it really is not within any accepted definition of executive power that a president (well, vice-president) can decide that a law he does not like can be ignored. congress did not repeal the church act and it is therefore binding. that this administration does not like the law does not mean it is not bound by it. the administration is not sovereign, it is not the Source of Law which cannot be Bound by Law because it is the Source--so cheney's carl schmitt fantasies reach their limit (look up carl schmitt sometime)

You say it is "horse shit" and take some simplistic black and white position on executive power. I am not sure it is worth going off topic to show how executive and congressional power has been at odds with each other over the years. I will simply say this particular issue needs to be challenged in court to clearly define any abuse by the Executive branch of government. Congress does not want to challenge the Executive branch on this issue, other than to make sound bites for the evening news, for some reason. We both know why, don't we?

Quote:

2. given that the law has not been repealed and is therefore binding, all acts which have been authorized by way of signing orders and the like are violations. the are all actionable.

Show me where I said any violations of this or any law where or are not actionable?

Quote:

but if there were such legal cases that went to trial, the outcome would not be given in advance simply because there is a raison d'etat argument that the administration DOES have available to it which has as its base teh actions of a grovelling republican-controlled congress.

Don't understand your point here.

Quote:

so while it is not obvious how such a process would go, it IS nonetheless clear that what is happening in this situation is real--and not simply "political grandstanding"--by which i take it you mean "initiated by parties which are not republican" as a synonym for "without merit" simply because if a is true then b is as well and even saying the two statements one after the other is almost a tautology.

I know how I would see it, I know how you would see it. I suggest that the American people would see it as I do.

In your comments you have not given any reason why Congress has not taken decisive action - assuming Bush blatantly violated the law and abused his executive power to the degree suggested by many on the left.

Quote:

or so it appears from your posts, ace: hell, i dont even know why you bother to type them. they seem implied--you could just post an empty box and everyone could fill in the phrase "x is political grandstanding" if the situation involves parties who are not the bush administration and "y was entirely justified" if the situation involves the bush administration.

There is a theme to my posts, this is true. I am consistently baffled by the left's hatred of Bush, yet their unwillingness to take him on directly. All we get from the left are "pot shots" for political reasons. When will they take a stand on principle? When will they find an issue against Bush that they all can get all get behind? Bush has done everything wrong according the the Bush haters. Host even think Bush is guilty of war crimes. Many believe he lied to get us into war for his "oil buddies". Some believe he has abused power to a degree not matched by any President in our history. Yet, no action. This wire tap issue was addressed months ago, Bush modified the program, with Congressional input. Hell, he even had Congressional input when he was breaking the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I could be a victim and not ever know it simply because of my opposition to the president. I have a funny feeling host and others could be, too. So how do you suggest we come forward and say we've been spied on when we don't know? The list should be made public, then impeachment will be certain.

It is simple. How have you been harmed? If bad things have happened to you, make the assumption that it was because of Bush's illegal domestic spying. Then show some proximate cause between the bad things and the federal government. Then talk to the ACLU, and you are off to the races. Please don't forget me, a 5% consulting fee would be nice.

If there is an illegal domestic spy program targeting purely innocent US citizens, I doubt Bush is sitting in the oval office listening to the phone calls of 300 million people every day. So there has to be one hell of a big team of federal employees somewhere (perhaps it has been outsourced to India) listening to what you are ordering on your pizza. Then there would have to be another large group of people who take the information and then sit around and decide how to make your life miserable. So, out of either of those groups, there has to be at least one who would want to take Bush down. Even the Mafia had people who would "rat" on their Mafia buddies.

Or, perhaps you can accept, without divulging the names of the terrorist we are monitoring, that the intent of the program was in-fact to track the communications into and out of this country of known terrorist. A much shorter list than the entire population of the United States, I might add.

roachboy · 07-06-2007, 12:26 PM

ace: raison d'etat would cover claims of over-riding "security" interests.
what i mean is straightforward: i think the administration is in significant legal trouble because they chose to ignore fisa.
i think their central claim regarding the law itself is worthless.
but i think they could have a defensible position of "national security" on the basis of the first patriot act--if they pursued the warantless wiretaps after the 2nd, however, they are fucked.
this assuming that a case went to court and received treatment that you or i might get and not the treatment meted out by far right judges who owe their jobs to the administration.
at any rate, that's all hypothetical.

so maybe there are fewer than the 3,000 violations cited in the critique of the bush administration i quoted earlier.

as for your absurd charge that "the left"--what the fuck is that?--takes no stand on principle and only "hates bush"--that, sir, was even less worth the time it took to type than most other elements. you want the principles?
the bush administration has used the general hysteria that followed 9/11/2001 for its own political purposes since the afternoon of that day.
i oppose everything they have done.
all of it.

"principle" style statements:
there is no terrorism.
there is no war on "terrorism".
there is no "nation"
there is no democracy in america to be exported.

what there is is an administration with a dangerously authoritarian outlook presiding over a socio-economic order that is rapidly sliding into decadance, irrelevance, collapse. nothing the bush people have done offers even the beginnings of a coherent assessment of the situation, not to mention a coherent response to that situation.

so there is no place within the discourse were are collectively hobbled with that allows for anything like a "stand on principle."

the stand on principle is the refusal to accept this limited and limiting state of affairs.

so from my viewpoint, ace, your "principled positions" are nothing of the sort.

this is one of the reasons i do not interact with you in general .
i think that a wise position, and i am returning to it now.

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is simple. How have you been harmed? If bad things have happened to you, make the assumption that it was because of Bush's illegal domestic spying. Then show some proximate cause between the bad things and the federal government. Then talk to the ACLU, and you are off to the races. Please don't forget me, a 5% consulting fee would be nice.

I'm afraid the only thing simple here is naiveté. How have I been harmed? Maybe I should put you in the shoes of those being monitored. I'[m assuming you live in a house of some kind, and that you didn't build that house yourself. Let's say that before you moved into or were born into your home, cameras were installed everywhere: kitchen, living-room, bathroom, shower, bedroom. Let's say someone has access to everything on that camera, and decides to spy on you and your family, without knowledge and permission. Let's say that you find online sex tapes and shower tapes of you and your SO. That's an invasion of privacy, and it's wrong. Now imagine that private conversations that you have, not intended to be heard by anyone but you and the other person on the phone, are being listened to by the government who is just looking for any small sign of something. Let's say that, over the phone, I say "the president should be tried for murder and sentenced to life in prison" or "I wish Bush could live a day in Bagdad". Nothing illegal about that, but you get put on a potential terrorist list because of your assertions.

I don't belong on any lists, and I won't be on any lists. I love my country, and the idea that I can be considered a potential enemy because I think the president is a dolt is outrageous and my phone being tapped is a personal injury. If I'm being monitored, I'm being harmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If there is an illegal domestic spy program targeting purely innocent US citizens, I doubt Bush is sitting in the oval office listening to the phone calls of 300 million people every day.

He authorized it. He's responsible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Or, perhaps you can accept, without divulging the names of the terrorist we are monitoring, that the intent of the program was in-fact to track the communications into and out of this country of known terrorist. A much shorter list than the entire population of the United States, I might add.

Like the intent of Iraq was liberation? How about they serve you a big steaming pile of bullshit and call it apple pie? They earn my trust. They don't just get it for free like you.

host · 07-06-2007, 12:45 PM

Those ACLU "leftists" weigh in on the 6th Circuit's decision:

Quote:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspyi...s20070706.html
ACLU Slams Appeals Court Decision in NSA Surveillance Case (7/6/2007)

Court Allows Bush Administration to Continue Illegal Wiretapping

CINCINNATI - In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.

Even though the plaintiffs alleged a well-founded fear that their communications were subject to illegal surveillance, the court dismissed the case because plaintiffs could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.

The following quote can be attributed to ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro:

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s decision that insulates the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. As a result of today’s decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance.

<h3>“It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful.</h3>

“We are currently reviewing all of our legal options, including taking this challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime it is now more important than ever for Congress to engage in meaningful oversight.”

On June 27, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President and the Justice Department for documents about warrantless surveillance. The deadline for compliance is July 18.

Today’s decision is online at:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...7a0253p-06.pdf

aceventura3 · 07-06-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace: raison d'etat would cover claims of over-riding "security" interests.
what i mean is straightforward: i think the administration is in significant legal trouble because they chose to ignore fisa.
i think their central claim regarding the law itself is worthless.
but i think they could have a defensible position of "national security" on the basis of the first patriot act--if they pursued the warantless wiretaps after the 2nd, however, they are fucked.
this assuming that a case went to court and received treatment that you or i might get and not the treatment meted out by far right judges who owe their jobs to the administration.
at any rate, that's all hypothetical.

so maybe there are fewer than the 3,000 violations cited in the critique of the bush administration i quoted earlier.

as for your absurd charge that "the left"--what the fuck is that?--takes no stand on principle and only "hates bush"--that, sir, was even less worth the time it took to type than most other elements. you want the principles?
the bush administration has used the general hysteria that followed 9/11/2001 for its own political purposes since the afternoon of that day.
i oppose everything they have done.
all of it.

"principle" style statements:
there is no terrorism.
there is no war on "terrorism".
there is no "nation"
there is no democracy in america to be exported.

what there is is an administration with a dangerously authoritarian outlook presiding over a socio-economic order that is rapidly sliding into decadance, irrelevance, collapse. nothing the bush people have done offers even the beginnings of a coherent assessment of the situation, not to mention a coherent response to that situation.

so there is no place within the discourse were are collectively hobbled with that allows for anything like a "stand on principle."

the stand on principle is the refusal to accept this limited and limiting state of affairs.

so from my viewpoint, ace, your "principled positions" are nothing of the sort.

this is one of the reasons i do not interact with you in general .
i think that a wise position, and i am returning to it now.

The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning, from my point of view, (similar to many others as well) is you give a reason why you don't interact with me in general, yet you interact with me and then you have the need to tell me why you don't interact with me, in general of course. I don't understand that. If I don't interact with someone, I don't interact with them, period.

So people on the left are constantly complaining about Bush, yet do nothing. You and others seem to think this issue is such a clear violation of the law and an abuse of power, yet nothing happens. If I thought what you and others thought, I would work tirelessly to do something to correct the situation. All we get from the left is talk. You either believe what you say and act on it, or the talk is just "blowing smoke".

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm afraid the only thing simple here is naiveté.

True, I have never been the subject of illegal government spying where the government tried to damage my life. I don't know what that is like. But, I take it that you do, so I will read on.

Quote:

How have I been harmed? Maybe I should put you in the shoes of those being monitored. I'[m assuming you live in a house of some kind, and that you didn't build that house yourself. Let's say that before you moved into or were born into your home, cameras were installed everywhere: kitchen, living-room, bathroom, shower, bedroom. Let's say someone has access to everything on that camera, and decides to spy on you and your family, without knowledge and permission. Let's say that you find online sex tapes and shower tapes of you and your SO. That's an invasion of privacy, and it's wrong.

Those cameras placed in my home, the intrusion of my privacy, and tapes posted online would be my damages. I would have to investigate to determine who was responsible in order to take action against them. I am with you so far.

Quote:

Now imagine that private conversations that you have, not intended to be heard by anyone but you and the other person on the phone, are being listened to by the government who is just looking for any small sign of something. Let's say that, over the phone, I say "the president should be tried for murder and sentenced to life in prison" or "I wish Bush could live a day in Bagdad". Nothing illegal about that, but you get put on a potential terrorist list because of your assertions.

I have heard about innocent people incorrectly put on lists and incorrectly being suspected of crimes. Normally those people have legal recourse and can present evidence of innocence.

Quote:

I don't belong on any lists, and I won't be on any lists. I love my country, and the idea that I can be considered a potential enemy because I think the president is a dolt is outrageous and my phone being tapped is a personal injury. If I'm being monitored, I'm being harmed.

I agree. We have gotten to the harm part. I wonder whats next, I'll read on.

Quote:

He authorized it. He's responsible.

I am still with you.

Quote:

Like the intent of Iraq was liberation?

Ohhh. You lost me, here. The intent of Iraq was to kick Sadaam's a$$, and then to use Iraq as the front in the war on terrorists.

Quote:

How about they serve you a big steaming pile of bullshit and call it apple pie? They earn my trust. They don't just get it for free like you.

Now, not only am I lost, but i think you insulted me, but I am not sure.

Frosstbyte · 07-06-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Now, not only am I lost, but i think you insulted me, but I am not sure.

The gist of the point is that the whole notion of secret wiretaps with secret lists (however long or short) goes against one of this country's most fundamental principles, the right against search and seizure without a warrant. The whole problem with secret anything is NO ONE (except for them) knows who they are looking at and our rights as Americans GUARANTEE us the right to NOT have them looking at us without just cause. If you're right (and it would be wonderful if you were), they're not looking at anyone but those people who they think are terrorists. I don't think they have the scruples to keep from looking in other places on other people that they don't have just cause to look at because they're looking for just cause.

They're spying on American citizens. How does that not concern you, regardless of whether or not you have something to hide?

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ohhh. You lost me, here. The intent of Iraq was to kick Sadaam's a$$, and then to use Iraq as the front in the war on terrorists.

Hmm.. well it depends on what month. It was about how Iraq was involved in 9/11, then it was about positive certain proof of WMDs in Iraq, then it was liberation, then it was to stop a civil war. I wonder what's next?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Now, not only am I lost, but i think you insulted me, but I am not sure.

You're assuming that the wiretap program is 100% altruistic. The government wouldn't spy on non-terrorist threats, or pretend that people who clearly aren't terrorist are in order to spy on them.

I'm saying that's a naive attitude, based on all the misinformation and lies from the administration. Why the heck would you trust these people?

powerclown · 07-06-2007, 04:05 PM

Wasn't questioning the Bush Administration for ignoring Richard Clarke's warnings of increased terrorist "chatter" one of the strongest criticisms of the government after 9/11 occurred? Did congress reassert the viability of the Patriot Act for political reasons or legitimate security concerns?

Clarke says Patriot Act Preserves Civil Liberties

'I can't find anything wrong with it [the Patriot Act], and if I'd had it prior to 9/11, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to stop 9/11.'

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

People who care about civil liberties in the United States should embrace rather than fight the USA Patriot Act, former Bush administration anti-terrorism coordinator Robert Clarke told a standing-room-only audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government April 21.

Though the Patriot Act has been assailed as an attack on civil liberties, Clarke said the act provides law enforcement tools that could prevent another major terrorist attack. And a second attack is sure to prompt even harsher legislation.

"I would argue the thing that you should do today that most protects civil liberties in this country is to help prevent another major terrorist attack, because no matter how many of us send checks to the ACLU, if there's another major terrorist attack in this country ... hold onto that Bill of Rights, because it's going fast," Clarke said. "So be very, very careful about opposing things like the Patriot Act. If you believe in civil liberties, you've got to stop that next big attack."

Clarke said he believes if legislation similar to the Patriot Act had been passed before Sept. 11, 2001, it may have helped prevent that day's terrorist attacks.

"I can't find anything wrong with it and if I'd had it prior to 9/11 it would have been a hell of a lot easier to stop 9/11," Clarke said.

Clarke, an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School and author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," served as a senior White House adviser for four presidents, including a stint as national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism from 1998-2002. Clarke was interviewed during Wednesday's event by Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Director Graham Allison in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum.

The recent publication of Clarke's book, coupled with his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, catapulted him into the national limelight in recent weeks. His assertion that fighting al Qaeda was not an urgent priority for the Bush administration in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, won Clarke praise from administration opponents and made Clarke a target of criticism for administration supporters.

In answering questions from Allison and from the audience, Clarke covered many aspects of the United States' war on terror. Clarke repeated his criticism of Bush administration tactics, saying that the invasion of Iraq played right into al Qaeda's hands. Not only did it fulfill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin's predictions that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-producing Arabic country, Clarke said, it is also draining resources that could be used more fruitfully in the fight against terrorism.

Clarke repeated his insistence that Iraq, though run by an oppressive regime, posed no immediate threat to the United States, either through support for terrorism or through its possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Clarke said the war on terror is actually a civil war within Islam between the extreme version preached by Osama bin Ladin and more moderate elements. So far, the U.S. is losing the battle for ideas in the Islamic world. Al Qaeda is more sophisticated than we've given it credit for, Clarke said, and is far better received among its Islamic target audience than the United States.

To ultimately win the war on terror, Clarke said the United States has to somehow begin winning over the millions of Muslims who, though not actively fighting, are supporting radical causes monetarily and through other kinds of support. The U.S. took a step away from that goal by restricting visas for students from some foreign nations who want to study here.

Part of the problem, Clarke said, is that the United States, while talking about democracy, has supported oppressive Arabic regimes. The downside of encouraging democracy in Islamic countries, he said, is that we may not like the outcome of their democratic elections.

Resolution of the Palestinian issue is essential, but not enough on its own to give the United States a favorable image among Muslims.

When asked about his own apology to the nation for failing to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks during testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11 commission, Clarke said victims of such tragedies need psychological support as well as physical support from their government.

Clarke said apologies should only be given if they're genuine, so President Bush shouldn't give one if he doesn't think he did anything wrong in the days before the 9/11 attack.

"It's quite clear the president and others feel they have nothing to apologize for and so they shouldn't," Clarke said.

As far as security today, Clarke said though many attacks have been stopped, there have also been many more attacks by al Qaeda worldwide since Sept. 11 than there were before. In the United States, he said, airlines are undoubtedly safer, but the nation hasn't spent the money needed to make trains, container ships, and other potential terrorist targets safer.

In response to a question from the audience, Clarke said the recent bombings in Spain indicate that an al Qaeda attack before the U.S. presidential elections in November is possible. He said the bombings could be timed to influence the outcome, but also said a case could be made that either major party candidate would be acceptable from al Qaeda's point of view.

loquitur · 07-06-2007, 04:15 PM

has anyone here read the briefs in this case? I haven't had a chance yet, but I would imagine they are online and accessible. If this is like most hard cases, I would guess there are good arguments on either side on the merits.

The standing issue is actually not that hard, and the Sixth Circuit is right on that one, unless standing doctrine has changed radically since I was in law school. And BTW, guys, Judge Taylor's opinion was, as a piece of legal work, an utter piece of shit. I could have written a better opinion coming out that way than she did (but then, I'm a lawyer and can argue just about anything and make it sound good LOL.........)

Maybe I'll read some of the briefing and describe it here (as if I don't already have enough to do ..................)

powerclown · 07-06-2007, 04:50 PM

.pdf of the ruling here.

host · 07-06-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Wasn't questioning the Bush Administration for ignoring Richard Clarke's warnings of increased terrorist "chatter" one of the strongest criticisms of the government after 9/11 occurred? Did congress reassert the viability of the Patriot Act for political reasons or legitimate security concerns?

This was disclosed a year ago. If it is true, Richard Clarke's opinion concerning the Patriotic act would be irrelevant...no?

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...O64zJE&refer=#
Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

By Andrew Harris

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

<h3>``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.'</h3>'

The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.

``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.

U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment.

Pioneer Groundbreaker

The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.

The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its ``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.

Mayer said the Pioneer project is ``a different component'' of that initiative.

Mayer and Afran said an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan. Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee.

Stop Suit

On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York stopped the lawsuit from moving forward while the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington rules on a U.S. request to assign all related telephone records lawsuits to a single judge.

Robert Varettoni, a spokesman for Verizon, said he was unaware of the allegations against AT&T and declined to comment.

Earlier this week, he issued a statement on behalf of the company that Verizon had not been asked by the NSA to provide customer phone records from either its hard-wired or wireless networks. Verizon also said that it couldn't confirm or deny ``whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program.''

Mayer's lawsuit was filed following a May 11 USA Today report that the U.S. government was using the NSA to monitor domestic telephone calls. Earlier today, USA Today said it couldn't confirm its contention that BellSouth or Verizon had contracts with the NSA to provide a database of domestic customer phone call records.

Jeff Battcher, a spokesman for Atlanta-based BellSouth, said that vindicated the company.

``We never turned over any records to the NSA,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've been clear all along that they've never contacted us. Nobody in our company has ever had any contact with the NSA.''

The case is McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in Chicago at XXXXXX@bloomberg.net
<b>Last Updated: June 30, 2006 18:46 EDT</b>

Quote:

http://cryptome.org/mayer-016.htm

11 April 2006. Carl Mayer writes:

I wonder if you might be able to remove the following link from your website:

cryptome.org/mayer-001.pdf

This has the incorrect address; if people need to contact our office, it is at:

66 Witherspoons St, Suite 414
Princeton, NJ 08542

2 July 2006. Thanks to Slashdot for pointing to Bloomberg report.

AT&T has a GEMS system called Global Enterprise Management System; it is not clear whether this is the same GEMS cited in the court filing.

NSA describes Groundbreaker

<h3>Excerpt from a 38-page amended complaint in Mayer v. Verizon et al, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 16, filed June 23, 2006, entered June 27, 2006:</h3>

http://cryptome.org/mayer-016.pdf

Initial complaint:

http://cryptome.org/mayer-001.pdf

[Amended Complaint, pages 24-27.]

<b>Defendant ATT's Construction of a Call Monitoring Center
for the Exclusive Use of the NSA.</b>

<h3>81. Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven (7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.</h3>

82. The center was put into development by ATT following a proposal by the NSA for the construction and development of a network operations center identical to ATT's own network operations center located in Bedminster, New Jersey for the exclusive use of the NSA.

83. The NSA proposal was accepted by the ATT sales division and referred to ATT Solutions, an ATT project development division situated in Florham Park, New Jersey.

84. The NSA proposal sought construction of a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the exclusive use of the NSA with the capacity to monitor all calls and internet traffic placed on the ATT long distance network, as well as ATT's wide area, fiber optic, T-1, T-3, T-5 and high speed data networks.

85. Such a data center would also enable the NSA to tap into any call placed on the ATT network and to monitor the contents of all digital information transmitted over the ATT network.

86. The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATT's long distance networks.

87. Said data center would enable the NSA to tap into any phone line and to monitor any digital transfer of information on ATT's networks including voice telephone calls, facsimile transmission and all internet traffic.

88. Such project was in development not later than February 1, 2001, within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush Administration.

89. The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.

90. The NSA program was code-named Pioneer-Groundbreaker and was also known at ATT Solutions division as GEMS (Groundbreaker Enterprise System).

91. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was one of the parties working with ATT and the NSA to develop the monitoring center and IBM personnel participated in meetings with ATT and NSA officials in the development of the monitoring center.

92. Among the purposes of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project was the storing and monitoring of all phone call information coming across ATT's networks; by means of this program NSA sought to duplicate all of the phone call information that came across ATT's networks for real time, contemporaneous analysis or, alternately, for downloading and later use by the NSA.

93. The proposed project was to be a storage entity modeled on ATT's network operations center in Bedminster, New Jersey, and would have the capability to monitor all data and traffic that came across ATT lines, including ATT traffic and traffic originating from other carriers that used ATT lines or that sent calls to ATT customers.

94. The NSA was seeking to duplicate the ATT network operations center and sought by means of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker program the ability to monitor all traffic coming across ATT's network.

95. The contact list for the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project consisted of a minimum of 35 ATT employees dedicated in whole or in part to the Pioneer-Groundbreaker program.

96. An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.

97. The ATT Solutions logbook confirms the dates and transmissions of copies of ATT, IBM and NSA e-mails setting forth the existence of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker program; said e-mails remain in the custody, possession and control of ATT, IBM and NSA.

98. Said logbook was maintained pursuant to ATT Solutions policy in the regular course of business by telecom engineers at ATT Solutions.

99. Counsel have been informed of the foregoing information by several informants who had direct knowledge or who have received direct admissions by ATT personnel as to the foregoing facts.

100. ATT has not denied any of the allegations in the media disclosures of May 11, 2006.

101. Accordingly, defendant carrier ATT was engaged in active and knowing participation and conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2702, et seq., in concert with the United States not later than February 1, 2001.

powerclown · 07-06-2007, 06:18 PM

I don't see a reason for a 4-administration senior anti-terrorism expert to lie, do you?

host · 07-06-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I don't see a reason for a 4-administration senior anti-terrorism expert to lie, do you?

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
<h3>Main Entry: 3 lie</h3>
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

This was disclosed a year ago. If it is true, Richard Clarke's opinion concerning the Patriotic act would be irrelevant...no?

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irrelevant

<h3>irrelevant</h3>
One entry found for irrelevant.
Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: -v&nt
Function: adjective
: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>
- ir·rel·e·vant·ly adverb

Quote:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judge_...inst_0619.html
Judge gives go-ahead to lawsuit against Bush's bank transfer spying program
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday June 19, 2007

....."I don't think any corporate entity should be given a blank check to spy on Americans whether it's their telephone conversations or their financial transactions," said Steven Schwarz, the lead attorney for the case's two plaintiffs, in a Tuesday morning phone call with RAW STORY. "Maybe that's how they do it in other countries, but we have one set of rules, and nobody gets carte blanche to shred the Constitution.".......

...........Schwarz explained to RAW STORY why the action undertaken by SWIFT in assisting the government's program allowed an alarming fishing expedition to take place.

"You can think of SWIFT as gatekeeper, like if they have the keys to a warehouse," he said. "The government wants to get in and take a lot of specific items in there. SWIFT says 'Sorry, it's too hard to show you around, and give you this or that, why don't you just take a look around and take whatever you want.'"

James F. Holderman, the Chief Judge in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois, agreed with Schwarz's argument that SWIFT appeared to have carried out an overbroad surrender of information to the US government.

"Unfettered government access to the bank records of private citizens [is] constitutionally problematic," the judge wrote in his decision, in which he allowed two of the four complaints to continue to be considered.

The banking cooperative defended itself in a statement released to Bloomberg News last week.

"SWIFT complies with lawful obligations in the countries where it operates and will vigorously defend itself against the plaintiffs' remaining allegations," said a spokesman in the article written by Andrew Harris.

Another attorney working on the case, Carl Mayer, warned that the banking consortium has great deal at stake in the case.

"SWIFT faces billions in damages after this week’s ruling," he said in a statement released to the press by the plaintiffs. "Federal bank privacy laws provide for $100 in damages for each illegal disclosure of customer records."

While agreeing that the government's financial spying program was most alarming to large, offshore institutional investors, Schwarz argued that his plaintiffs were not billionaires and all Americans should be worried about the financial privacy implications of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

"Our plaintiffs are average Americans with checking accounts and credit cards," he said of Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse, who were named in the suit. "We're alleging that basic routine transactions were vacuumed up in a big data mining program. Some people may be fine with it because they think it may help catch a terrorist, but I think just as many people are uncomfortable with having their records sifted through in that manner."

Judge Holderman approved a 'change of venue' request by SWIFT to move the case to the federal district court in Virginia. If Schwarz's case holds up in the new district court, which is known for being more conservative and pro-government in its orientation, he said he'll begin his discovery process about three months from now.

Maybe with SWIFT's change of venue maneuver....to Virginia from Illinois....the 4th district Judge, David Sentelle, who powerclown accuses of being "partisan" against Scooter Libby, can do what he did with the White Water special prosecutor....he can "fix" the SWIFT lawsuit....by inserting a Reagan or Bush appointed trial judge to kill the lawsuit......

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a49P_ZkNRadY

SWIFT, Belgian Banking Cooperative, Must Face Lawsuit (Update1)

By Andrew Harris

June 15 (Bloomberg) -- SWIFT, the Belgium-based banking cooperative that has aided U.S. government efforts to trace terrorist financing, must defend a lawsuit accusing it of violating the privacy rights of Americans, a judge ruled.

SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, is an industry-owned group that enables more than 8,000 banks and financial institutions in more than 200 countries to trade information and process transactions, according to the group's Web site.

U.S. District Judge James Holderman in Chicago said the complaint brought by two bank customers contained sufficient allegations to support a claim that SWIFT violated the U.S. Right to Financial Privacy Act, a law limiting the government's right to view bank customer records.

``The SWIFT program is another example of reckless disregard for the Constitution and values that make us who we are as a nation,'' plaintiff's lawyer Steven Schwarz said in a telephone interview today.

``SWIFT complies with lawful obligations in the countries where it operates and will vigorously defend itself against the plaintiffs' remaining allegations,'' spokesman Euan Sellar said in an e-mailed statement. SWIFT is based in La Hulpe, Belgium.

The suit was filed last June, after the New York Times reported SWIFT's cooperation with the U.S. government.

In response to that article, SWIFT issued a press release stating it had ``a longstanding history'' of cooperating with national and international agencies ``in their efforts to prevent misuse of the financial system.''

Search and Seizure

``Our members support this policy,'' SWIFT said in the release. SWIFT turned over transaction data in response to a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department, after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to the release.

Under the federal Right to Privacy Act, violations are subject to fines of $100 per occurrence, Schwarz said. Though the suit names two plaintiffs, Ian Walker, 36, of Washington, and Stephen Kruse, 37, of Chicago, Schwarz said he intends to seek class-action status.

Total damages could exceed $1 billion if the suit is successful, Schwarz said.

Holderman's ruling was issued June 12. The judge dismissed claims that SWIFT's disclosures violated Constitutional free speech guarantees or Illinois consumer fraud laws. He allowed the suit to go forward on the privacy claim and the accusation that SWIFT violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, barring unlawful search and seizure.

The judge issued a separate order granting SWIFT's request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In court papers, the cooperative told Holderman its principal U.S. facility is in northern Virginia.

The case is Walker v. Swift SCRL, 06cv3447, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Chicago).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris at the federal courthouse in Chicago at xxxxxxxxx@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: <h3>June 15, 2007 17:02 EDT</h3>

powerclown · 07-06-2007, 07:56 PM

You see no need for a security-surveillance apparatus working in the foreign/domestic service of the United States?

host · 07-06-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You see no need for a security-surveillance apparatus working in the foreign/domestic service of the United States?

If a federal judge signs a warrant that permits such activity...kinda like the way the FISA law restricts the executive to upholding the constitution....

Now...my question to you...in view of the following "record"......why would you be willing to give people like these more unaccountable authority than what I just described?

The following was last posted on May 24:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=16

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Uh....Yeah...thats the jist. And in my opinion the data posted is indesputable.

hmmm....I don't think ace is yet convinced....

<h2>Ssssllllllaaaaappppp !!!!</h2>

ace: thenk youuuu sirrrr....I'd like another !!!

<h2>The Flip:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>October 26, 2001</h2>

Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill
Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation
The East Room

... The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.

Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.

I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.

But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.

We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict. We may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement officials, under the most trying conditions. They are serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery.

They deserve our full support and every means of help that we can provide. We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.

For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.

As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. <h3>The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.</h3> Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants.

Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they're after the same suspect. Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. ......

....... It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

END 10:57 A.M. EDT

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20011027.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>October 27, 2001</h3>

Radio Address of the President to the Nation

.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.

<h3>When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. </h3> It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike....

..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. <h3>But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. </h3> Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.

In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.......

...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.

<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2> And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.

Thank you for listening.

END

...and what is this....40 months later....could it be????
<h2>The Flop:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006...t-he-says.html

....<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2>
And I can assure all Americans that
these important new statutes will be
enforced to the full. Thank you for
listening.

Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." <h3>Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>December 19, 2005</h2>

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room
......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. <h3>You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</h3>

And for some reason which I cannot begin to fathom, <h2>the press simply ignores all of his previous statements to the contrary.</h2>

...and seven months later, still....no, not more
<h2> Flop ?????</h2>

Mr. President....I thought that you boasted that the surveillance technology "gap" had been fixed....you took credit for fixing it....<b>59 months before you said this:</b>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 7, 2006

President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror
Cobb Galleria Centre
Atlanta, Georgia

......Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. <b>So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.</b> (Applause.)

When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. <h3>Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.......</h3>

<h2>The Flip:</h2>
Here is Bush, just weeks after he is alleged to have (by James Comey) directed Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's ICU unit bed to sign an authorization that Ashcroft was no longer legally authorized to sign...he had relinquished his duties due to illness:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ges/print.html
And beyond McConnell's plainly false Op-Ed, the lies told by the Bush administration on the issue of eavesdropping have no equal. In light of the revelations from James Comey, just re-visit the statements from Alberto Gonzales in December 2005 -- five days before the New York Times revealed the warrantless eavesdropping program -- in which he assured his audience: "All wiretaps must be authorized by a federal judge." <h3>That is the same Alberto Gonzales who barged into John Ashcroft's hospital room to coerce his consent to their ongoing warrantless eavesdropping activities.

Worse, the President himself -- literally one month after the dispute with Comey and Ashcroft over warrantless eavesdropping -- one month -- ran around the country as part of his re-election campaign insisting that the only eavesdropping done by the government was one done with warrants:</h3>

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. <b>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.</h3>

The same President who ordered warrantless eavesdropping -- and who almost had the entire top level of the DOJ resign as a result -- told Americans weeks later that the Government only eavesdrops with warrants. To call that "lying" is to understate the case. It really is to our great discredit that we have acquiesced to this level of presidential deceit.

<h3>McConnell's Op-Ed demonstrates that this level of deceit with regard to eavesdropping continues unabated. The notion that the administration would demand, and that Congress would entertain, further expansions of FISA under these circumstances is just staggering.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

.... Part of the problem we face was that there was laws and bureaucratic mind-sets that prevented the sharing of information. And so, besides setting up the Homeland Security Department and beefing up our air travel security, and making sure that we now fingerprint at the borders and take those fingerprints, by the way, and compare to a master log of fingerprints of terrorists and known criminals, to make sure people coming into our country are the right people coming into our country. I mean, we do a lot of things. But we change law, as well, to allow the FBI and -- to be able to share information within the FBI.

Incredibly enough, because of -- which Larry and others will discuss -- see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause.) I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk. Now, these are people charged with gathering information about threats to the country; yet they couldn't share the information. And right after September the 11th, the Congress wisely acted, said, this doesn't make any sense. If we can't get people talking, how can we act? We're charged with the security of the country, first responders are charged with the security of the country, and if we can't share information between vital agencies, we're not going to be able to do our job. And they acted.

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. <h3>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.</h3> 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.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

We had real problems chasing paper -- following paper trails of people. The law was just such that we could run down a problem for a crooked businessman; we couldn't use the same tools necessary to chase down a terrorist. That doesn't make any sense. And sometimes the use of paper trails and paper will lead local first responders and local officials to a potential terrorist. We're going to have every tool, is what I'm telling you, available for our people who I expect to do their job, and you expect to do their jobs.

We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.

There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country. (Applause.)

Administrative subpoenas mean it is -- speeds up the process whereby people can gain information to go after terrorists. Administrative subpoenas I guess is kind of an ominous sounding word, but it is, to put everybody's mind at ease about administrative subpoenas -- we use them to catch crooked doctors today. It's a tool for people to chase down medical fraud. And it certainly makes sense to me that if we're using it as a tool to chase medical fraud cases, we certainly ought to use it as a tool to chase potential terrorists.

I'll tell you another interesting part of the law that needs to be changed. Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists. Judges have that authority in many cases like -- again, I keep citing drug offenses, but the Congress got tough on drug offenders a while ago and gave judges leeway to deny bail. They don't have that same authority to deny bail to terrorists now. I've got to tell you, it doesn't make any sense to me that it is very conceivable that we haul in somebody who is dangerous to America and then they are able to spring bail and out they go.

It's hard to assure the American people that we've given tools to law enforcement that they need if somebody has gone through all the work to chase down a potential terrorist, and they haul them in front of a court and they pay bail, and it adios. It just doesn't make any sense.

The Patriot Act needs to be renewed and the Patriot Act needs to be enhanced. That's what we're talking about. And it's better for others to explain to you how this Patriot Act works. After all, they're charged with protecting our citizens. They're on the front line. You see, I try to pick the best I can at the federal government and say, here's our mission -- our mission is to protect our country. I say that to the Defense Department -- our mission is to protect the country. I say it to the Justice Department, and to the FBI. After 9/11, I said to the Justice Department and the FBI, your job, your primary focus now is to prevent attack. Listen, I still want you chasing down the criminals; that's what's expected of you. But there's a new mind-set, and that is, because of what happened on 9/11, we've got to change the way we think, and therefore, your job now is to prevent attack.....

.... THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Attorney. (Laughter.) It's good I didn't break any rules. (Laughter.)

The point is, is that -- what he's telling you is, is that we needed to share this information throughout our government, which we couldn't do before. And it just doesn't make any sense. We got people working hard overseas that are collecting information to better help us protect ourselves. And what 9/11 was, is that -- said -- is that a threat overseas now must be taken seriously here at home. It's one thing to protect our embassies, and we work hard to do so. But now a threat overseas could end up being a threat to the homeland. And in order to protect the homeland, these good people have got to be able to share information.

Those who criticize the Patriot Act must listen to those folks on the front line of defending America. <b>The Patriot Act defends our liberty, is what it does, under the Constitution of the United States. (Applause.)</b> ...

......THE PRESIDENT: .... It's an honor to have been here today. I hope, as a result of this discussion, our fellow citizens have a better understanding of the importance of the Patriot Act and why it needs to be renewed and expanded -- <b>the importance of the Patriot Act, when it comes to defending America, our liberties, and at the same time, that it still protects our liberties under the Constitution.</b> But more importantly, I hope our fellow citizens recognize that there are hundreds of their fellow citizens working on a daily basis to do their duty to make this country as secure as possible. And for your work I say thank you, and may God continue to bless you. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

END 10:33 A.M. EDT

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/...aught-on-tape/
Bush Caught on Tape: “A Wiretap Requires A Court Order. Nothing Has Changed.”

Bush, April 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. <b>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.</b> 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.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060101.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 1, 2006

President Visits Troops at Brooke Army Medical Center
Brooke Army Medical Center
San Antonio, Texas

...Q In 2004, when you were doing an event about the Patriot Act, in your remarks you had said that any wiretapping required a court order, and that nothing had changed. <b>Given that we now know you had prior approval for this NSA program, were you in any way misleading?

THE PRESIDENT: I was talking about roving wire taps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program.</b> I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on September the 11th, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing, and will continue to do. And the fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States.

There's an enemy out there. They read newspapers, they listen to what you write, they listen to what you put on the air, and they react. And it seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al Qaeda and/or an al Qaeda affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why. They attacked us before, they will attack us again if they can. And we're going to do everything we can to stop them.

Yes, Ed. ...

9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......
9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......

<h2>The Flip....and The Flop:</h2>

<center><img src="http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/JAGWB.jpg"></center>

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/08/...ramoff-emails/
EXCLUSIVE EMAILS: Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.

The emails written by Abramoff was addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.

In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,” and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.

Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:

NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.

The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, <h2>President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”</h2>

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.

<b>Fasten yer seatbelts...Ladies and Germs....when (if....) this does come to public light.....the "mother" of all FLIP/FLOP campaigns from the lips of our "means what he sez", president...will bring "shock and awe" to this land:</b>

Quote:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/p....cfm?id=274166
Rockefeller and Bond Announce Committee Completes Section of Phase II Looking at Accuracy of Pre-War Intelligence on Post-War Iraq

--Report to be Sent for Declassification and Could be Released Within Weeks--

Contact: Wendy Morigi (Rockefeller) (202) 224-6101;
Shana Marchio (Bond) (202) 224-0309
Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Washington, DC - The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and the Vice Chairman, Senator Kit Bond, announced today that the Committee has adopted its Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq. The Committee will submit the report to the Director of National Intelligence for classification review. Following declassification, the Committee will release the report to the public.

The Senate Intelligence Committee released their first report dealing with Intelligence Community failures related to Iraq's weapons capabilities on July 9, 2004. The findings and recommendations of that report were an important impetus leading to landmark legislation reforming the United States Intelligence Community.

Last fall, the Committee released reports on two of the five sections of Phase II: 1) the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments; and 2) the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

powerclown · 07-07-2007, 07:03 AM

Because I think it necessary. It need not be draconian, but national-level security is as central to law and order as local neigborhood-level security.

The Patriot Act: Separating Hysteria from Fact
by Jonah Goldberg

Every time self-described civil libertarians pick something to complain about, they end up with egg on their faces.

The latest embarrassment is the revelation that the Department of Justice has not invoked the Patriot Act's Section 215 - a section of the act that the ACLU crowd claims has turned the FBI into a library-raiding Gestapo.

What, in reality, is Section 215? It's a relatively innocuous provision of the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement to obtain, after getting approval from a judge, documents from third parties - your credit card company, for example - if they're pertinent to a terrorism investigation.

Caught up in the Section 215 hysteria they helped create, librarians have gone batty. One even burned her records lest the feds get their hands on the raw data revealing how many 15-year-olds borrowed "The Catcher In the Rye." Senator Russ Feingold even declared that Section 215 has made Americans "afraid to read books, terrified into silence."

Well, it turns out that this has all been an exercise in self-indulgent, pompous liberal feel-goodism and false bravado. Not only has the government never used 215, but the section doesn't even mention libraries - or any of the other secular holy sites allegedly imperiled by it.

At minimum, critics should stop talking about the Patriot Act's "trampling of rights" in the present tense. And lest they claim that they are being "vigilant" in the face of potential threats, someone should remind them that vigilance is fine, but lying and fear-mongering is crying wolf.

The Section 215 bashing is just the latest in an ongoing campaign to make up a problem out of the Patriot Act that does not exist. I'm sure you've heard that the Patriot Act also permits, in the words of Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine, "spying on the Web browsers of people who are not even criminal suspects." Errr, wrong. The Patriot Act actually toughens the standards by which the government can snoop on electronic communications.

Before the Patriot Act, there was no settled law on whether the government - or for that matter, some random stalker or Amazon.com - could acquire that kind of information. The Patriot Act made it a crime for the government or anybody else to pry into your e-mail without getting a court order.

There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth over the allegedly "widespread" civil rights abuses since Sept. 11. Well, it's a good thing the Patriot Act requires the DOJ's inspector general to investigate civil rights complaints. The last report, issued over the summer, found that there were 34 "credible" allegations of abuse out of 1,037 claims made over a six-month period (note: that's allegations, not convictions). And most of these "credible" but unproven allegations involved such horrors as verbal harassment of prisoners by prison guards. That's not nice and it shouldn't happen, but it's hardly 1930s Germany.

The complaints of lost civil rights go on. We hear about prisoners "kept in secret" when they're really not. Rather, the government won't release their names to the media - or to the terrorists who are keen to find out such information. However, the prisoners themselves - through their lawyers or families - are free to release their names.

The ACLU says that the feds can secretly enter your home while you're out and rifle through your files, underwear drawer, whatever. Well, that's true, if the cops get a warrant first and notify you later. If that scares you, I'm sorry. But it's hardly something new.

And of course, there's the partisanship. John Ashcroft (for whom my wife works) is the most unpopular man in the universe - if you go by what the Ashcroft-phobes say. There's nothing you can say that goes far enough for the hysterical base of the increasingly hysterical Democratic party. Senator John F. Kerry declared at a recent debate that he could see in the audience "people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here."

One might ask Kerry, "Have you no shame, Senator?" But it's too late for that. The pertinent question now is: "Have you lost your mind?" Ashcroft's job approval rating with the American people is about the same or higher than every major Democratic figure, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle. The Ashcroft - and Bush - haters need to get out more.

Indeed, we're told there's a nationwide groundswell against the supposed "trampling of civil liberties." But two years of Gallup polls show that as many people think the government hasn't gone "far enough" restricting civil liberties in order to fight terrorism as think it's gone "too far." Meanwhile, a solid majority believe - and have believed all along - that the government's gotten it "about right" on civil liberties.

This should be sobering to the people who have steadily beaten the drums about this stuff because it shows that most Americans don't take them seriously - and they're right not to.

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 07:14 AM

I'm sure someone can quickly explain to me why article author Jonah Goldberg, someone with close ties to Bush crony Ashcroft, knows about what parts of the Patriot act are or aren't used.

powerclown · 07-07-2007, 07:31 AM

Goldberg is a journalist, not Ashcroft's younger brother.

roachboy · 07-07-2007, 07:41 AM

and from a guy who argued in the la times that what an "iraqi augusto pinochet" would be a good thing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

so it would follow that for a guy who actually believes stuff on the order of fascism wasnt so bad: at least the trains ran on time--i mean who actually believes that--the patriot act aint so bad.

maybe you dont know who pinochet was.

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

it is baffling to me that in order to make various bush initiatives seem neutral by comparison, folk are willing to post stuff by explicitly conservative authoritarian writers.

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Goldberg is a journalist, not Ashcroft's younger brother.

I don't remember refuting either of those things. My question stands.

powerclown · 07-07-2007, 07:56 AM

Perhaps he read about it on the Internets?

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Perhaps he read about it on the Internets?

Considering it's never been posted by host, it probably wasn't on the internets. Honestly, it sounds like hogwash.

host · 07-07-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Goldberg is a journalist, not Ashcroft's younger brother.

<h3>Goldberg is a journalist?.....Goldberg is a...........</h3>

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

....it is baffling to me that in order to make various bush initiatives seem neutral by comparison, folk are willing to post stuff by explicitly conservative authoritarian writers.

....he does it all of the time....I think it stems from his milestone <b>"I hate <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1942044&postcount=99">guerilla opeds post</a>, two years ago....."</b>

I post compelling (overwhelming ????) evidence....quoting from government web pages, the POTUS and Atty. General Gonzales, making untrue and manipulative statements, almost identical to statements that the POTUS had made five years earlier, for the purpose of persuading us to not object to their unchecked (by a judicial review and then, if appropriate and legal, a judicial warrant) use of authority that they have illegally taken unto themselves, i.e., breaking/ignoring FISA law provisions, misuse of and failure to account for all NSL's issued (National Security Letters.....)

The <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120447"> Official Declaration of War Against Bush - Cheney and their Republican Supporters</a> began with:

.......To start it off....what are you thinking.....what do you read....what do you "know"?????? Do we even speak the same language, anymore????

<h3>Here's the "editor at large", of one of your most prominent publications:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT <h2>June 27, 2007</h2>

Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff

CARLSON:.....On his last full day as prime minister, it is reported that Blair will be become a special envoy to the Middle East. Will he make the difference in the world‘s most perilous region?

Plus, the most perilous region in Washington, D.C. this week is the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Today‘s “Washington Post” featured the third in a series of four articles bent on exposing Mr. Cheney‘s sinister and alleged skirting of the Constitution, and reputedly dangerous influence on the rest of the Bush administration.

In today‘s episode, the vice president dictates economic policy and tax cuts, among many other things. The “Post‘s” scathing series has spawned editorials across the country, suggesting that Dick Cheney ought to be impeached, or otherwise forced out of office for the good of the nation.

Well, joining me now, one of Dick Cheney‘s very few remaining defenders and only a part-time defender at that, is nationally-syndicated columnist and editor-at-large at “The National Review Online,” Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah, welcome.

<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. <h2>Why are you defending Cheney?

GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney.</h2> I think that he‘s, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there‘s a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don‘t want politicians to go by the polls, who don‘t put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.

And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn‘t bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and <h3> I think it‘s a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn‘t care.</h3> There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn‘t. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.

But he‘s a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I‘m not sure that‘s the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there‘s something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....

........CARLSON: That‘s right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn‘t look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don‘t know what they‘re talking about or they‘re lying. People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic, I agree completely.

GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?

CARLSON: I am bothered though—that‘s right, that‘s exactly right.

GOLDBERG: I mean, he‘s sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.

CARLSON: But I‘m bothered by Cheney ‘s—but does—Cheney‘s secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it‘s rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven‘t seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don‘t we?

GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.

CARLSON: Right.

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he‘s trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

I think it‘s got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can‘t really get everything that he wants that way.

CARLSON: I think you‘re absolutely right.

Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney‘s name comes up, you‘re apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. <h3>What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?

GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn‘t care.</h3> You know, there‘s nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn‘t hate, it‘s indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn‘t care what they think about him.

CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn‘t, he doesn‘t—he tells a joke that‘s written into his speech, <h3>he doesn‘t wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.

GOLDBERG: I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he‘s doing it, you know. I mean, it‘s just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink. Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.</h3>

CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I‘m glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you‘re almost alone in this nation of 300 million.

Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.

GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There‘s lots of empty chairs.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.

GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......

.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.

....now....facts to counter Jonah Goldberg and powerclown's assumptions:

powerclown did not display the date that the JOnah Goldberg oped was written:

Quote:

http://www.newsandopinion.com/cols/jonah091903.asp
Jewish World Review Sept. 19, 2003 / 22 Elul, 5763

By 2007, nearly everything Goldberg asserted in his 2003 article, was contradicted.
Goldberg's assurances about "warrants signed by judges", is especially laughable....

<h3>As the DOJ's IG reported, the FBI did not use Section 215 orders until 2004....AFTER Goldberg's oped was published....rendering it irrelevant to the subject of it's main point. Goldberg (and powerclown....) ignore the fact that we only know about abuses of our rights if and when the DOJ allows it's IG to inspect for them....and when the DOJ does not redact his findings from his official reports....

Before our rights were taken away, at least an impartial judge was presented with evidence to justify what it was that the FBI and other law enforcement sought permission to search for, and if the judge approved, a search could be conducted within the parameters that the judge had granted, based on the evidence presented to obtain the warrant.

The target of the search could then present the record of the evidence that was used to obtain the judge's signature of the warrant, and the parameters (the limits) that the judge defined for the search.....to another judge and a jury, to show any discrepancies between what law enforcement presented to the warrant signing judge....and what they actually searched for, how....and why....</h3>

<h2>....and now....powerclown....what do we have? Looks like a lying POTUS and Atty. General, and an untold, unchecked amount of abuse of our constitutional rights.....</h2>

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/0703b/index.htm
<center>Statement of

Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

before the

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives

concerning

“The FBI’s Use of National Security Letters and Section 215 Requests for Business Records”

March 28, 2007</center>

* * * * *

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hoekstra, and Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Thank you for inviting me to testify about two recent reports issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) use of national security letters and the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records. In the Patriot Reauthorization Act, enacted in 2006, Congress directed the OIG to examine the FBI’s use of these two important authorities. The reviews were directed to examine, among other things, the number of times these authorities were used, the importance of the information obtained, how the information was utilized, any improper or illegal uses of these authorities, and other noteworthy facts or circumstances related to their use.

On March 9, 2007, we issued separate reports on the FBI’s use of national security letters and Section 215 orders. We publicly released two unclassified reports, with only limited information redacted (blacked out) which the Department or the FBI considered to be classified. We also provided to Congress, including this Committee, copies of the full classified reports that contain some additional classified information on the FBI’s use of the two authorities. However, the OIG’s main findings and conclusions are included in the unclassified versions that were publicly released.

In this written statement, I will summarize the key findings from our reports, focusing most of my comments on the national security letters report. I will first provide brief background on national security letters and how we conducted our review. I will then provide a few observations to put our findings in context. Next, I will highlight the main findings of our national security letter report. After that, I will briefly summarize our report on the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records......

......2. OIG Findings

Our review found that, after enactment of the Patriot Act, the FBI’s use of national security letters increased dramatically. In 2000, the last full year prior to passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI issued approximately 8,500 NSL requests. It is important to note that one national security letter may request information about multiple telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. Because the FBI’s semiannual classified reports to Congress provide the number of requests rather than the number of letters, we also focused on the total number of requests.

After the Patriot Act, the number of NSL requests issued by the FBI increased to approximately 39,000 in 2003, approximately 56,000 in 2004, and approximately 47,000 in 2005. In total, during the 3-year period covered by our review, the FBI issued more than 143,000 NSL requests.

However, we believe that these numbers, which are based on information from the FBI’s database, understate the total number of NSL requests issued by the FBI. During our review, we found that the FBI database used to track these requests is inaccurate and does not include all NSL requests. .........

.....As also directed by the Patriot Reauthorization Act, the OIG review examined whether there were any “improper or illegal uses” of NSL authorities. We found that from 2003 through 2005, the FBI identified 26 possible intelligence violations involving its use of NSLs, 19 of which the FBI reported to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB). Of the 26 possible violations, 22 were the result of FBI errors, while 4 were caused by mistakes made by recipients of the NSLs......

.....We examined the FBI investigative files in the four field offices to determine whether FBI case agents and supervisors had adhered to FBI policies designed to ensure appropriate supervisory review of the use of NSL authorities. We found that 60 percent of the investigative files we examined contained one or more violations of FBI internal policies relating to national security letters. These included failures to document supervisory review of NSL approval memoranda and failures to include in NSL approval memoranda required information, such as the authorizing statute, the status of the investigative subject, or the number or types of records requested.

In another finding, our review determined that the FBI Headquarters Counterterrorism Division generated over 300 NSLs exclusively from “control files” rather than from “investigative files,” in violation of FBI policy. When NSLs are issued from control files, the NSL documentation does not indicate whether the NSLs are issued in authorized investigations or whether the information sought in the NSLs is relevant to those investigations. This documentation is necessary to establish compliance with NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and FBI policies.

In addition, we found that the FBI had no policy requiring the retention of signed copies of national security letters. As a result, we were unable to conduct a comprehensive audit of the FBI’s compliance with its internal control policies and the statutory certifications required for NSLs.

In one of the most troubling findings, we determined that from 2003 through 2005 the FBI improperly obtained telephone toll billing records and subscriber information from 3 telephone companies pursuant to over 700 so-called “exigent letters.” These letters generally were signed by personnel in the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), a unit of the Counterterrorism Division in FBI Headquarters, and were based on a form letter used by the FBI’s New York Field Division in the criminal investigations related to the September 11 attacks. The exigent letters signed by the CAU typically stated:

Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be provided. Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who will process and serve them formally to [information redacted] as expeditiously as possible.

These letters were signed by CAU Unit Chiefs, CAU special agents, and subordinate personnel, none of whom were delegated authority to sign NSLs.

Our review found that that the FBI sometimes used these exigent letters in non-emergency circumstances. In addition, the FBI failed to ensure that there were duly authorized investigations to which the requests could be tied. The exigent letters also inaccurately represented that the FBI had already requested subpoenas for the information when, in fact, it had not. The FBI also failed to ensure that NSLs were issued promptly to the telephone companies after the exigent letters were sent. Rather, in many instances, after obtaining records from the telephone companies the FBI issued national security letters many months after the fact to “cover” the information obtained.

As our report describes, we were not convinced by the legal justifications offered by the FBI during our review for the FBI’s acquisition of telephone toll billing records and subscriber information in response to the exigent letters without first issuing NSLs. The first justification offered was the need to reconcile the strict requirements of the NSL statute with the FBI’s mission to prevent terrorist attacks. While the FBI’s counterterrorism mission may require streamlined procedures to ensure the timely receipt of information in genuine emergencies, the FBI needs to address the problem by expediting the issuance of national security letters or by seeking legislative modification to the voluntary emergency disclosure provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), not through these exigent letters. Moreover, the FBI’s justification for the exigent letters was undercut because they were used in non-emergency circumstances, not followed in many instances within a reasonable time by the issuance of NSLs, and not catalogued in a fashion that would enable FBI managers or anyone else to review the practice or the predication required by the NSL statute.

In sum, we concluded that the FBI’s use of these letters inappropriately circumvented the requirements of the NSL statute, and violated Attorney General Guidelines and FBI policies. ......

2. THE OIG’S SECTION 215 REPORT

In the last section of my statement, I want to summarize briefly the OIG’s second report, which examined the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek an order from the FISA Court to obtain “any tangible thing,” including books, records, and other items, from any business, organization, or entity provided the item or items are for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not create new investigative authority, but instead significantly expanded existing authority found in FISA by broadening the types of records that could be obtained and by lowering the evidentiary threshold to obtain a Section 215 order for business records. Public concerns about the scope of this expanded Section 215 authority centered on the ability of the FBI to obtain library records, and many public commentators began to refer to Section 215 as the “library provision.”

Our review found that the FBI and the Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) submitted to the FISA Court two different kinds of applications for Section 215 orders: “pure” Section 215 applications and “combination” Section 215 applications. A “pure” Section 215 application is a term used to refer to a Section 215 application for any tangible item which is not associated with an application for any other FISA authority. A “combination” Section 215 application is a term used to refer to a Section 215 request that was added to a FISA application for pen register/trap and trace orders, which identify incoming and outgoing telephone numbers called on a particular line. In a combination order, the Section 215 request was added to the pen register/trap and trace application in order to obtain subscriber information related to the telephone numbers.

We found that from 2002 through 2005 the Department, on behalf of the FBI, submitted to the FISA Court a total of 21 pure Section 215 applications and 141 combination Section 215 applications.

<h3>We found that the first pure Section 215 order was approved by the FISA Court in spring 2004, more than 2 years after enactment of the Patriot Act. The FISA Court approved six more pure Section 215 applications that year, for a total of seven in 2004. The FISA Court approved 14 pure Section 215 applications in 2005.</h3>

Examples of the types of business records that were obtained through pure Section 215 orders include driver’s license records, public accommodations records, apartment records, and credit card records.

We also determined that the FBI did not obtain Section 215 orders for any library records from 2002 through 2005 (the time period covered by our review). <h2>The few applications for Section 215 orders for library records that were initiated in the FBI during this period were withdrawn while undergoing the review process within the FBI and the Department. None were submitted to the FISA Court.</h2>

<h3>With respect to how information from Section 215 orders was used, we found no instance where the information obtained from a Section 215 order resulted in a major case development such as disruption of a terrorist plot. We also found that very little of the information obtained in response to Section 215 orders has been disseminated to intelligence agencies outside the DOJ.</h3>

However, FBI personnel told us they believe that the kind of intelligence gathered from Section 215 orders is essential to national security investigations. They also stated that the importance of the information is sometimes not known until much later in an investigation, when the information is linked to some other piece of intelligence. FBI officials and Department attorneys also stated that they believe Section 215 authority is useful because it is the only compulsory process for certain kinds of records that cannot be obtained through alternative means.

We did not identify any instances involving “improper or illegal use” of a pure Section 215 order. We did find problems with two combination Section 215 orders. In one instance, the FBI inadvertently collected information from a telephone number that no longer belonged to the target of the investigation. In another instance, the FBI received information from a telephone that was no longer connected to the subject because of a mistake by the telephone company.

We also found that the FBI has not used Section 215 orders as effectively as it could have because of legal, bureaucratic, or other impediments to obtaining these orders. For example, <h3>after passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, neither the Department nor the FBI issued implementing procedures or guidance with respect to the expansion of Section 215 authority for a long period of time.</h3> In addition, we found significant delays within the FBI and the Department in processing requests for Section 215 orders. <b>We also determined through our interviews that FBI field offices do not fully understand Section 215 orders or the process for obtaining them. </b>

3. CONCLUSION

In sum, our review of national security letters revealed that, in various ways, the FBI violated the national security letter statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or FBI internal policies governing their use. While we did not find that the violations were deliberate, we believe the misuses were widespread and serious.....

The ACLU, last septemeber, opined that the Patriot Act "reform", provided some relief from the unchecked potential of Section 215 to violate the rights of Americans:

Quote:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot...s20061027.html
Home : Safe and Free : USA PATRIOT Act
Citing Improvements to Law, ACLU Withdraws Section 215 Case But Vows to Fight Individual Orders (10/27/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

DETROIT -- Citing improvements to the law, the American Civil Liberties Union today withdrew a three-year-old lawsuit over Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but said it is prepared to defend individuals who receive demands for information under the provision.

Under the original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in October 2001 with virtually no debate, Section 215 radically expanded the FBI’s power to demand records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States without any judicial oversight. After the ACLU filed its lawsuit and launched a nationwide campaign to reform the Patriot Act and restore checks and balances, Congress revised the law earlier this year to allow people who receive a demand for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demand in court.

“While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration’s most reckless policies,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. “The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis.”

The new Section 215 provision still presents serious constitutional problems. It gags recipients automatically and authorizes broad demands for information, which the ACLU said is a violation of individuals’ free speech rights. Although recipients may now challenge the gag orders, such challenges would be difficult because judges must defer to the FBI’s view that secrecy is necessary. The ACLU said it is prepared to offer legal assistance to businesses, organizations or individuals that receive Section 215 orders.

Before the ACLU filed the lawsuit, then Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to confirm whether or not the FBI had used Section 215 to demand personal records. Later the Attorney General admitted to using the provision, and last year the Justice Department revealed that it had issued 35 Section 215 orders. By comparison, the Washington Post reported in November 2005 that the FBI issues more than 30,000 demands a year for records under another provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes national security letters.

The ACLU is continuing its challenge to the national security letter provision in another case, Doe v. Gonzales, in the Southern District of New York. Before recent amendments to the law, the court had ruled that the gag provision of the national security letter statute violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment, noting that “democracy abhors undue secrecy.” In 2005, the ACLU also successfully challenged a gag order on a national security letter issued to Connecticut librarians for patron records. The FBI withdrew that national security letter altogether in June 2006.

The national ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed the Section 215 case in Detroit in July 2003 on behalf of advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and clients believed they were the targets of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion or political associations. On October 2, 2006, Judge Denise Page Hood rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case, noting that Section 215 had harmed the First Amendment rights of the plaintiff organizations. However, Judge Hood said she based her ruling on the original version of the law and did not consider the complaint in the context of the current, reauthorized version of the Patriot Act.

The case is Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft and was filed on behalf of the Muslim Community Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Bridge Refugee and Sponsorship Services, Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber.

For more information on the ACLU’s ongoing challenge to the Patriot Act’s national security letter provision, go to www.aclu.org/nsl.

powerclown · 07-07-2007, 11:12 AM

Why shoot the messengers? These are political positions shared by many like-minded individuals. Wouldn't it be more substantive to critique the ideas they message - the other side of the coin, as it were? Can it be proved empirically and objectively that the Patriot Act is an unconstitutionally illegal encroachment on civil liberties, for example? Might there be any chance that overzealous criticism of FISA falls under what Judge Mills recently referred to as a "subjective fear of surveillance."

Patriot & You
Enough with the anti-Ashcroft hysteria. We need the Patriot Act.
October 04, 2004, 12:53 p.m.
by DEROY MURDOCK

"We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," John Kerry told Iowa voters last December 1. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

Characteristically, Kerry now denounces the Patriot Act, although he voted for it. At least as late as August 6, 2003, Kerry bragged about that decision. He told New Hampshire voters, "Most of [the Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th."

Unlike the Tumbleweed-in-Chief, members of the new Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law unswervingly promote the Patriot Act as a shield against Islamo-fascists eager to slaughter more Americans in massive numbers. The Coalition urged Congressional leaders September 23 to renew the Patriot Act next year.

"We write to express our strong support for the USA Patriot Act and concern about misinformation about the necessary legal tools it provides to battle al Qaeda and other terrorist enemies," states a letter signed by former Gotham mayors Rudy Giuliani and Ed Koch, ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, actor Ron Silver, and 66 other leading Americans.

They quote Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards (D., N. C.), who also voted for the Patriot Act and said, "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing."

By boosting penalties for terrorism, dragging analog-era surveillance laws into the digital age, and tearing down the wall that kept American spies from comparing notes with cops, the Patriot Act has helped thwart numerous terrorist conspiracies, among them:

FBI efforts to nail the Lackawanna Six al Qaeda cell began in summer 2001. Separate teams probed their suspected drug and terrorist violations. According to the Justice Department's "July Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work," "there were times when the intelligence officers and the law enforcement agents concluded that they could not be in the same room during briefings to discuss their respective investigations with each other." Under the Patriot Act, these officials began exchanging data, pooled their energies, and jailed all six upstate New York terrorists for seven to ten years for pro-al Qaeda subterfuge.

In the Portland Seven case, the Patriot Act let the FBI follow one terrorist's plans to attack domestic Jewish targets while other conspirators tried to reach Afghanistan to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American GIs. The FBI and prosecutors jointly imprisoned six of the Seven for three to 18 years. As the DOJ dryly adds: "Charges against the seventh defendant were dismissed after he was killed in Pakistan by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003."

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad Eight were indicted for materially supporting foreign terrorists. Before that, Patriot Act Section 219 let the supervising federal judge quickly issue a search warrant in another jurisdiction, rather than consume precious time by involving an additional, local jurist.

The Virginia Jihad Nine have been jailed for four years to life for training in Pakistani and Afghan terror camps between 1999 and 2001 and for paramilitary jihad instruction in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Patriot Act information-sharing language helped incarcerate these members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center.

Patriot Act Section 371 is helping the feds seize $659,000 that Alaa Al-Sadawi, a terrorist-linked New Jersey mullah, tried to smuggle to Egypt through his elderly parents. Customs agents found this cash in a Quaker Oats carton, a Ritz Crackers box, and two baby-wipes packages, all stashed in the imam's father's luggage.

As Dick Morris recalled in the September 12 New York Post, under the Patriot Act, federal intelligence agents in March 2003 gave information to the NYPD gleaned from interrogations of al Qaeda honcho Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). This prompted New York's Finest to guard the Brooklyn Bridge and arrest Iyman Faris before he could blast it into the East River.

Similar intelligence sharing helped the NYPD unravel an al Qaeda plot to use a law-abiding Manhattan garment company to ship bombs and Stinger missiles into New York. Details massaged out of KSM foiled Islamist designs to fire these Stingers at jetliners departing Newark Airport.

Despite its caricature as an anti-Islamic nightstick, the Patriot Act helped save a mosque. Jared Bjarnason allegedly e-mailed the El Paso Islamic Center April 18 and threatened to torch it if hostages were not freed in Iraq. Patriot Act Section 212 let the FBI locate Bjarnason through his Internet service provider and cuff him before he could set the mosque ablaze.

Thanks to such post-Patriot Act cooperation among the CIA, FBI, police, and prosecutors, "more than 3,000 terrorists have been rolled up worldwide, including two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership," investigative journalist Ronald Kessler estimated in USA Today April 21.

Still, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies see the Patriot Act as the birth certificate of an American police state.

Speaking September 9 at a homeland-security seminar in Colorado Springs, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Rosenzweig dismissed worries about, for instance, Patriot Act provisions on "delayed notification search warrants."

"They can come into your house, and you'll never know about it," Rosenzweig said in mock horror. "Imagine if you had to tell John Gotti that you bugged his house. 'Speak clearly into the chandelier, John.'"

As for alleged civil-liberties violations, the Justice Department's inspector general found only 17 Patriot Act-related complaints through December 2003 that merited investigation and substantial review. That is a rather low error rate given millions of contacts over two years between Justice employees and average citizens.

Quintennially reauthorizing the Patriot Act would help Congress guard against potential abuses. Journalists also would howl if overzealous feds ever began examining library reading lists without search warrants. That said, wouldn't it have been nice had FBI agents on, say, September 1, 2001 learned that Mohamed Atta had borrowed books on Boeing 767 flight techniques and high-rise fire-fighting challenges?

While Americans ponder legal niceties, those who want YOU dead likely weigh the relative merits of explosives versus poisons. Remember the enemy against whom the Patriot Act is deployed. Osama bin Laden's 1998 declaration of war against the U.S. is icily clear: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

The Patriot Act stands between that and you.

In Defense of the Patriot Act
By Orrin Hatch
USA Today | May 14, 2003

The tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 — and the killing of more than 3,000 Americans — are forever etched in our nation's memory. Soon after this tragic attack, Congress in bipartisan fashion enacted the Patriot Act, a long-overdue set of measures that provided law enforcement and intelligence agencies with basic tools needed to fight and win the war against terrorism.

In 1996, I proposed many of these same measures in an anti-terrorism bill. Had these measures been in place prior to 9/11, law enforcement agencies may well have been able to catch some or all of the terrorists.

The Patriot Act has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans. I would be the first to call for corrective action, were that the case. Yet not one of the civil liberties groups has cited one instance of abuse of our constitutional rights, one decision by any court that any part of the Patriot Act was unconstitutional or one shred of evidence to contradict the fact that these tools protect what is perhaps our most important civil liberty: the freedom from future terrorist attacks.

Several important provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to sunset, or expire, on Dec. 31, 2005. When the bill originally was passed by the Senate, I opposed the sunset, along with 95 other senators.

Given the importance of the Patriot Act tools to our nation's war against terrorism, why would we simply sunset these provisions when we know full well that the terrorists will not sunset their evil intentions? There is no logical reason for our nation to lay down some of its most effective arms while fighting this war.

Last Thursday, the Senate added another important anti-terrorism provision to the arsenal of weapons to combat terrorism. The Senate fixed a gap in the original 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize the gathering of intelligence information relating to "lone-wolf" terrorists — who cannot be linked to an international organization or state. This bipartisan proposal will enhance the ability of the FBI and intelligence agencies to investigate terrorists and detect their plots to prevent devastating attacks on our country. Lawmakers were right to fix this glaring problem.

Congress has had a full opportunity to weigh and assess the benefits of the Patriot Act, and that will continue whether or not there is a sunset. Some have claimed that the sunset is needed to ensure proper oversight. That is silly. Congress can always exercise oversight and change or repeal any law if warranted.

The bottom line is clear: We should not undermine or limit our law enforcement and intelligence agencies' efforts by imposing requirements that go above and beyond those required by the Constitution. That would only have the effect of protecting terrorists and criminals while endangering the lives of innocent Americans.

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 11:15 AM

The information was and continues to be highly suspect. We are showing that the author has zero credibility, and the author provides no proof for his claims. The story is without credibility. This isn't an ad hominem, it's an ad article.

host · 07-07-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Why shoot the messengers? These are political positions shared by many like-minded individuals. Wouldn't it be more substantive to critique the ideas they message - the other side of the coin, as it were? Can it be proved empirically and objectively that the Patriot Act is an unconstitutionally illegal encroachment on civil liberties, for example? Might there be any chance that overzealous criticism of FISA falls under what Judge Mills recently referred to as a "subjective fear of surveillance."

powerclown, I provided the DOJ IG's March 2007 report to prove that Goldberg's 2003 opinion was irrelevant. is it just coincidence that you haven't posted anything from a court filing....which is asserted as true and reliable by sworn affadavit or by the act of filing by an "officer of the court", i.e. an attorney admitted to the bar, and in good standing.....or from a finding by the DOJ inspector general, and that you've posted nothing to rebut the findings of official abuse of our rights and the lax regulations permitted under the Patriot Acts?

Post something that challenges what was confirmed by Bush's January 2006 admissions concerning his admitted authorizations to disregard FISA procedures and provisions, even though, twice in October 2001, he told us that the laws had been modernized to his satisfaction....and DOJ IG Glen Fine's March, 2007 report, <h3>instead of what you've been doing in you two recent posts here...posting now irrelevant opinions no newer than from 2004, of other conservatives.</h3>

powerclown · 07-07-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We are showing that the author has zero credibility, and the author provides no proof for his claims. The story is without credibility.

Who has the final authority on the matter? Because willravel and host say that Jonah Goldberg has no credibility means that his politics and the people who identify with them are irrelevant? What ever happened to the liberal memes of freedom of thought, open-mindedness, tolerance and empathy? They're ringing a bit hollow lately if you ask me. It's a subjective judgement call, a partisan political opinion, not facts. And lets not confuse quantity with quality.

edit: So everyone not abiding by hosts political doctrine is irrelevant. Into the disintegration machines with them. I can imagine to myself what hosts America would look like. Thoughts of inverted peace symbols, moldy peony incense, armadas of "che gueverra" tshirt factories, and goosestepping, overweight neohippies with the munchies peeing all over themselves. I do not want hosts America.

Willravel · 07-07-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Who has the final authority on the matter? Because willravel and host say that Jonah Goldberg has no credibility means that his politics and the people who identify with them are irrelevant? What ever happened to the liberal memes of freedom of thought, open-mindedness, tolerance and empathy? They're ringing a bit hollow lately if you ask me. It's a subjective judgement call, a partisan political opinion, not facts. And lets not confuse quantity with quality.

You were the one that linked articles back to 2003 and 2004. It's 2007. We have new information. Where can you find that information? In this case, it's all over this thread, a great volume of which is in the posts by host. You may not like the fact that someone you disagree with is right, but that hardly means we're not being open minded. We're disagreeing with you, and there's evidence to back up our side that was actually made after 2003 and 2004. I'm sorry if you don't understand liberalsim. I can explain it in another thread.

I don't think people understand this. You need to actually read host's posts. Read them. Just do it. Because if you don't, you're just going in circles. Host made it clear above that your 3 and 4 year old articles are not relevant today, and told you where you can get new information. You ignored it and pretended it was an ad hominem, then went off on some useless and meaningless attack:

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

edit: So everyone not abiding by hosts political doctrine is irrelevant. Into the disintegration machines with them. I can imagine to myself what hosts America would look like. Thoughts of inverted peace symbols, moldy peony incense, armadas of "che gueverra" tshirt factories, and goosestepping, overweight neohippies with the munchies peeing all over themselves. I do not want hosts America.

Oy vey. This is what's called a personal attack. I remember them from the Ustwo days. I would ask that you practice some restraint with attacking your fellow members, especially when it's clear you have no idea what Host would make of the world if he were god for a day. I could take a stab at it, but the only person who could really answer that question would be host.

Edit: I suppose the flip side would be those who support the administration. They would support wiretapping, bypassing the law and that's completely unchecked. They would support the attacking of those who did not follow the administration, be the attacks subtle or gross. They would support endless wars intended to create opportunities for corporations who have highly placed political allies to make billions of dollars, funded by our taxes. They would support the centralization of all government and military power into the office of the president/despot. They would watch without a care in the world as our civil liberties melted away. Honestly, I'd be frightened of a world that those who support the current administration would dream of.

That's what concerns a liberal such as myself. What kind of world do you want to leave your children? A world without war or poverty or famine? A world where they can speak out against the selfish or the greedy in power, where they can publish articles challenging power, where one can freely practice religion and cannot be arrested and held without due process?

host · 07-07-2007, 01:19 PM

powerclown, it is not as if I've only posted all of the following as a factual record that illustrates all of "the news reporting and documented (on the whitehouse.gov web site....) record" <h3>that Jonah Goldberg has had to minimize or entirely ignore in order to maintain his gushing</b> (as in unprofessional behavior and attitude on the part of one who is presented as a "journalist") Praise of Cheney. and the fact that I pointed this out:

"powerclown did not display the date that the JOnah Goldberg oped was written:"

Quote:

http://www.newsandopinion.com/cols/jonah091903.asp
Jewish World Review Sept. 19, 2003 / 22 Elul, 5763

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=34
....The <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120447"> Official Declaration of War Against Bush - Cheney and their Republican Supporters</a> began with:

<h3>Here's the "editor at large", of one of your most prominent publications:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT <h2>June 27, 2007</h2>

Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff

....Jonah, welcome.

<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. <h2>Why are you defending Cheney?

GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney.</h2> I think that he‘s, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there‘s a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don‘t want politicians to go by the polls, who don‘t put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.

And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn‘t bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and <h3> I think it‘s a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn‘t care.</h3> There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn‘t. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.

But he‘s a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I‘m not sure that‘s the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there‘s something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....

........CARLSON: That‘s right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn‘t look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don‘t know what they‘re talking about or they‘re lying. People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic, I agree completely.

GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?

CARLSON: I am bothered though—that‘s right, that‘s exactly right.

GOLDBERG: I mean, he‘s sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.

CARLSON: But I‘m bothered by Cheney ‘s—but does—Cheney‘s secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it‘s rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven‘t seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don‘t we?

GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.

CARLSON: Right.

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he‘s trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

I think it‘s got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can‘t really get everything that he wants that way.

CARLSON: I think you‘re absolutely right.

Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney‘s name comes up, you‘re apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. <h3>What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?

GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn‘t care.</h3> You know, there‘s nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn‘t hate, it‘s indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn‘t care what they think about him.

CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn‘t, he doesn‘t—he tells a joke that‘s written into his speech, <h3>he doesn‘t wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.

GOLDBERG: I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he‘s doing it, you know. I mean, it‘s just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink. Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.</h3>

CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I‘m glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you‘re almost alone in this nation of 300 million.

Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.

GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There‘s lots of empty chairs.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.

GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......

.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.

....now....facts to counter Jonah Goldberg and powerclown's assumptions:....

my June 14th post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...01&postcount=4

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation?

The answer to your question has been widely reported, ace...

(scroll down 65 percent from top of page: )

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politic...tin_070221.htm
<h3>
<a name="p6"></a>Fitzgerald: "<b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Cloud</b>" <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Hangs</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">Over</b> Cheney</h3>
<p>Prosecutors and defense attorneys on Tuesday delivered closing arguments in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The <u>CBS Evening News</u> reported prosecutors "told the jury today there is a <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">cloud</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">over</b> the <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">Vice</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">President's</b> role in the case because they say Libby obstructed justice. The defense contends Libby did nothing wrong and the case is about faulty memories." <u>Fox News' Special Report</u> says special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "got the last word saying that the <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">Vice</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">President's</b> office was obsessed with the Wilson trip and used his wife as a weapon against him." And <u>NBC Nightly News</u> reported Fitzgerald "got political too, saying because Libby lied and obstructed justice, 'a <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">cloud</b> still <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">hangs</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">over</b> the <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">Vice</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">President</b>.'"</p>

<p>

The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-libby21feb21,1,3565678.story"><u>Los Angeles Times</u></a> also notes "Fitzgerald argued that Cheney's office was behind many of the prewar claims that Iraq had stockpiles of banned weapons and that it had aggressively sought to silence critics." The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21libby.html?hp"><u>New York Times</u></a> notes that "the prosecutors presented a detailed and businesslike summing up of their case."</p>
<p>

The <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c8e42f0e-c121-11db-bf18-000b5df10621.html"><u>Financial Times</u></a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000122.html"><u>Washington Post</u></a> run similar reports on the closing arguments, while Dana Milbank in his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001435.html"><u>Washington Post</u></a> "Washington Sketch" column is critical of the "cohesion of" defense attorney Ted Wells' "closing arguments. Libby was alternately portrayed as a man who told the truth, a man who inadvertently misspoke, and the victim of conspiracies involving everybody from <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff66ff">President</b> Bush to Tim Russert."</p>

<p>

In a widely-distributed story, the <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-trial,0,7096756.story"><u>AP</u></a> reports deputy prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg pointed to a flow chart showing arrows tracking information from several officials to Libby and on to other sources. With each conversation, it became less likely the CIA operative would just slip Libby's mind." Using a "similar chart," Wells "noted their memory inconsistencies." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070221/a_libby21.art.htm"><u>USA Today</u></a> notes "a tearful" Wells told jurors, "Don't...sacrifice Scooter Libby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or about the Bush administration." The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001858.html"><u>Washington Post</u></a> also runs a generally sympathetic profile of Wells, saying "a portrait emerges of a tough defense attorney who has mastered the balance between easygoing and hard-charging."</p>

<b>....and I posted the following, on April 29th, at this link:</b>

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=48

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. I think he refers to information made public and available prior to the invasion that Sadaam was in violation of UN resolutions, Sadaam used weapons of mass Destruction, Sadaam was supporting terrorist (at least their families), and that if Sadaam had nuclear weapons it would be a direct threat. I think these were the reasons Congress and people in the prior administration thought he was a threat.

Host,

Here is your second item:

First - Rusert states that Cheney stated there was no direct connection between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. Cheney refers to the intellegence released by the Czech saying the report was confirmed. Has there been any evidence disputing the Czech intelligence? How did Cheney lie?

Then Cheney says we want to look into the meeting further. Where is the lie?

What was the point of you posting this information, it doesn't seem to support your position and in-fact contradicts your position by an independent source, Russert.

Should we continue, do you want to start over with your best case, or what?

uhhh....now that I've read this.....I understand......I'm done.....

Quote:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017470.php
April 28, 2007
Scandals and "Scandals"

Eleanor Clift's current column in Newsweek is unremarkable, but I was struck by this line:

With an unpopular war, scandals consuming the White House and a two-party system paralyzed by partisanship, voters are looking for an outsider, somebody who’s not tainted by politics as usual.

That's the liberal line, of course: the White House is consumed by scandals. Certainly Newsweek, along with pretty much every other mainstream news outlet, has done its best to convey this impression. But what, exactly are they talking about? Are there actual scandals, or faux "scandals" that die like a mayfly when the day's news cycle is over?

<h3>The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free. Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed. Only one significant member of the executive branch, Scooter Libby, has been convicted of anything. Whether the jury's verdict was right or wrong, that case was an individual tragedy unrelated to any underlying wrongdoing by Libby or anyone else.</h3>

What other "scandals" are consuming the White House? Eight United States Attorneys, who are political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President, were replaced. So what? Was it a scandal when Bill Clinton replaced all 93? So far, not a single fact--I'm drawing here the subtle distinction between "fact" and "speculation" that so often escapes our liberal pundits--has emerged to render the replacement of those Justice Department employees scandalous in any respect.

Last week's "scandal" was Henry Waxman's rather bizarre hearing on the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch cases. There was indeed a mini-scandal connected with Jessica Lynch. It was a media scandal. The Washington Post rushed into print the story of Lynch's supposed heroics, based on an anonymous report from a "U.S. official." (Note that the Post did not say the "official" was even in the military.) The Army itself never made any claims whatever about Lynch's "heroism," and reportedly tried to warn the Post off the story. But the Post's position is that any leak must be true, as long as it's anonymous.

In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, Michael DeLong, who at the time was the deputy commander of United States Central Command, tells what really happened:

The initial reports from the field regarding Private Lynch stated that she had gone down fighting, had emptied her weapon and that her actions were heroic. Based on these reports, politicians from her home state, West Virginia, wanted the military to award her the Medal of Honor. Their request rose up the ladder until finally it reached me.

But initial combat reports are often wrong. Time must always be taken to thoroughly investigate all claims. In the case of Private Lynch, additional time was needed, since she was suffering from combat shock and loss of memory; facts, therefore, had to be gathered from other sources. The military simply didn’t know at that point whether her actions merited a medal.

This is why, when the request landed on my desk, I told the politicians that we’d need to wait. I made it clear that no one would be awarded anything until all of the evidence was reviewed.

The politicians did not like this. They called repeatedly, through their Congressional liaison, and pressured us to recommend her for the medal, even before all the evidence had been analyzed. I would not relent and we had many heated discussions.

The politicians repeatedly said that a medal would be good for women in the military; I responded that the paramount issue was finding out what had really happened.

So, along with the Washington Post, the villains of the story are politicians from West Virginia. Let's see: every member of West Virginia's Congressional delegation but one is a Democrat, and the Democrats control West Virginia's legislature. So the targets of Waxman's investigation should have been the Washington Post and the Democratic Party, not the military, which never uttered a false word about Lynch.

The Tillman case is only slightly less silly. The commander on the ground made the foolish decision not to tell Tillman's brother Kevin, who was nearby when Pat was killed, that the cause was friendly fire. So the version originally released by those on the ground in Afghanistan was that Pat was killed in an encounter with the enemy. That was stupid. But an investigation was done, and when the matter worked its way up the chain of command, the original decision was reversed, and, only a month or so after Tillman's death, the correct story was released to the public. Far from being a case where senior generals or politicians tried to cover up the circumstances, as was falsely suggested by Kevin Tillman, the exact opposite happened: it was some combination of senior generals and politicians who learned the truth and quickly made it public.

These "scandals" obviously have no legs, but that isn't the point. Waxman has already moved on to a new one, issuing subpoenas to Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet to testify about Saddam's efforts to obtain uranium. And so it goes. Waxman hasn't even gotten to 2005 yet; he can keep this going through the rest of the Bush administration, and his committee is only one of many.

<h3>The purpose of these faux "investigations" of faux "scandals" is to further sully the image of President Bush, and to allow liberal reporters and pundits like Eleanor Clift to write that the White House is "consumed by scandals." The fact that there isn't a genuine scandal in the bunch goes unremarked.</h3>

Just kidding.....ace.....do you read powerline blog ?

I'll run through it in short bursts:

Cheney on Nov. 14, 2001:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011114.html
Interview of the Vice President
by CBS's 60 Minutes II
November 14, 2001

......<b>Gloria Borger: Well, you know that Muhammad Atta the ringleader of the hijackers actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

Vice President Cheney: I know this. In Prague in April of this year as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously that's an interesting piece of information.</b>

Gloria Borger: Sounds like you have your suspicions?

Vice President Cheney: I can't operate on suspicions. The President and the rest of us who are involved in this effort have to make what we think are the right decisions for the United States and the national security arena and that's what we're doing. And it doesn't do a lot of good for us to speculate. We'd rather operate based on facts and make announcements when we've got announcements to make. .........

...and Cheney, answering the same question, less than a month later:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
December 9, 2001

The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press

.......RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

<b>Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out..
</b>
........RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

<b>CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.</b>

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue...........

Quote:

From: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1FG.pdf
....or, here:

Quote:

Transcript of Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney on Meet ...
Sunday, September 8, 2002 GUEST: Vice President DICK CHENEY MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News This is a rush transcript provided for the ...
www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point. We've got...

Quote:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...l-the-message/

With the news on the Pentagon and Douglas Feith's breaking today–("inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies)—I wanted us to see how these manipulations were put into play on Meet the Press, the show that the OVP thought was the perfect place to "control the message."

From Hardball 11/08/05. Remember when Dick Cheney said it was pretty well confirmed before he didn’t?

video_wmv Download (4636) | Play (4046) video_wmv Download (2231) | Play (2347)

In ‘01, Cheney said this on MTP:

CHENEY: It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.

<b>on 6/19/04 CNBC, he said:</b>

GLORIA BORGER, TV SHOW HOST: You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

CHENEY: No, I never said that. BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: I never said that. BORGER: I think that is…

CHENEY: Absolutely not. (Cheney continues, here:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...202_flash3.htm
......What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.

BORGER: That it happened.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: But you haven't found the evidence that it happened either, have you?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don't know.

BORGER: So does this put it to rest for you or not on Atta?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: It doesn't add anything from my perspective. I mean, I still am a skeptic. I can't refute the Czech plan. I can't prove the Czech plan. It's ...(unintelligible) the nature of the intelligence (unintelligible).

BORGER: OK, but let's...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: But that is a separate question from what the press has gotten all in a dither about, The New York Times especially, on this other question. What they've done is, I think, distorted what the commission actually reported, certainly according to Governor Thompson, who's a member of the commission.

BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.

BORGER: Yes.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Yeah.

BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably.

BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I don't have any--I don't know what they know. I do know they didn't talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.

BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: So they do have good sources.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true. I'm going to read this material here. Your show isn't long enough for me to read all the pieces...

BORGER: Sure it is.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: ...but in the fall of '95 and again in the summer of '96, bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence service representatives at his farm in Sudan. Bin Laden asked for terror training from Iraq. The Iraqi intelligence service responded. It deployed a bomb-making expert, a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence.

BORGER: OK, but now just let me stop you there, because what this report says is that he was not given the support that he had asked for from Iraq, that he had requested all of these things but, in fact, did not get them.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: He got this. We know for a fact. This is from George Tenet's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee February 12th, 2003, etc. I mean, it's there. It's ...(unintelligible).

BORGER: So is the commission credible as far as you're concerned?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I haven't read their entire report on everything. I think they're doing good work. I think it's a very tough job they've been doing and I don't mean to be overly critical of them. I think this is not an area they looked at. According to Governor Thompson again, they didn't spend a lot of time on the question of Iraq and al-Qaida except for the 9/11 proposition.

That's what they're asked to look at. They did not spend a lot of time on these other issues. They've got one paragraph in the report that talks about that. And so the notion that you can take one paragraph from the 9-11 Commission and say, `Ah, therefore that says there was never a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.' It's just wrong. It's not true. I'd love to go on on all of this stuff, but the fact of the matter is there clearly was a relationship there. Now...

BORGER: Let me just ask you, bottom line, though, on 9/11...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: On 9/11...

BORGER: ...Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11. The one thing we have is the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohammad Atta had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9th, 2001. That's never been proven. It's never been refuted.

BORGER: OK. And let me ask you one more personal note. The commission also reported today that you gave the order to shoot down those airplanes that were commandeered by the terrorists but that your orders never reached the American pilots. Can you tell us how agonizing that was?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Well, actually it went very fast.......

ace: "ATTA IN PRAGUE" didn't happen:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/
Cheney blames media for blurring Saddam, 9/11
'We have never been able to prove that there was a connection,' VP says
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 11:31 a.m. ET June 18, 2004

WASHINGTON - Blaming what he called "lazy" reporters for blurring the distinction, Vice President Dick Cheney said that while "overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Bush administration never accused Saddam of helping with the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11," he said in the CNBC interview that aired on NBC's "Today" show Friday.

Cheney was echoing comments by President Bush on Thursday, and they followed a report by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi leader and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

Cheney, however, insisted the case was not closed into whether there was an Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't know."

The vice president noted a disputed report about an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence official and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in April 2001. "We've never been able to confirm or to knock it down," Cheney said.

<h3>The 9/11 commission, however, said in one of three reports issued this week that "based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."</h3>

Cheney responded that, for his part, the findings remained inconclusive. "It doesn't add anything from my perspective. I mean, I still am a skeptic."

Firm stance
Overall, the vice president defended the administration's view of Iraq's links to al-Qaida, saying the "the evidence is overwhelming" and citing the commission report's evidence of a meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi official in 1994 in Sudan, <h3>as well as the presence of terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14824384/site/newsweek/
Atta in Prague
The story that the ‘intelligence community’ doesn’t want you to hear.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 7:48 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2006

Sept. 13, 2006 - The claim that terrorist leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi spy a few months before 9/11 was never substantiated, but that didn’t stop the White House from trying to insert the allegation in presidential speeches, according to classified documents.......

.......According to two sources familiar with the blacked-out portions of the Senate report that discuss the CIA cable's contents, the document indicates that White House officials had proposed mentioning the supposed Atta-Prague meeting in a Bush speech scheduled for March 14, 2003. Originated by Czech intelligence shortly after 9/11, the tendentious claim was that in April 2001, Atta, the 9/11 hijack leader, had met in Prague with the local station chief for Iraqi intelligence. The sources said that upon learning of the proposed White House speech, the CIA station in Prague sent back a cable explaining in detail why the agency believed the anecdote was ill-founded.

According to one of the sources familiar with the Senate report's censored portions, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject, the tone of the CIA cable was “strident” and expressed dismay that the White House was trying to shoehorn the Atta anecdote into the Bush speech to be delivered only days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The source said the cable also suggested that policymakers had tried to insert the same anecdote into other speeches by top administration officials..........

Quote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html

World>Terrorism & Security
posted November 21, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.

Germany: CIA knew 'Curveball' was not trustworthy
German intelligence alleges Bush administration repeatedly 'exaggerated' informant's claims in run-up to war.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named 'Curveball' was giving about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Los Angeles Times, in a massive report published Sunday, reports that "the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq." They also say that 'Curveball,' whom the Germans described as "not a psychologically stable guy," never claimed that he had produced germ weapons, nor had he ever seen anyone do it.

The Independent reports that proof of Curveball's lack of credibility came when the US sent its own team of inspectors to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They discovered the informants's personnel files in Baghdad.

It showed he had been a low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or site manager, as the CIA had insisted. Moreover he had been dismissed in 1995 – just when he claimed to have begun work on bio-warfare trucks.

The Independent also provides what it calls its list of "intelligence red herrings." There was Curveball himself. There was Ahmed Chalabi, who brought to US attention defectors that "proved to be false, as was his claim that US invaders would be met with bouquets." There was the Niger-Iraq uranium story, which later turned out to have been fabricated by a former Italian spy. And there was Iraq's possession of aluminum tubes, which the administration said were for nuclear weapons, yet turned out to be for small conventional military rockets.........

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

http://groups.google.com.tw/group/al...9995877e60e9d?
........According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

The Times report also says that the White House ignored evidence presented by the United Nations that showed that Curveball was wrong, and that the CIA " punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and [the CIA] refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion." Much of the information Curveball gave to the CIA later turned out to be stories he had gleaned from research on the Internet.....

Don't misunderstand me, ace. Cheney had plenty of company. Bush spouted this garbage....refuted in the preceding quote box....twice...just days apart, around the time of Powell's phoney presentation at the UN:

Quote:

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"
President Bush Thursday said, "The Security Council can affirm that it is ... has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html

The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council resolutions are evident, and they continue to this hour. The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary; the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materiels, and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council 1441.

This deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, the Vice President, and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors. In intercepted conversations, we have heard orders to conceal materiels from the U.N. inspectors. And we have seen through satellite images concealment activity at close to 30 sites, including movement of equipment before inspectors arrive.

The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand <b>witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents</b>, equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery. Using these factories, Iraq could produce within just months hundreds of pounds of biological poisons....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
President's Radio Address
Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

.....The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly, biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists. This effort of deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, Iraq's vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors.

The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has <b>at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.</b>

The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. It has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons.....

They did it over and over....ace....putting out their fearful message....attributing it to others....pulled it back.....put it out, again...and now, we know that they knew when they were doing it, that it was unreliable....that there was no consensus in the US intelligence community or in the intelligence community of NATO allies....but they "put it out", ace....because, as Tenet tells us, this week, they never considered anything but war as the "solution" in Iraq. They had to "fix the facts" around the "policy".

How can you tell that they were lying to us then, and now....because all Bush and Cheney had was "Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague", and "Zarqawi was in Baghdad and ran a "poison camp" in Iraq"....and Cheney still justifies the invasion of Iraq, this month, and Bush did as recently as last September, with the worn out mantra that "Zarqawi was present", even though he had no relationship with Saddam or his government, and was located at a "poison camp" in an area of Northern Iraq that US military and it's Kurdish allies could access....if they wanted to.....but Saddam's military could not......
[quote]

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>August 21, 2006</h3>

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would --who had relations with Zarqawi.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
<b>Sept. 10, 2006</b>

.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday, September 10, 2006

......WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."

But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this — and let's put it up on the screen.

"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" — that's chemical or biological — "knowledge or assistance."

Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?

RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on — and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.

We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq. We know that Zarqawi ordered the killing of an American diplomat in Jordan from Iraq. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more. But clearly ...

WALLACE: But, Secretary Rice, this report, if I may, this report wasn't now. This isn't after the fact. This was a Defense Intelligence Agency report in 2002.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>September 12, 2006</h3>

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
<h3>Sept. 15, 2006</h3>

......MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
<h3>April 5, 2007</h3>

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ....

<b>....consider that I also posted the investigative report of March 22, 2007, by DOJ Inspector General Glen Fine, that contradicts most of what Jonah Goldberg asserted, in his article dated 42 months before Geln Fine's report.</b>

It is not my "politics" that is your REAL objection, powerclown, it is the consequences of where your preference for "information" sourced from filtered conservative talking points ends up leading you to, when the your resulting POV is displayed competitively alongside the POV of "the rest of us".

You would not receive, without protest, assertions by willravel and I, for example, that the three major WTC towers collapsed as a reult of any means other than the crashes of airliners into two of those towers, <h3>if we justified our opinions on support as questionable as the support you've offered here to qualify your opinions</h3> in defense of Bush and Cheney on matters related to Libby's guilt and sentence, and accusations that Bush broke the laws protecting us against illegal surveillance, searches, or intelligence gathering.....

You accused me, in the post I linked in my reply to roachboy, in a recent post on this thread, of <b>"posting "guerilla oped pieces" 99 percent of the time"</b>...but it is more accurate to say that I post more links to whitehouse.gov and doj.gov pages, than every other poster here, combined, to back my arguments..... Your "stuff" is almost always contradicted by "stuff" that has not been spun through conservative filters.....

View Poll Results: Did Bush admit to committing an impeachable offense, as John Dean described?
No	5	22.73%
Yes	17	77.27%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

07-06-2007, 09:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Yes he did. Should he be impeached? Absolutely, however, after Clinton and the atmosphere of politics today, it would be suicide for the Democratic party. Bush has enough supporters that would continue the hate politics, and I fear many Americans while they dislike Bush and feel he has been a lousy president, would in fact, start supporting him, which sounds absurd, but for some reason we are that way. No, what we need to do to Bush and especially Cheney is go in collect everything that can be considered evidence and then wait till he is out of office and try them for treasonous actions, violation of the people's trust, grievous misconduct and whatever else you can find. The people may be more open to this, especially if you have enough evidence. But to go after him now? Is suicide. If tried and found guilty when out of office, I believe we need should send them all to Guantanamo and show them what their non torture is truly like. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-06-2007, 11:03 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	horseshit, ace. if you do even the slightest bit of research on this program--and i mean ANY research--you will find a number of problems that, like it or not, are real: to wit 1. it really is not within any accepted definition of executive power that a president (well, vice-president) can decide that a law he does not like can be ignored. congress did not repeal the church act and it is therefore binding. that this administration does not like the law does not mean it is not bound by it. the administration is not sovereign, it is not the Source of Law which cannot be Bound by Law because it is the Source--so cheney's carl schmitt fantasies reach their limit (look up carl schmitt sometime) 2. given that the law has not been repealed and is therefore binding, all acts which have been authorized by way of signing orders and the like are violations. the are all actionable. but if there were such legal cases that went to trial, the outcome would not be given in advance simply because there is a raison d'etat argument that the administration DOES have available to it which has as its base teh actions of a grovelling republican-controlled congress. so while it is not obvious how such a process would go, it IS nonetheless clear that what is happening in this situation is real--and not simply "political grandstanding"--by which i take it you mean "initiated by parties which are not republican" as a synonym for "without merit" simply because if a is true then b is as well and even saying the two statements one after the other is almost a tautology. or so it appears from your posts, ace: hell, i dont even know why you bother to type them. they seem implied--you could just post an empty box and everyone could fill in the phrase "x is political grandstanding" if the situation involves parties who are not the bush administration and "y was entirely justified" if the situation involves the bush administration. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-06-2007, 12:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: raison d'etat would cover claims of over-riding "security" interests. what i mean is straightforward: i think the administration is in significant legal trouble because they chose to ignore fisa. i think their central claim regarding the law itself is worthless. but i think they could have a defensible position of "national security" on the basis of the first patriot act--if they pursued the warantless wiretaps after the 2nd, however, they are fucked. this assuming that a case went to court and received treatment that you or i might get and not the treatment meted out by far right judges who owe their jobs to the administration. at any rate, that's all hypothetical. so maybe there are fewer than the 3,000 violations cited in the critique of the bush administration i quoted earlier. as for your absurd charge that "the left"--what the fuck is that?--takes no stand on principle and only "hates bush"--that, sir, was even less worth the time it took to type than most other elements. you want the principles? the bush administration has used the general hysteria that followed 9/11/2001 for its own political purposes since the afternoon of that day. i oppose everything they have done. all of it. "principle" style statements: there is no terrorism. there is no war on "terrorism". there is no "nation" there is no democracy in america to be exported. what there is is an administration with a dangerously authoritarian outlook presiding over a socio-economic order that is rapidly sliding into decadance, irrelevance, collapse. nothing the bush people have done offers even the beginnings of a coherent assessment of the situation, not to mention a coherent response to that situation. so there is no place within the discourse were are collectively hobbled with that allows for anything like a "stand on principle." the stand on principle is the refusal to accept this limited and limiting state of affairs. so from my viewpoint, ace, your "principled positions" are nothing of the sort. this is one of the reasons i do not interact with you in general . i think that a wise position, and i am returning to it now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-06-2007, 04:50 PM	#21 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	.pdf of the ruling here. Last edited by powerclown; 07-07-2007 at 01:10 PM..

07-06-2007, 09:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	In some unbiased, empirical universe, I have no doubt that Bush would be impeached and removed from office. His administration has committed some egregious errors against the people of the United States and against the Constitution, any of which would, in my opinion, be sufficient grounds for those to go forward. However, I think going down that road at the current time is a pretty useless course of action. Regardless of who is at fault, this country has a lot of problems that we need to deal with internally and externally. With the next election coming up, it would be very easy to cast prolonged impeachment proceedings as a partisan waste of time when there are more important things on the line. Frankly, I agree. Bush is a lame duck and is going to act accordingly. Nothing is really gained from going through all of that except for a possible feeling of vindication. Show how bad he was by doing things right and by using the time to solve problems that make a difference instead of punishing a 5 year old who mistakenly got elected (twice).

07-06-2007, 09:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I was hoping the Iraq and/or upcoming Iran war would be the impeachable offense(s), but I'll settle on the illegal bypassing of the FISA court to lead to impeachment. Anyone who understands the formation of the FISA court understands that the President was never intended to have the power to bypass it. Remember that Watergate resulted in the Church Act, which led to FISA. Go back to Texas, Bush.

07-06-2007, 10:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kpax Crazy Location: Washington	Well, the President even has the right to order someone killed, such as they have been trying with Castro (not all of that story is a myth). You know, Arafat didn't die of a "liver disease." That was either us or Israel, or collaboration. That's crazy because I wonder if there's anyone he DOESN'T have the right to order killed, where the line is drawn. You? Me? It's scary... So I can't imagine how we could impeach the president for cutting corners around FISA. All we're talking about is privacy.

07-06-2007, 10:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Capone was brought in for federal income taxes. You take what you can get.

07-06-2007, 11:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I could be a victim and not ever know it simply because of my opposition to the president. I have a funny feeling host and others could be, too. So how do you suggest we come forward and say we've been spied on when we don't know? The list should be made public, then impeachment will be certain.

07-06-2007, 04:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Wasn't questioning the Bush Administration for ignoring Richard Clarke's warnings of increased terrorist "chatter" one of the strongest criticisms of the government after 9/11 occurred? Did congress reassert the viability of the Patriot Act for political reasons or legitimate security concerns? Clarke says Patriot Act Preserves Civil Liberties 'I can't find anything wrong with it [the Patriot Act], and if I'd had it prior to 9/11, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to stop 9/11.' By Alvin Powell Harvard News Office People who care about civil liberties in the United States should embrace rather than fight the USA Patriot Act, former Bush administration anti-terrorism coordinator Robert Clarke told a standing-room-only audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government April 21. Though the Patriot Act has been assailed as an attack on civil liberties, Clarke said the act provides law enforcement tools that could prevent another major terrorist attack. And a second attack is sure to prompt even harsher legislation. "I would argue the thing that you should do today that most protects civil liberties in this country is to help prevent another major terrorist attack, because no matter how many of us send checks to the ACLU, if there's another major terrorist attack in this country ... hold onto that Bill of Rights, because it's going fast," Clarke said. "So be very, very careful about opposing things like the Patriot Act. If you believe in civil liberties, you've got to stop that next big attack." Clarke said he believes if legislation similar to the Patriot Act had been passed before Sept. 11, 2001, it may have helped prevent that day's terrorist attacks. "I can't find anything wrong with it and if I'd had it prior to 9/11 it would have been a hell of a lot easier to stop 9/11," Clarke said. Clarke, an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School and author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," served as a senior White House adviser for four presidents, including a stint as national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism from 1998-2002. Clarke was interviewed during Wednesday's event by Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Director Graham Allison in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. The recent publication of Clarke's book, coupled with his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, catapulted him into the national limelight in recent weeks. His assertion that fighting al Qaeda was not an urgent priority for the Bush administration in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, won Clarke praise from administration opponents and made Clarke a target of criticism for administration supporters. In answering questions from Allison and from the audience, Clarke covered many aspects of the United States' war on terror. Clarke repeated his criticism of Bush administration tactics, saying that the invasion of Iraq played right into al Qaeda's hands. Not only did it fulfill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin's predictions that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-producing Arabic country, Clarke said, it is also draining resources that could be used more fruitfully in the fight against terrorism. Clarke repeated his insistence that Iraq, though run by an oppressive regime, posed no immediate threat to the United States, either through support for terrorism or through its possession of weapons of mass destruction. Clarke said the war on terror is actually a civil war within Islam between the extreme version preached by Osama bin Ladin and more moderate elements. So far, the U.S. is losing the battle for ideas in the Islamic world. Al Qaeda is more sophisticated than we've given it credit for, Clarke said, and is far better received among its Islamic target audience than the United States. To ultimately win the war on terror, Clarke said the United States has to somehow begin winning over the millions of Muslims who, though not actively fighting, are supporting radical causes monetarily and through other kinds of support. The U.S. took a step away from that goal by restricting visas for students from some foreign nations who want to study here. Part of the problem, Clarke said, is that the United States, while talking about democracy, has supported oppressive Arabic regimes. The downside of encouraging democracy in Islamic countries, he said, is that we may not like the outcome of their democratic elections. Resolution of the Palestinian issue is essential, but not enough on its own to give the United States a favorable image among Muslims. When asked about his own apology to the nation for failing to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks during testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11 commission, Clarke said victims of such tragedies need psychological support as well as physical support from their government. Clarke said apologies should only be given if they're genuine, so President Bush shouldn't give one if he doesn't think he did anything wrong in the days before the 9/11 attack. "It's quite clear the president and others feel they have nothing to apologize for and so they shouldn't," Clarke said. As far as security today, Clarke said though many attacks have been stopped, there have also been many more attacks by al Qaeda worldwide since Sept. 11 than there were before. In the United States, he said, airlines are undoubtedly safer, but the nation hasn't spent the money needed to make trains, container ships, and other potential terrorist targets safer. In response to a question from the audience, Clarke said the recent bombings in Spain indicate that an al Qaeda attack before the U.S. presidential elections in November is possible. He said the bombings could be timed to influence the outcome, but also said a case could be made that either major party candidate would be acceptable from al Qaeda's point of view.

07-06-2007, 04:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	has anyone here read the briefs in this case? I haven't had a chance yet, but I would imagine they are online and accessible. If this is like most hard cases, I would guess there are good arguments on either side on the merits. The standing issue is actually not that hard, and the Sixth Circuit is right on that one, unless standing doctrine has changed radically since I was in law school. And BTW, guys, Judge Taylor's opinion was, as a piece of legal work, an utter piece of shit. I could have written a better opinion coming out that way than she did (but then, I'm a lawyer and can argue just about anything and make it sound good LOL.........) Maybe I'll read some of the briefing and describe it here (as if I don't already have enough to do ..................)

07-06-2007, 06:18 PM	#23 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I don't see a reason for a 4-administration senior anti-terrorism expert to lie, do you?

07-06-2007, 07:56 PM	#25 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	You see no need for a security-surveillance apparatus working in the foreign/domestic service of the United States?

07-07-2007, 07:03 AM	#27 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Because I think it necessary. It need not be draconian, but national-level security is as central to law and order as local neigborhood-level security. The Patriot Act: Separating Hysteria from Fact by Jonah Goldberg Every time self-described civil libertarians pick something to complain about, they end up with egg on their faces. The latest embarrassment is the revelation that the Department of Justice has not invoked the Patriot Act's Section 215 - a section of the act that the ACLU crowd claims has turned the FBI into a library-raiding Gestapo. What, in reality, is Section 215? It's a relatively innocuous provision of the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement to obtain, after getting approval from a judge, documents from third parties - your credit card company, for example - if they're pertinent to a terrorism investigation. Caught up in the Section 215 hysteria they helped create, librarians have gone batty. One even burned her records lest the feds get their hands on the raw data revealing how many 15-year-olds borrowed "The Catcher In the Rye." Senator Russ Feingold even declared that Section 215 has made Americans "afraid to read books, terrified into silence." Well, it turns out that this has all been an exercise in self-indulgent, pompous liberal feel-goodism and false bravado. Not only has the government never used 215, but the section doesn't even mention libraries - or any of the other secular holy sites allegedly imperiled by it. At minimum, critics should stop talking about the Patriot Act's "trampling of rights" in the present tense. And lest they claim that they are being "vigilant" in the face of potential threats, someone should remind them that vigilance is fine, but lying and fear-mongering is crying wolf. The Section 215 bashing is just the latest in an ongoing campaign to make up a problem out of the Patriot Act that does not exist. I'm sure you've heard that the Patriot Act also permits, in the words of Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine, "spying on the Web browsers of people who are not even criminal suspects." Errr, wrong. The Patriot Act actually toughens the standards by which the government can snoop on electronic communications. Before the Patriot Act, there was no settled law on whether the government - or for that matter, some random stalker or Amazon.com - could acquire that kind of information. The Patriot Act made it a crime for the government or anybody else to pry into your e-mail without getting a court order. There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth over the allegedly "widespread" civil rights abuses since Sept. 11. Well, it's a good thing the Patriot Act requires the DOJ's inspector general to investigate civil rights complaints. The last report, issued over the summer, found that there were 34 "credible" allegations of abuse out of 1,037 claims made over a six-month period (note: that's allegations, not convictions). And most of these "credible" but unproven allegations involved such horrors as verbal harassment of prisoners by prison guards. That's not nice and it shouldn't happen, but it's hardly 1930s Germany. The complaints of lost civil rights go on. We hear about prisoners "kept in secret" when they're really not. Rather, the government won't release their names to the media - or to the terrorists who are keen to find out such information. However, the prisoners themselves - through their lawyers or families - are free to release their names. The ACLU says that the feds can secretly enter your home while you're out and rifle through your files, underwear drawer, whatever. Well, that's true, if the cops get a warrant first and notify you later. If that scares you, I'm sorry. But it's hardly something new. And of course, there's the partisanship. John Ashcroft (for whom my wife works) is the most unpopular man in the universe - if you go by what the Ashcroft-phobes say. There's nothing you can say that goes far enough for the hysterical base of the increasingly hysterical Democratic party. Senator John F. Kerry declared at a recent debate that he could see in the audience "people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here." One might ask Kerry, "Have you no shame, Senator?" But it's too late for that. The pertinent question now is: "Have you lost your mind?" Ashcroft's job approval rating with the American people is about the same or higher than every major Democratic figure, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle. The Ashcroft - and Bush - haters need to get out more. Indeed, we're told there's a nationwide groundswell against the supposed "trampling of civil liberties." But two years of Gallup polls show that as many people think the government hasn't gone "far enough" restricting civil liberties in order to fight terrorism as think it's gone "too far." Meanwhile, a solid majority believe - and have believed all along - that the government's gotten it "about right" on civil liberties. This should be sobering to the people who have steadily beaten the drums about this stuff because it shows that most Americans don't take them seriously - and they're right not to.

07-07-2007, 07:14 AM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm sure someone can quickly explain to me why article author Jonah Goldberg, someone with close ties to Bush crony Ashcroft, knows about what parts of the Patriot act are or aren't used.

07-07-2007, 07:31 AM	#29 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Goldberg is a journalist, not Ashcroft's younger brother.

07-07-2007, 07:41 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and from a guy who argued in the la times that what an "iraqi augusto pinochet" would be a good thing. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true so it would follow that for a guy who actually believes stuff on the order of fascism wasnt so bad: at least the trains ran on time--i mean who actually believes that--the patriot act aint so bad. maybe you dont know who pinochet was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet it is baffling to me that in order to make various bush initiatives seem neutral by comparison, folk are willing to post stuff by explicitly conservative authoritarian writers. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2007, 07:56 AM	#32 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Perhaps he read about it on the Internets?

07-07-2007, 11:12 AM	#35 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Why shoot the messengers? These are political positions shared by many like-minded individuals. Wouldn't it be more substantive to critique the ideas they message - the other side of the coin, as it were? Can it be proved empirically and objectively that the Patriot Act is an unconstitutionally illegal encroachment on civil liberties, for example? Might there be any chance that overzealous criticism of FISA falls under what Judge Mills recently referred to as a "subjective fear of surveillance." Patriot & You Enough with the anti-Ashcroft hysteria. We need the Patriot Act. October 04, 2004, 12:53 p.m. by DEROY MURDOCK "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," John Kerry told Iowa voters last December 1. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." Characteristically, Kerry now denounces the Patriot Act, although he voted for it. At least as late as August 6, 2003, Kerry bragged about that decision. He told New Hampshire voters, "Most of [the Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th." Unlike the Tumbleweed-in-Chief, members of the new Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law unswervingly promote the Patriot Act as a shield against Islamo-fascists eager to slaughter more Americans in massive numbers. The Coalition urged Congressional leaders September 23 to renew the Patriot Act next year. "We write to express our strong support for the USA Patriot Act and concern about misinformation about the necessary legal tools it provides to battle al Qaeda and other terrorist enemies," states a letter signed by former Gotham mayors Rudy Giuliani and Ed Koch, ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, actor Ron Silver, and 66 other leading Americans. They quote Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards (D., N. C.), who also voted for the Patriot Act and said, "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." By boosting penalties for terrorism, dragging analog-era surveillance laws into the digital age, and tearing down the wall that kept American spies from comparing notes with cops, the Patriot Act has helped thwart numerous terrorist conspiracies, among them: FBI efforts to nail the Lackawanna Six al Qaeda cell began in summer 2001. Separate teams probed their suspected drug and terrorist violations. According to the Justice Department's "July Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work," "there were times when the intelligence officers and the law enforcement agents concluded that they could not be in the same room during briefings to discuss their respective investigations with each other." Under the Patriot Act, these officials began exchanging data, pooled their energies, and jailed all six upstate New York terrorists for seven to ten years for pro-al Qaeda subterfuge. In the Portland Seven case, the Patriot Act let the FBI follow one terrorist's plans to attack domestic Jewish targets while other conspirators tried to reach Afghanistan to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American GIs. The FBI and prosecutors jointly imprisoned six of the Seven for three to 18 years. As the DOJ dryly adds: "Charges against the seventh defendant were dismissed after he was killed in Pakistan by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003." The Palestinian Islamic Jihad Eight were indicted for materially supporting foreign terrorists. Before that, Patriot Act Section 219 let the supervising federal judge quickly issue a search warrant in another jurisdiction, rather than consume precious time by involving an additional, local jurist. The Virginia Jihad Nine have been jailed for four years to life for training in Pakistani and Afghan terror camps between 1999 and 2001 and for paramilitary jihad instruction in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Patriot Act information-sharing language helped incarcerate these members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center. Patriot Act Section 371 is helping the feds seize $659,000 that Alaa Al-Sadawi, a terrorist-linked New Jersey mullah, tried to smuggle to Egypt through his elderly parents. Customs agents found this cash in a Quaker Oats carton, a Ritz Crackers box, and two baby-wipes packages, all stashed in the imam's father's luggage. As Dick Morris recalled in the September 12 New York Post, under the Patriot Act, federal intelligence agents in March 2003 gave information to the NYPD gleaned from interrogations of al Qaeda honcho Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). This prompted New York's Finest to guard the Brooklyn Bridge and arrest Iyman Faris before he could blast it into the East River. Similar intelligence sharing helped the NYPD unravel an al Qaeda plot to use a law-abiding Manhattan garment company to ship bombs and Stinger missiles into New York. Details massaged out of KSM foiled Islamist designs to fire these Stingers at jetliners departing Newark Airport. Despite its caricature as an anti-Islamic nightstick, the Patriot Act helped save a mosque. Jared Bjarnason allegedly e-mailed the El Paso Islamic Center April 18 and threatened to torch it if hostages were not freed in Iraq. Patriot Act Section 212 let the FBI locate Bjarnason through his Internet service provider and cuff him before he could set the mosque ablaze. Thanks to such post-Patriot Act cooperation among the CIA, FBI, police, and prosecutors, "more than 3,000 terrorists have been rolled up worldwide, including two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership," investigative journalist Ronald Kessler estimated in USA Today April 21. Still, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies see the Patriot Act as the birth certificate of an American police state. Speaking September 9 at a homeland-security seminar in Colorado Springs, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Rosenzweig dismissed worries about, for instance, Patriot Act provisions on "delayed notification search warrants." "They can come into your house, and you'll never know about it," Rosenzweig said in mock horror. "Imagine if you had to tell John Gotti that you bugged his house. 'Speak clearly into the chandelier, John.'" As for alleged civil-liberties violations, the Justice Department's inspector general found only 17 Patriot Act-related complaints through December 2003 that merited investigation and substantial review. That is a rather low error rate given millions of contacts over two years between Justice employees and average citizens. Quintennially reauthorizing the Patriot Act would help Congress guard against potential abuses. Journalists also would howl if overzealous feds ever began examining library reading lists without search warrants. That said, wouldn't it have been nice had FBI agents on, say, September 1, 2001 learned that Mohamed Atta had borrowed books on Boeing 767 flight techniques and high-rise fire-fighting challenges? While Americans ponder legal niceties, those who want YOU dead likely weigh the relative merits of explosives versus poisons. Remember the enemy against whom the Patriot Act is deployed. Osama bin Laden's 1998 declaration of war against the U.S. is icily clear: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." The Patriot Act stands between that and you. In Defense of the Patriot Act By Orrin Hatch USA Today \| May 14, 2003 The tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 — and the killing of more than 3,000 Americans — are forever etched in our nation's memory. Soon after this tragic attack, Congress in bipartisan fashion enacted the Patriot Act, a long-overdue set of measures that provided law enforcement and intelligence agencies with basic tools needed to fight and win the war against terrorism. In 1996, I proposed many of these same measures in an anti-terrorism bill. Had these measures been in place prior to 9/11, law enforcement agencies may well have been able to catch some or all of the terrorists. The Patriot Act has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans. I would be the first to call for corrective action, were that the case. Yet not one of the civil liberties groups has cited one instance of abuse of our constitutional rights, one decision by any court that any part of the Patriot Act was unconstitutional or one shred of evidence to contradict the fact that these tools protect what is perhaps our most important civil liberty: the freedom from future terrorist attacks. Several important provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to sunset, or expire, on Dec. 31, 2005. When the bill originally was passed by the Senate, I opposed the sunset, along with 95 other senators. Given the importance of the Patriot Act tools to our nation's war against terrorism, why would we simply sunset these provisions when we know full well that the terrorists will not sunset their evil intentions? There is no logical reason for our nation to lay down some of its most effective arms while fighting this war. Last Thursday, the Senate added another important anti-terrorism provision to the arsenal of weapons to combat terrorism. The Senate fixed a gap in the original 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize the gathering of intelligence information relating to "lone-wolf" terrorists — who cannot be linked to an international organization or state. This bipartisan proposal will enhance the ability of the FBI and intelligence agencies to investigate terrorists and detect their plots to prevent devastating attacks on our country. Lawmakers were right to fix this glaring problem. Congress has had a full opportunity to weigh and assess the benefits of the Patriot Act, and that will continue whether or not there is a sunset. Some have claimed that the sunset is needed to ensure proper oversight. That is silly. Congress can always exercise oversight and change or repeal any law if warranted. The bottom line is clear: We should not undermine or limit our law enforcement and intelligence agencies' efforts by imposing requirements that go above and beyond those required by the Constitution. That would only have the effect of protecting terrorists and criminals while endangering the lives of innocent Americans.

07-07-2007, 11:15 AM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The information was and continues to be highly suspect. We are showing that the author has zero credibility, and the author provides no proof for his claims. The story is without credibility. This isn't an ad hominem, it's an ad article.