Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 8 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Which is basically the same argument O'Reilly and Limbaugh make every day. Lefties want terrorists to go free. Lefties want terrorists to attack. All in the name of bringing down Bush.

It's all a lie, but it's easier than thinking.

Read this thread poppingjay, there are a number of Chiroptera Luna who think the terrorists should go free.

pig · 12-21-2005, 02:52 PM

Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread. You switched from "hoping" someone would be set free, to "thinking someone should be set free." I have yet to see anyone jump up and down with joy over the idea of terrorists, or questionable terrorists being set free. What I have read supports the position that some posters think that a given US citizen would have to be let free if their 4th Amendment rights were violated, pursuant to the various stipulations.

I can appreciate your position that you don't care if the law was broken, although you don't see that it was or believe it have been, due to the fact that you feel it is the nation's best interest. There are two clear possibilities. 1. Law was broken, and that has consequences. 2. Law was not broken, end of discussion. From what I've seen from reading about the authorization, that's a very broad interpretation to say that Congressional authorization to use necessary force in response to the terrorist threat of 9/11/2001 covers the abrogation of the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, but I suppose we shall see.

I personally am glad this debate occurs, regardless of the outcome. Its the only way for our liberties to remain intact in a de facto sense. I am not worried about this giving away our "playbook" to terrorists, so to speak. The only terrorists / bad guys who would be ensnared by phone conversations are those too stupid to be aware of the prevalent case law regarding wire taps. If these idiots thought about it for a second, they wouldn't discuss it over the phone in the first place.

In short, if the administration or the Congress or the intelligence agencies feel they must break the law to stay one step ahead, then that's a decision they have to make. When they make that decision, they are (to be redundant) breaking the law, and there are consequences to those actions.

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread.

Another typical action from the Republicans. Like when the Democrats voted down 'Murtha's plan' It really pissed me off to hear the talk show hosts flat out lie about that shit.

ratbastid · 12-21-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Another typical action from the Republicans. Like when the Democrats voted down 'Murtha's plan' It really pissed me off to hear the talk show hosts flat out lie about that shit.

Yep, they play dirty. No question about it. Democrats are no angels (politics is politics, no matter which side of the isle you're on), but the current batch of Republicans appear to have very few scruples when it comes to tactics.

It works, in the short term. Their boy is in the white house, and they're the ones stomping around congress. Problem is, that sort of tactic bites you in the ass, over the long term. That's what we're seeing over the last couple months--right-thinking Americans are starting to cut through the politics and call it like they see it.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread. You switched from "hoping" someone would be set free, to "thinking someone should be set free." I have yet to see anyone jump up and down with joy over the idea of terrorists, or questionable terrorists being set free. What I have read supports the position that some posters think that a given US citizen would have to be let free if their 4th Amendment rights were violated, pursuant to the various stipulations.

American Left: We think those terrorists 4th amendment rights were violated. If so they should go free.

J.Q. Public: Pardon?

American Left: Don't you see, Bush is acting like an emperor (Ustwo note, such language was used in this thread) he must be stopped he is voilating the constitution!

J.Q. Public: So you think that the known and proven terrorists should go free?

American Left: Yes of course!

J.Q. Public: Ummm......What should he have done instead?

American Left: Used the Patriot act! Thats why he got it!

J.Q. Public: Arn't the democrats blocking the patriot act?

American Left: Yes because it violates our civil liberties!

J.Q. Public: So without the patriot act what should we do to stop terrorists in this country?

American Left: ..... Don't you get it?! Bush sucks!

J.Q. Public: I see.... (votes republican...again)

American Left: FUCK MIDDLE AMERICA! (again)

Willravel · 12-21-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

American Left: We think those terrorists 4th amendment rights were violated. If so they should go free.
/conversation

A similar argument could be exaggerated in the other direction:

Bush makes arrests based on illegal wire taps
Liberals: Um, what're you doing? Thiose wire taps are clearly illegal. Why don't you just try to stop terrorism using legal means? Why do you think it's necessary to break the law in order to protect those who live under the law?
Conservatives: OMG RUN THERE'S A TERRORIST BEHIND YOU!!!!
Liberals: *turns around*
Conservatives: *runs away*

shakran · 12-21-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

It's called a free pass for stonewalling long enough. If you REALLY want to poke a gigantic hole in liberal logic, consider that anything Clinton did should be forgotten, but tax money should be given to any descendant of an American slave.

I think his quotes above were what he was referring to as "destroying my arguments," or some such nonsense, but I lost interest in talking to him because of the above.

Because I refuse to believe that you are an utter moron I'm going to call you out on this one. I am not saying that bad things done by Clinton do not matter. I am saying they have no bearing on whether or not today's president should be allowed to flaunt the law at will. "Well he did it too" is not a valid reason for letting Bush get away with something.

Now, as I said, I don't think you're a vacuous idiot. I think you know and understand what I just wrote. But, in the tradition of obfuscation and misdirection that your party has become so good at, you are attempting to make it look like I said something that I did not say.

Unfortunatly for you, the rest of the people here on TFP are also not terminally stupid, so they're not going to fall for it.

Oh, and by the way I never said money should be given to descendants of slaves. I don't think it should. Sorry to ruin yet another of your baseless attacks.

Elphaba · 12-21-2005, 06:20 PM

The ACLU has managed to get some heavily edited information through the FIA.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105M.shtml#1

Quote:

ACLU Says FBI Misused Terror Powers
By Ted Bridis
The Associated Press

Tuesday 20 December 2005

Bureau monitored some domestic political groups.

Washington - The American Civil Liberties Union accused the FBI of misusing terrorism investigators to monitor some domestic political organizations, despite apparently disparate views within the FBI whether some groups supported or committed violent acts.

Citing hundreds of pages of heavily censored documents they obtained from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act, lawyers for the ACLU described this disputed use of terrorism resources as the latest illustration of intensified surveillance aimed toward Americans.

"Using labels like domestic terrorists to describe peaceful protest activity can chill robust political debate in this country," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said in New York. The ACLU said it will publish the FBI reports it obtained on its website today.

In one case, government records show the FBI launched a terrorism investigation of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk, Va., despite acknowledgment by one FBI official that, "The FBI does not consider PETA a terrorist organization."

The FBI responded that it conducts its investigations appropriately - subject to US laws and Justice Department guidelines. It said the ACLU mischaracterized some passing references to political groups in FBI files to suggest those groups were under investigation; in other cases the FBI confirmed it was acting on tips tying groups to alleged illegal activities.

"You end up in FBI files with your name and your group's name because you're doing stuff," said John Miller, FBI assistant director of public affairs. "By and large, the FBI has done a pretty good job sticking to those rules."

The FBI documents indicate the government launched its terrorism investigation of the animals ethics group because it was "suspected of providing material support and resources to known domestic terrorism organizations," including the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front.

The animals' group investigation began in August 2003 and lasted at least 12 months, according to documents. Miller could not say whether the investigation was concluded.

The FBI reports also linked the animals group to the government's investigation of a bombing outside the Shaklee Cosmetic Corp. in Pleasanton, Calif., in September 2003. The FBI said Shaklee conducted animal testing of cosmetic products, and its parent company was a frequent target of campaigns by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and another group, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty.

Separately, the FBI files said the Norfolk animals group protested a rodeo in Las Vegas in December 2003 with representatives from the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front.

Jeffrey S. Kerr, lawyer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, denied his organization provided support or resources to the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, calling such claims "tired old allegations." Kerr said any terrorism investigation was "a scurrilous waste of resources."

"This is really an abuse of power," Kerr said. "PETA and other groups are really being targeted because we are being social activists and engaging in free speech. This is un-American and unconstitutional and contrary to the interests of any definition of a healthy democracy."

The ACLU said the FBI documents also suggest that federal terrorism investigators infiltrated the Washington-based American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. One document, sent to an FBI counterterrorism unit in Los Angeles, describes a list of attendees from the group at a conference in Stanford, Calif., to protest sanctions against Iraq in May 2002.

Other FBI documents obtained by the ACLU describe efforts in May 2001 by Greenpeace and the Los Angeles-based Catholic Workers Group to disrupt missile tests in California.

The FBI said the Catholic Workers Group "advocates a communist distribution of resources."

My apologies for going a bit off topic, and I have no love for PETA, but I believe this is a Hoover response to constitutionally protected desent.

ratbastid · 12-21-2005, 08:32 PM

At this point, the question of whether actual laws were broken is less interesting to me than the question of what the political and PR fallout will be. Remember that "political capital" that Bush crowed about after his re-election? That shit is spent. Are we looking at three years of Bush on the defensive?

Elphaba · 12-21-2005, 09:37 PM

RB, there was no "political capital" with a vote as close as that one. No second term, war-time president ever got such low numbers. It was a great sound bite, however.

host · 12-21-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

American Left: We think those terrorists 4th amendment rights were violated. If so they should go free.

J.Q. Public: Pardon?

American Left: Don't you see, Bush is acting like an emperor (Ustwo note, such language was used in this thread) he must be stopped he is voilating the constitution!

J.Q. Public: So you think that the known and proven terrorists should go free?

American Left: Yes of course!

J.Q. Public: Ummm......What should he have done instead?

American Left: Used the Patriot act! Thats why he got it!........

Ustwo....I wince as I read the "content" of your posts, and I observe that you ignore the challenges that I direct to you, accompanied as they are by linked excerpts to reports published by "newspapers of record" and the ruling government's, own web pages.

The quote box above indicates to me that you are hopelessly "outclassed", here, yet you continue to deny and distract from what is actuaully, and finally being reported by MSM, after an admitted delay of more than a year.
I urge you to bring the level of your discourse nearer to the level of the following research that I am posting here for the examination of all interested members. Please endeavor to counter it, and equally worthy material posted by other members, commensurate to the level of your education and abilities.
All we know of you is what you have told us....and sir....you do yourself an injustice that directly conflicts with who you have told us you are.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122102326.html
Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 22, 2005; A01

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday.

Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said <b.the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites.

"There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two," Bush said Monday. But he added: "If there is a need based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States."

The American Civil Liberties Union formally requested yesterday that Gonzales appoint an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the spying effort.

Also yesterday, John D. Negroponte, Bush's director of national intelligence, sent an e-mail to the entire intelligence community defending the program. The politically tinged memo referred to the disclosure as "egregious" and called the program a vital, constitutionally valid tool in the war against al Qaeda.

Benson said it is too soon for him to judge whether the surveillance program was legal until he hears directly from the government.

"I need to know more about it to decide whether it was so distasteful," Benson said. "But I wonder: If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster [to bypass FISA], but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know."

As it launched the dramatic change in domestic surveillance policy, the administration chose to secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview yesterday that his information about the program has been largely limited to press accounts over the past several days.

"Why didn't it go through FISA," Kazen asked. "I think those are valid questions. The president at first said he didn't want to talk about it. Now he says, 'You're darn right I did it, and it's completely legal.' I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal. I want to hear those arguments." Judge Michael J. Davis of Minnesota said he, too, wants to be sure the secret program did not produce unreliable or legally suspect information that was then used to obtain FISA warrants.

"I share the other judges' concerns," he said.

But Judge Malcolm Howard of eastern North Carolina said he tends to think the terrorist threat to the United States is so grave that the president should use every tool available and every ounce of executive power to combat it.

"I am not overly concerned" about the surveillance program, he said, but "I would welcome hearing more specifics."

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121901884.html
White House Elaborates on Authority for Eavesdropping

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; A10

.......Bush told a news conference that he still wants investigators to seek warrants in many cases from a secret foreign intelligence surveillance court, as required by a 1978 federal law. But he said authorities should be able to act outside that framework when the government needs "to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad.

"Having suggested this idea," the president said, "I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."

The statements by the president and other top officials triggered immediate debate, as many legal experts questioned his power to act on his own in an area where Congress has already legislated. The 1978 law, adopted by Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter, claims to establish an "exclusive" set of rules and procedures for foreign intelligence surveillance.

"The issue here is this," said Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton and as a member of the Sept. 11 commission. "If you're John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?"

The Supreme Court spoke at the height of the Korean War on the president's authority to override Congress. In 1952, President Harry S. Truman ordered a federal takeover of the steel industry to prevent a strike that would have disrupted the supply of weapons to troops at the front. He cited his authority as commander in chief.

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court rejected Truman's claim. In an influential concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the president's power is "at its lowest ebb" when he "takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress."

"With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations," Jackson wrote.

Analysts said that precedent makes Bush's claim of inherent constitutional authority to eavesdrop the most controversial aspect of his legal argument. But such claims have a long history. Presidents going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt either acted as if they had such power, or openly asserted it.

But the intelligence scandals of the 1960s and '70s changed the political and legal climate. In 1972, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless searches in cases of alleged domestic national security threats, but left open the issue of eavesdropping for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes. The court has still not explicitly addressed the issue.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was intended to fill that gap. It required that the executive branch get approval from a secret court before conducting wiretaps within the United States. In signing the law, Carter praised it for protecting privacy and said it "clarifies the Executive's authority."

The original version of the law was silent on warrantless physical searches of suspected spies or terrorists. The Clinton administration claimed inherent authority to conduct such "black bag" jobs, including searches of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames's house that turned up evidence of his spying for Russia. But it later sought amendments to FISA that brought physical searches under the FISA framework.

The Bush administration argues that the steel seizure case poses no problem for its NSA program because Congress adopted a joint resolution on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to battle al Qaeda. That would include listening in on suspected terrorists, the administration argues.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales referred reporters yesterday to a 2004 Supreme Court opinion signed by a four-member plurality of the Supreme Court that said the 2001 resolution implicitly authorized the military detention of American citizens as suspected terrorists.

"We believe the court would apply the same reasoning" to electronic eavesdropping, Gonzales said. He added that the Sept. 14, 2001, resolution also corresponds to a provision of FISA that prohibits wiretapping "except as authorized by statute."

Outside experts were skeptical of these arguments. The 2004 ruling required federal court access for citizen detainees, they noted. Also, they said that the USA Patriot Act itself consisted largely of amendments to FISA designed to make it easier for the president to conduct surveillance. That would hardly have been necessary, the experts noted, if Congress had meant to supersede FISA through the 2001 resolution.

"One wonders if Congress really contemplated all these things when it enacted the resolution," said Michael J. Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Tufts University.

FISA also contains emergency provisions that permit warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours when the attorney general certifies that there is no other way to get crucial information. The law also permits warrantless eavesdropping for up to 15 days after a declaration of war.

"There is an emergency provision within FISA, and one could ask for more authority," Gorelick said. "If they had good reason, Congress would have given it to them."

Gonzales said that the administration contemplated doing that, but was told by "certain members of Congress" that "that would be difficult if not impossible."

In effect, the administration is asking the public to accept a program that was conceived in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when tolerance for exceptional measures may have been greater than it is now.

"In times of crisis I think you have to explore, use every capability and explore every option," said Roger Cressey, who was principal deputy to the White House counterterrorism chief during Bush's first term. "But past those, in the day-to-day operations when there is no imminent threat, you need to revisit procedures and structures in place to ensure proper oversight."

Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.

Maybe getting congress to grant presidential authority for warrantless searches would be "would be difficult if not impossible", because it goes against the wishes of the majority of American voters, and is fucking unconstitutional. These
lawless thugs admit that, in the face of the knowledge that congress would not approve of it, they "did it, anyway!

Quote:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58545
Transcript of Attorney General Gonzales, DHS Sec. Chertoff Press Briefing on Need for Senate to Reauthorize USA PATRIOT Act

12/21/2005 5:00:00 PM

To: National Desk, Legal Reporter

Contact: U.S. Department of Justice Public Affairs, 202-514-2007; Web: http://www.usdoj.gov

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a transcript of a press briefing of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the Need for the Senate to Reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act

...... ATTORNEY GENERAL: Okay. We'll take a few questions.

REPORTER: I wondered why, you had said that, you were told it was difficult, if not impossible to get Congress to reauthorize the FISA, the warrant for eavesdropping. How is it that you and the administration can enforce the resolution, granted the authorization that is impossible to get in another...

(Inaudible)

ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm here to talk about the Patriot Act. But I will answer the one question, because I read the quote. Someone showed me the quote in The Washington Post. What I said, or what I surely intended to say, if I didn't say is that we consulted with leaders in the congress about the feasibility of legislation to allow this type of surveillance. We were advised that it would be virtually impossible to obtain legislation of this type without compromising the program. And I want to emphasize the addition of, without compromising the program. That was the concern. (Inaudible)

This is the last question I'll answer with respect to the matter relating to the NSA. I have no reason -- I don't know the reason. I'm not going to speculate why a judge would step down from the FISA court. If you're asking about the legality of the program. I came out on Monday and explained the administration's position, the legal rationale for the legality of the program. We believe the President has both the statutory authority and constitutional authority to engage in the intelligence during a time of war with our enemy. Any questions regarding the Patriot Act?.......

Translation: The elected legislators who represent American voters in congress would "jeaopardize the program" by voting against providing presidential authority for warrantless eavesdropping. So...they did it...sectretly....ANYWAY!

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-spy21de...home-headlines
December 21, 2005
THE NATION
Cheney Defends Domestic Spying
# He says Bush's decision to sidestep the courts and allow surveillance was an organized effort to regain presidential powers lost in the 1970s.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

...........White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that lawmakers had been informed of the program but declined to answer questions about whether members of Congress could act in any way on the information.

"We believe it's important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders," McClellan said, adding that Congress was "an independent branch of government. Yes, they have oversight roles to play." When asked how lawmakers could have acted on the oversight, McClellan responded: "You should ask members of Congress that question."

Some congressional Republicans defended Bush but others said they had doubts. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) joined three Democrats in a call for an investigation.

"At no time, to our knowledge, did any administration representative ask the Congress to consider amending existing law to permit electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists without a warrant," the five senators wrote.

New rounds of criticism followed reports Tuesday of comments Bush made last year in which he seemed to assure his audience that the government conducted wiretaps only with court approval.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order," the president said in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y. on April 20, 2004, in which he discussed enactment of the Patriot Act.

"Nothing has changed, by the way," Bush continued in the speech. "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said it was "time for the president to tell the truth."

"Why is it that President Bush went in front of the American people and said that a wiretap 'requires a court order' after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"

ratbastid · 12-22-2005, 10:38 AM

Guess what just came to light: Bush not only broke the law, he lied about it.

This is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#">this April 20, 2004 speech</a>, conveniently posted on the White House website:

Quote:

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

That's a lie. At the time he gave this speech, he had already given authorization for court-order-free wiretaps, and he intended to give more such authorizations.

Okay, you big Clinton-dragger-uppers: if lying about getting a blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor, what do you call it when the President lies about violating his citizen's constitutionally-protected civil rights? Actually, Bush has skipped misdemeanors, and headed straight into felony territory.

Even if you DON'T believe he broke the law, you can't really deny the above public comment is clearly a lie, and about a gravely serious matter.

Willravel · 12-22-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Guess what just came to light: Bush not only broke the law, he lied about it.

This is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#">this April 20, 2004 speech</a>, conveniently posted on the White House website:

That's a lie. At the time he gave this speech, he had already given authorization for court-order-free wiretaps, and he intended to give more such authorizations.

Okay, you big Clinton-dragger-uppers: if lying about getting a blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor, what do you call it when the President lies about violating his citizen's constitutionally-protected civil rights? Actually, Bush has skipped misdemeanors, and headed straight into felony territory.

Even if you DON'T believe he broke the law, you can't really deny the above public comment is clearly a lie, and about a gravely serious matter.

He did lie (proof above), and continues to lie, and it's time that someone heald him responsible for his lies. WE NEED TO GET THIS UNDER OATH. If that happpens, he's pretty much scewed. If someone has the balls to ask him to make a statement under oath and he lies, he's screwed. If he won't answer, he's screwed.

host · 12-22-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Guess what just came to light: Bush not only broke the law, he lied about it.

This is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#">this April 20, 2004 speech</a>, conveniently posted on the White House website:

That's a lie. At the time he gave this speech, he had already given authorization for court-order-free wiretaps, and he intended to give more such authorizations.

Okay, you big Clinton-dragger-uppers: if lying about getting a blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor, what do you call it when the President lies about violating his citizen's constitutionally-protected civil rights? Actually, Bush has skipped misdemeanors, and headed straight into felony territory.

Even if you DON'T believe he broke the law, you can't really deny the above public comment is clearly a lie, and about a gravely serious matter.

I already posted a large excerpt from Bush's April 20, 2004 Buffalo speech on this thread, and I linked to it, further excerpted from it, and commented about it in further posts, on this thread.

RB... in your opinion, should I bother to participate here? Do I have to dole my posts out in Macnews style chunkettes...ala USA Today?

Sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you....but you re-posted something that I covered already, quite thoroughly here, along with Gonzales's testimony under oath, which contained similar misleading statements as Bush's April 20, 2004 ones!

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Guess what just came to light: Bush not only broke the law, he lied about it.

This is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#">this April 20, 2004 speech</a>, conveniently posted on the White House website:

That's a lie. At the time he gave this speech, he had already given authorization for court-order-free wiretaps, and he intended to give more such authorizations.

Okay, you big Clinton-dragger-uppers: if lying about getting a blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor, what do you call it when the President lies about violating his citizen's constitutionally-protected civil rights? Actually, Bush has skipped misdemeanors, and headed straight into felony territory.

Even if you DON'T believe he broke the law, you can't really deny the above public comment is clearly a lie, and about a gravely serious matter.

but not under oath... the lie about the blow job is EQUAL to the lie from Martha Stewart, a lie under oath. lie all you want in public, but when in front of a grand jury and you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, well you can't lie then.

Willravel · 12-22-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I already posted a large excerpt from Bush's April 20, 2004 Buffalo speech on this thread, and I linked to it, further excerpted from it, and commented about it in further posts, on this thread.

RB... in your opinion, should I bother to participate here? Do I have to dole my posts out in Macnews style chunkettes...ala USA Today?

Sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you....but you re-posted something that I covered already, quite thoroughly here, along with Gonzales's testimony under oath, which contained similar misleading statements as Bush's April 20, 2004 ones!

Link your articles, and simply quote the highlights. I've never skimmed through one of your posts, but I imagine many have. I know it's bs that you have to do it, but you have to communicate in a style that other people can understand. People are generally too lazy to read a half a dozen articles that support your argument. And you're right to get pissed that the Buffalo speech was ignored in your post, and clearly read in someone elses. I'd be pissed too.

maximusveritas · 12-22-2005, 11:08 AM

Bush's lie may not have broken the law, but it was more serious than Clinton's lie since it had to do with our own privacy rather than his.

ratbastid · 12-22-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I already posted a large excerpt from Bush's April 20, 2004 Buffalo speech on this thread, and I linked to it, further excerpted from it, and commented about it in further posts, on this thread.

RB... in your opinion, should I bother to participate here? Do I have to dole my posts out in Macnews style chunkettes...ala USA Today?

Sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you....but you re-posted something that I covered already, quite thoroughly here, along with Gonzales's testimony under oath, which contained similar misleading statements as Bush's April 20, 2004 ones!

Sorry for the repeat, host. This thread has gotten so long and sprawling, I didn't realize I'd already seen that. Still, I think it bears pulling out and highlighting.

I'm going to reply to host's direct questions to me in PM.

Elphaba · 12-22-2005, 01:59 PM

I have duplicated Host's posts on three or more occasions in the past, and I have had a couple of mine duplicated in this thread. My errors were due to reading too casually and hope I have corrected that. My duplicated posts can only be due to the sheer size of this thread. It must be a Politics first, that we have stayed out of trouble for so long.

shakran · 12-23-2005, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you....but you re-posted something that I covered already, quite thoroughly here, along with Gonzales's testimony under oath, which contained similar misleading statements as Bush's April 20, 2004 ones!

Why is this a bad thing? The republicans have managed to snow the public into following their insane policies by repeating lies, half-truths, and innuendos over and over and over. If you repeat it enough times it must be true. Why should not we, who have the advantage of having the truth on our side, use the same tactics? Hammer the points into the bloody ground. Maybe then people will open their eyes and see things as they are before it's too late. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?

Charlatan · 12-23-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

It must be a Politics first, that we have stayed out of trouble for so long.

Perhaps there really is something called Christmas spirit...

Elphaba · 12-23-2005, 01:19 PM

It would appear that getting a warrant from FISA was not possible, because Bush had the NSA monitoring large blocks of phone traffic. I don't see how a fishing expedition could be considered legal.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122305K.shtml

Quote:

Wiretaps Said to Sift All Overseas Contacts
By Charlie Savage
The Boston Globe

Friday 23 December 2005

Vast US effort seen on eavesdropping.

Washington - The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA.

The Bush administration and the NSA have declined to provide details about the program the president authorized in 2001, but specialists said the agency serves as a vast data collection and sorting operation. It captures reams of data from satellites, fiberoptic lines, and Internet switching stations, and then uses a computer to check for names, numbers, and words that have been identified as suspicious.

"The whole idea of the NSA is intercepting huge streams of communications, taking in 2 million pieces of communications an hour," said James Bamford, the author of two books on the NSA, who was the first to reveal the inner workings of the secret agency.

"They have a capacity to listen to every overseas phone call," said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has obtained documents about the NSA using Freedom of Information Act requests.

The NSA's system of monitoring e-mails and phone calls to check for search terms has been used for decades overseas, where the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply, declassified records have shown.

But since Bush's order in 2001, Bamford and other specialists said, the same process has probably been used to sort through international messages to and from the United States, though humans have never seen the vast majority of the data.

"The collection of this data by automated means creates new privacy risks," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that has studied computer-filtered surveillance technology through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

Among the risks, he said, is that the spy agency's computers will collect personal information that has no bearing on national security, and that intelligence agents programming those computers will be tempted to abuse their power to eavesdrop for personal or political gain.

But even when no personal information intercepted by the NSA's computers make it to human eyes and ears, Rotenberg said, the mere fact that spy computers are monitoring the calls and e-mails may also violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether automated surveillance of phone calls and e-mails, without a warrant, is constitutional.

The closest comparisons, legal specialists said, are cases challenging the use of dogs and infrared detectors to look for drugs without a warrant. The Supreme Court approved the use of drug-sniffing dogs to examine luggage in an airport, but said police could not use infrared scanners to check houses for heat patterns that could signal an illegal drug operation.

"This is very much a developing field, and a lot of the law is not clear," said Harvard Law School professor Bill Stuntz.

President Bush and his aides have refused to answer questions about the domestic spying program, other than to insist that it was legal. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week said the program only targeted messages "where we have a reasonable basis to conclude" that one of the parties is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

And some legal scholars have maintained that a computer cannot violate other Americans' Fourth Amendment rights simply by sorting through their messages, as long as no human being ever looks at them.

Alane Kochems, a lawyer and a national security analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said, "I don't think your privacy is violated when you have a computer doing it as opposed to a human. It isn't a sentient being. It's a machine running a program."

But Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin said that Fourth Amendment privacy rights can still be violated without human contact if the NSA stores copies of everyone's messages, raising the possibility that a human could access them later. The administration has not revealed how long the NSA stores messages, and the agency has refused to comment on the program.

Balkin added that as technology becomes ever more sophisticated, any legal distinction between human agents and their tools is losing meaning. Under the theory that only human beings can invade people's privacy, he said, the police "could simply use robots to do their dirty work."

In 1978, following revelations that President Nixon had used the NSA to spy on his domestic enemies, Congress enacted a law making it illegal to wiretap a US citizen without permission from a secret national security court. The court requires the government to show evidence that the target is a suspected spy or terrorist.

Under the 1978 law, NSA officials have had to obtain a warrant from the secret court before putting an American's information into their computers' search terms.

The restrictions largely limited NSA to collecting messages from overseas communications networks, but some Americans' messages were intercepted before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Occasionally, the interception was deliberate. In April 2000, the NSA's then-director, General Michael Hayden, told Congress that since 1978 "there have been no more than a very few instances of NSA seeking [court] authorization to target a US person in the United States."

More often, the interception was accidental. Because American international calls travel through foreign networks, some of which are monitored by the NSA, the agency's computers have sifted through some American international messages all along.

"Long before 9/11, the NSA gathered from the ether mountains of [overseas] phone calls and e-mail messages on a daily basis," said Columbia Law School professor Deborah Livingston. "If you have such an extensive foreign operation, you'll gather a large amount of phone traffic and e-mails involving Americans. That's something we've lived with for a long time."

But Bush's order cleared the way for the NSA computers to sift through Americans' phone calls and e-mails.

According to a New York Times report last week, Bush authorized the NSA's human analysts to look at the international messages of up to 500 Americans at a time, with a changing list of targets.

Hayden, now the deputy director of national intelligence, told reporters this week that under Bush's order, a "shift supervisor" instead of a judge signs off on deciding whether or not to search for an American's messages.

The general conceded that without the burden of obtaining warrants, the NSA has used "a quicker trigger" and "a subtly softer trigger" when deciding to track someone.

Bamford said that Hayden's "subtly softer trigger" probably means that the NSA is monitoring a wider circle of contacts around suspects than what a judge would approve.

smooth · 12-23-2005, 05:41 PM

It's strange to me that Ustwo's straw man argument wasn't just directly replied:

President Bush didn't break the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act; he broke the F.I.S.A., which has been in place for 30 years.

Democrats aren't "blocking" the Patriot Act, it's still in effect and will continue to be in effect until agreed upon by a bi-partisan majority and finalized.

Finally, whether the president lied in 2004 isn't the issue he would be legally charged with. Lying goes to motive and inference of guilt. That's how lies have and will continue to be interpreted by prosecutors and juries. That coupled with Tom Daschle's recent revelations that discussions with the administration specifically ruled out the notion that the authority to use force against Iraq gave him special domestic powers in this regard. But that was a valiant attempt to direct the situation to Clinton lying under oath (about whatever--especially irrelevent given that prosecutors almost always give people the ability to "remember" a more true account before prosecuting for perjury a la repeat visits by current administration officials testifying to the grand jury before initiating a perjury charge) instead of the reality that President Bush has consistently lied to our representatives and public about violating his citizen's 4th amendment rights.

Elphaba · 12-23-2005, 07:22 PM

John Yoo's role in the legal advice given to the Bush administration is given a closer look in the following article. With a respectful nod to Host, you will find names that he has pointed out to us for some time.

That he is now at my alma mater strikes me as humorous, given it's past reputation.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122305S.shtml

Quote:

A Junior Aide Had a Big Role in Terror Policy
By Tim Golden
The New York Times

Friday 23 December 2005

Moments after planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, lawyers in the Justice Department's elite Office of Legal Counsel began crowding into the office of one of the agency's newest deputies, John C. Yoo, to watch the horror unfold on his television set.

"We all stood around watching this event, and he just seemed very calm, like he wasn't going to let these terrorists stop him from doing his work," recalled Robert J. Delahunty, a friend of Mr. Yoo's who worked in the office.

Fearful of another attack and told that all "nonessential personnel" should evacuate, Mr. Delahunty and others streamed out of the department's headquarters and walked home. Mr. Yoo, then a 34-year-old former law professor whose academic work had focused on foreign affairs and war-powers issues, was asked to stay behind, and he quickly found himself in the department's command center, on the phone to lawyers at the White House.

Within weeks, Mr. Yoo had begun to establish himself as a critical player in the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat, and an influential advocate for the expansive claims of presidential authority that have been a hallmark of that response.

While a mere deputy assistant attorney general in the legal counsel office, Mr. Yoo was a primary author of a series of legal opinions on the fight against terrorism, including one that said the Geneva Conventions did not apply and at least two others that countenanced the use of highly coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects. Recently, current and former officials said he also wrote a still-secret 2002 memorandum that gave legal backing to the administration's secret program to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States without federal warrants.

A genial, soft-spoken man with what friends say is a fiercely competitive streak, Mr. Yoo built particularly strong working relationships with several key legal officials in the White House and the Pentagon. Some current and former government officials contend that those relationships were in fact so close that Mr. Yoo was able to operate with a degree of autonomy that rankled senior Justice Department officials, including John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.

More than two years after Mr. Yoo returned to teaching, controversy over some of the legal positions he staked out for the administration in his two years in government has only continued to grow. Last year, an opinion he wrote on interrogations with the head of the legal counsel office, Jay S. Bybee, was publicly disavowed by the White House, a highly unusual step. Now, the revelation of the eavesdropping program has renewed the criticism.

In the uproar, Mr. Yoo has stood fast and even smiled cheerfully. Despite occasional campus protests and calls for his resignation, he has remained - somewhat incongruously but, he says, quite happily - on the law faculty at the liberal University of California, Berkeley. He keeps a busy schedule of speeches and debates at colleges and universities around the country. He is promoting a new book, and appears frequently on television to take on legal and policy issues that many former officials will discuss only under cloak of anonymity.

"I didn't go into these subjects looking for a brawl," Mr. Yoo said in an interview. Of his work at the Justice Department he added: "I had this job, and I had these questions to answer. I think it's my responsibility to explain how I thought them through."

Mr. Yoo is often identified as the most aggressive among a group of conservative legal scholars who have challenged the importance of international law in the American legal system. But his signature contributions to the policies of the Bush administration have had more to do with his forceful assertion of wide presidential powers in wartime.

While Mr. Yoo has become almost famous for some of his writings - the refutation of both his academic and government work has become almost a cottage industry among more liberal legal scholars and human rights lawyers - much less is known about how he came to wield the remarkable influence he had after Sept. 11 on issues related to terrorism.

That Washington tale began about a decade before Mr. Yoo joined the administration in July 2001, when he finished at Yale Law School and won a clerkship with Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a keen spotter of young legal talent and a patriarch of the network of conservative lawyers who have occupied key positions throughout the Bush administration.

By then, Mr. Yoo already thought of himself as solidly conservative. He had grown up with anticommunist parents who left their native South Korea for Philadelphia shortly after Mr. Yoo was born in 1967, and had honed his political views while an undergraduate at Harvard.

From the chambers of Judge Silberman, Mr. Yoo moved on to a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, stopping briefly at Berkeley. Justice Thomas helped place him with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, as general counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Along the way, Mr. Yoo passed up a chance to work in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day, where he caught the eye of a senior partner, Timothy E. Flanigan. After five years that Mr. Yoo spent at Berkeley, writing on legal aspects of foreign affairs, war powers and presidential authority, the two men met up again when Mr. Yoo joined the Bush campaign's legal team, where Mr. Flanigan was a key lieutenant.

Mr. Flanigan became the deputy White House counsel under Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Yoo ended up as a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, or the OLC, a small unit of lawyers that advises the executive branch on constitutional questions and on the legality of complex or disputed policy issues.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, Mr. Yoo - the only deputy with much expertise on foreign policy and war powers - began dealing with the White House and other agencies more directly than he might have otherwise.

Mr. Flanigan, who had led the legal counsel office himself at the end of the first Bush administration, was acutely aware of its role in providing a legal grounding for the kinds of policy decisions the White House faced. He called over for advice soon after the World Trade Center towers fell.

"John Yoo, given his academic background and interests, was sort of the go-to guy on foreign affairs and military power issues," Mr. Flanigan said in an interview, referring to the legal counsel office staff. "He was the one that Gonzales and I went to to get advice on those issues on 9/11, and it just continued."

The torrent of opinions that Mr. Yoo churned out in the months that followed was striking, notwithstanding the research and writing assistance he had from lawyers on the office staff. Although only a portion of those documents have become public, copies of some still-confidential memorandums reviewed by The New York Times give a flavor of their sweeping language.

On Sept. 20, Mr. Yoo wrote to Mr. Flanigan about the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations that support them. He noted that two Congressional resolutions recognized the president's authority to use force in such circumstances.

"Neither, however, can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response," he wrote. Similar language concludes a memo written by Mr. Yoo on Sept. 25, only a week after Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Al Qaeda and its supporters.

"One concern that people have raised is that John had a lot of these views going into the government and was perhaps overeager to write them," said Curtis A. Bradley, a law professor at Duke University who, like Mr. Yoo, has written skeptically about the import of international law. "In terms of war powers, you won't find a tremendous number of scholars who will go as far as he does."

Mr. Yoo's belief in the wide inherent powers of the president as commander in chief was strongly shared by one of the most influential legal voices in the administration's policy debates on terrorism, David S. Addington, then the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney. Documents and interviews suggest that those views have been part of the legal arguments underpinning not only coercive interrogation and the prosecution of terrorism suspects before military tribunals but also the eavesdropping program.

Some current and former officials said the urgency of events after Sept. 11 and the close ties that Mr. Yoo developed with Mr. Addington (who is now Mr. Cheney's chief of staff), Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Flanigan and the general counsel of the Defense Department, William J. Haynes II, had sometimes led him to bypass the elaborate clearance process to which opinions from the legal counsel office were normally subjected.

Mr. Yoo's January 2002 conclusions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan and that the conventions' minimum standards did not cover terrorists touched off a long, hard-fought battle within the administration, in which lawyers for the State Department and the military services strongly disputed his views. Thereafter, several senior officials said, those lawyers were sometimes excluded from the drafting of more delicate opinions.

For example, they said, Mr. Yoo's much-criticized 2002 memorandum with Mr. Bybee on interrogations - which said that United States law prohibited only methods that would cause "lasting psychological harm" or pain "akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" - was not shared with either State Department or military lawyers, despite its implications for their agencies.

"They were not getting enough critical feedback from within OLC, or from within the Justice Department, or from other agencies," one former official said of Mr. Yoo's opinions. Officials said senior aides to Attorney General Ashcroft also complained that they were not adequately informed about some of the Mr. Yoo's frequent discussions with the White House.

Mr. Yoo said he had always duly notified Justice Department officials or other agencies about the opinions he provided except when "I was told by people very high in the government not to for classification reasons."

Yesterday, with controversy brewing again about some of the policies on which Mr. Yoo worked, he said he was unmoved.

"If you're being criticized for what you did and you believe that what you did was right, you shouldn't take it lying down," he said. "You should go out and defend yourself."

I believe that this is another example of the Bush "bubble." Listen only to those that agree with you, and exclude the rest.

pan6467 · 12-24-2005, 02:17 AM

What I don't understand is if they are just "tapping" international calls for our "safety" does that not mean they are missing all the domestic terrorist phone calls?

I mean if I were a terrorist and I was in the U.S. the last thing I would do is call my friends in the Middle East to make sure I had the plans right.

And given there are a few on the Right here that want to believe I am not all that intelligent, I'm sure the terrorists would have thought of this also.

I mean Hell, if I needed to communicate with the heads of my organization, I'd just wait for the courier to cross the Mexico border as an illegal and wait till my nearest Wal*Mart hired him to stock shelves and clean.

Elphaba · 12-27-2005, 02:29 PM

To my knowledge, the New York Times remains mum on why they held the information of NSA spying on Americans for a year. It irritates me that our msp also gave this story a pass before the war began in Iraq. How do the "people" hold their free press accountable?

Link

Quote:

NSA Spied on UN Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 27 December 2005

Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on UN diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.

That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the UN Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream US media winked at Bush's illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.

Back then, after news of the NSA's targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major US media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage - or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA's spying at the UN goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.

A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate, which pointedly noted that "the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed."

But after dodging the story of the NSA's spying at the UN when it mattered most - before the invasion of Iraq - the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That's all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.

In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the US government's high-pressure campaign for the UN Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about US spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." The key word was "timely."

Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on UN diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington's war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.

"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the US government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of UN delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency." The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.

The Observer explained: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."

The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council - "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises."

Noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an "embarrassing disclosure." And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.

Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA's supposed paper of record. "Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But "we could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from US officials. Smale added: "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.

Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major US media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer's revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to UN" Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn't only depict US surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported "some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery" - and "several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo's authenticity."

But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo's "authenticity" was gone. The British press reported that the UK government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream US press had disappeared.

As it turned out, the Observer's expose - headlined "Revealed: US Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War" - came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.

From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major US news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun's name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.

Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed." She said: "I have only ever followed my conscience."

In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo - and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it - the most powerful US news outlets gave the revelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of US media concern about the NSA's illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.

shakran · 12-27-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

To my knowledge, the New York Times remains mum on why they held the information of NSA spying on Americans for a year. It irritates me that our msp also gave this story a pass before the war began in Iraq. How do the "people" hold their free press accountable?

Simple. You stop subscribing to that newspaper, or quit watching that news cast, and send a letter to the media outlet explaining what they did and why that means you won't be watching them anymore.

Now understand that we get all SORTS of crackpot letters like that - We just got a letter this week saying they won't watch our station anymore because the meteorologist dresses too sloppy (didn't button his jacket one day) - so don't expect immediate change. However, if enough people write similar letters (I'm not buying your newspaper anymore because you're covering up the news rather than reporting it) and they see subscriptions (and therefore also advertising revenues) go down, then maybe management will get the message and remember that we are journalists, not political stooges.

Elphaba · 12-27-2005, 06:22 PM

Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?

Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."

I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News.

We (the people) endured five years of msm obsequiousness to this administration. The only reason the press has returned to the role of government watchdog, in my opinion, is that they perceive the administration as weakened. This "watchdog" sells news for profit, just like any whore.

Shakran, this rant isn't directed at you or your obvious integrity. The Miller's, Woodward's and others that sold their journalistic integrity for personal or monitary gain have earned the wrath of everyone still believing in an independent press, including yourself.

Perhaps that is the key to accountability? Censure by your peers might be far more effective than getting cranky with my local paper that depends on national feeds.

shakran · 12-27-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?

Yes I do, and here's why. You're entirely correct that news stations (and most journalism outfits, not just TV, btw) are owned by large corporations.

So attacking it from a "journalists should tell the story no matter what because it's the right thing to do" perspective won't work. Oh, you'll convince us alright, but then we're already convinced so that's not necessary.

What you need to do is attack it from a "holy shit, you're gonna lose a CRAPload of money" perspective. Right now the large corporations think the American public wants more reality shows and less news. And they think what news you do want must be chock full of entertainment value. And you don't want much international news because "those funny names are hard to pronounce" and "other countries are so far away from us."

So, a mass movement of the public needs to prove them wrong. Whether its TV, radio, or newspaper, profit is the bottom line. And the only way to make more money is to get more eyeballs on your news product. If masses of people write in and say "I'm not gonna look at your product unless you start acting like real journalists again" then the bosses will either respond by turning their journos loose to do their jobs, or face the consequences when they lose viewer/readership.

Now the problem with this little scheme of mine is manyfold. But the big problem is (i'm switching to only TV here since that's my area) viewers are MUCH more likely to write in to complain about what clothes the anchor wore or the way the meteorologist talks than they are to write in and complain about the integrity and thoroughness of the journalism. So getting that mass movement together is going to be very tough.

Quote:

Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."

you're largely correct, but that is overly simplified. First off, this didn't start with Bush. It would be more accurate to say it started with Reagan, who abolished the fairness doctrine. Second, journalists haven't abdicated anything. The press didn't abdicate anything. Unfortunately, the press and TV stations are two different things. The news department is only one part of a TV station. The higher ups at TV stations are the ones making the decision to sell out to large corporations. Ask just about any TV journalist and our dream is to start our own TV station that's staffed entirely by journalists and that delivers the news the RIGHT way. Unfortunately since the average TV journalist makes between 20 and 40 thousand a year, getting the funds together to actually do this is very unlikely.

Quote:

I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp?

Well first off if you really pay attention the msp can still help you out. Look at the justification to the Iraq war for instance. Look at Colin Powell's speech to the UN that supposedly proved Iraq had WMD. Now I saw the same speech you did, many outlets carried it live, and CP had butkus for evidence. That was obvious to me, and to many others. The information IS out there if you make the effort to find it. Unfortunately most people don't want to make that effort.

Quote:

How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News.

And that's a HUGE problem with the American press. Media execs have decided you guys don't WANT international news. They've decided you can't understand international news even if you do want it.

I personally think that's bullshit. One of the most-watched series EVER was a multipart look into conditions in Africa. The ratings were through the roof. If we as journalists make world news available to you, you will consume it.

Now, we're starting to get into an interesting age. With satellite radio, and the internet, it's not very hard at all for you to fire up a BBC broadcast. You CAN get the international news you want. You just have to want it. And if you can't find it from an American news outlet, go find it from the BBC.

Quote:

We (the people) endured five years of msm obsequiousness to this administration.

One of the problems there is with this concept of media bias. Higher ups at the outlets are so scared that the public will label them as biased, that they bias themselves toward bad coverage. We're so scared you'll think we're liberally biased if we tell you Bush screwed up, that we won't tell you bush screwed up unless someone else SAYS Bush screwed up.

The press used to go out and dig up the facts. Now they largely sit around waiting for some group to dig up the facts, then report it as "these guys say .. . " to avoid bias. Unfortunately, we're also avoiding our jobs when we do that.

Who's at fault for that? Well, partly the guys who scream "media bias" every time the media reports something they don't like. The rest belongs squarely with the media bosses who kowtow to that kind of manipulative bullshit.

Quote:

The only reason the press has returned to the role of government watchdog, in my opinion, is that they perceive the administration as weakened. This "watchdog" sells news for profit, just like any whore.

As I said, profit is the name of the game. And it will be until media outlets are busted away from their parent megacorporations.

Quote:

Shakran, this rant isn't directed at you or your obvious integrity. The Miller's, Woodward's and others that sold their journalistic integrity for personal or monitary gain have earned the wrath of everyone still believing in an independent press, including yourself.

I appreciate that. I do want to emphasize, however, that journalists with integrity are out there, and in great numbers. Our problem is that our hands are tied by our corporate bosses. The business is largely one of compromise nowadays. "Well if I give them this bullshit story about how good this woman feels now that she's using energy efficient light bulbs (made by GE) then maybe they'll let me expose the corruption on this other story"

Quote:

Perhaps that is the key to accountability? Censure by your peers might be far more effective than getting cranky with my local paper that depends on national feeds.

Sadly, it won't, for the reasons I mentioned above. Actually there's plenty of censure by our peers. Newsblues.com is only one place that routinely bashes poor journalism. But our corporate owners don't care about that - they only care about the almighty dollar. And since you the viewer are in control of that dollar, it's you the viewer that must convince the corporations of what you want.

By the way, you might find "Bad News" by Tom Fenton a very interesting read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

host · 12-28-2005, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?

Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."

I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News..........

On the above theme:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/27/the_fox_news_reich_pins_a_yellow_star_on_the_ny_times.php#more">The Fox News Reich Pins a Yellow Star on the NY Times</a>

December 27, 2005

<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/26/fox_covers_for_the_bush_administration_while_it_nukes_the_constitution.php">Yesterday</a> it was US News & World Report; today (December 27, 2005) the New York Times is caught in Fox News's cross hairs in what seems to be a rampage designed to foment public hatred toward any news outlet that reports what's going on behind the scenes in the Bush administration.

The third segment of Fox's "premiere business news program," Your World w/Neil Cavuto, was titled, "Treason at the New York Times." Substitute host Stuart Varney introduced his guest, John Podhoretz of the New York Post, with: "Should the New York Times be tried for treason? In a scathing editorial today <a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/60379.htm">[The Gray Lady Toys with Treason]</a> the New York Post says the New York Times is badly in need of adult supervision and asks if the newspaper is fighting against the war on terror by exposing top secret programs." As Varney spoke, a graphic filled the screen which read, "Has the NY Times declared itself to be on the front line against the War on Terror?"

(Note: <a href="http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html">The New York Post is owned by Fox News's parent company, News Corp.,</a> and John Podhoretz is on the Fox News payroll as a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46565,00.html">"Fox News Contributor.")</a>

Varney asked Podhoretz about the word treason and wondered, "would you use it?"

Podhoretz said the issue was more a question of whether or not "the New York Times and other journalistic institutions which are revealing state secrets and highly classified information in the War on Terror are lining up, effectively lining up, against fighting the war on terror, effectively."

Varney, someone who claims to be a journalist and who presumably is aware of the responsibilities that accompany his prominent position, said, "Well, it is a deliberate undermining of the war on terror if you expose these secret programs, which are not, by the way, illegal, and therefore undermine our security. I mean, again, it's a strong word, but it does amount almost to treason, doesn't it?" (Varney's emphasis.)

Podhoretz said that if you view the war on terror as "any declared war" then "the exposure of state secrets after the explicit request and recommendation out of the President of the United States' own mouth to the New York Times" that its story "on the National Security Agency's behavior not be published as a threat to national security, the New York Times then decided on its own that it could do so." I've "never in my life" heard of an editor and publisher who spent time with a president "and then chose to do so anyway."

Varney said it wasn't just the New York Times, but US News & World Report, the LA Times, and Newsweek who seem to have a "virulent anti-Bush hatred here, it seems to me."

Podhoretz said "I think that's the answer." He said they feel the methods used to fight the war on terror "may be illigitimate" and they don't want to be seen as "having endorsed these methods because they didn't fight against them." He said he thinks the New York Times feels "duped" by the administration on the question of WMD in Iraq and it doesn't want now to "be seen as a handmaiden to the administration."

Varney asked "What are we going to do about this?" Podhortez replied: "What my paper did today is a vital service." If the New York Times is "going to go and undermine the United States, it is up to other journalistic institutions to call them on it and to make their lives more difficult."

Varney wrapped it up with, "Well said."

Comment: In the December 18 New York Times' Review of Books, Brian Ladd reviewed (registration required) Richard J. Evans' new book, The Third Reich in Power. Ladd wrote in the review, titled "A State of Evil," that Evans explains that, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18ladd.html">"Behind a facade of legality, the Nazis dismantled the established protections of law.</a> Not satisfied merely to crush a lively if troubled democracy, they used their police state and the mass media to dissolve traditional allegiances." Ladd said the result "was a nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds..." Looks like Fox News is taking the lead in directing us down that road in a 21st Century, US version of "A State of Evil."

It is plain to see the desparation peeking out from behind the curtain as all the stops are pulled in the latest Rove "Op" intended on deflecting the crisis from where it sits squarely in the lap of the Bush junta, by attacking and labeling the whistle blowers as "traitors", with the "farce", described above, masking itself as "fair and balanced" news commentary.

Will the shameless efforts of wealthy international corporatist Rupert Murdoch's "trophy" propaganda "news" network, along with a blast from
his New York Post's rag of an "editorial" page, be enough to keep the American sheeple grazing obliviously in the meadow?

Please do not post objection to the comparison with Richard J. Evans' new book, "The Third Reich in Power", describing the "nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds...", without also telling us what you think that the
Bush administration and Rupert Murdoch's network and newspaper are actually teaming up to "tell" us, that is legitimate or "balanced".

pan6467 · 12-28-2005, 05:05 AM

Host,

I think that it is showing desperation. They can't fight what they are doing, public opinion is tearing them apart, even senators from their own party are looking to investigate and one has to ask, what isn't Bush coming clean about. It took a newspaper report to uncover this, what is he doing that isn't being reported?

Of course Murdoch is going to attack his competition. He wants to be the only game in town. But I don't think his attacks are going to work much anymore. People are tired of hearing 9/11 as an excuse for everything.

Plus, as I pointed out above, how the Hell can you say you are protecting the nation when you allow 1000's of illegals to cross the border every single day?

Are we truly supposed to believe that every terrorist is going to call their friends overseas and give the plans?

I'm also tired of the Right's argument that "we have forgotten the horrors of 9/11"...... To anyone using that FUCK YOU how dare you use that to further your own purpose and to excuse the president for his illegal actions. I cannot nor will not forget 9/11, but I will not allow a president to use that as an excuse to commit illegal actions.

I will not be told that because I want to hold the president to the laws of the land, that I am a traitor, that I have forgotten or that I am weak. The people using these excuses have no better defenses than attacking. They cannot defend the actions of the president, they cannot even support the actions of the president. All they can do is attack and threaten and blame the "leaks".....

Then there's the argument I heard yesterday about the warrants, the question was "why didn't he get the warrants even after the fact?"

The response was laughable. "Well, the court is not a rubber stamp and they may not have approved of it. We're supposed to let these people go then? I believe some people have forgotten the true horrors of 9/11 because Bush has protected us."

When the rebuttal was "the last major attack before 9/11 happened 8 years before in 1993, and the one before that was OKC a US natural that had no Al Quida ties. So what makes you believe that we would get another one now/"

The answer was..... "well regardless, Bush is doing what needs to be done."

I'm watching the local news right now and they are having e-mails on and the 5 they read all stated that Bush should be investigated. One made a good point that Bush came forward on this only because of the Times report and questioned what is going on that he doesn't have to come forward on because the news isn't reporting it.

The anchor states, "we are at war and the president is doing what is best for all of us."

Guess what news affiliate.....

The scary part for me is if we do try to investigate Bush, he has nothing to lose then and what might he do? And if we do impeach him, does anyone feel safer with Cheney as president? With Condoleeza? With Hastert? How far down the presidential chain do we have to go?

And here is the blow that not a single Righty can answer yes to.... and since they can't I would guess that that shows they truly cannot support Bush's actions, that it is only their hate that allows him their leniency.

If this were Hilary, or Bill or Kerry or Gore..... would you still argue that they haven't overstepped any boundaries?

I would still have my position. Would you?

ScottKuma · 12-30-2005, 05:36 AM

(EDIT): Oops...already covered...

ratbastid · 12-30-2005, 06:02 AM

That's nothing new. The strategy here is, attack the leaker to squash the leak. It's worked well in the past--notice that we're not talking anymore about starting a war based on the unsupported claim that Saddam got nuke materials from Niger, but we spent WEEKS dealing with who leaked Plame's identity. Course, that one bit 'em on the ass too...

Only problem is, it takes a level of credibility to run that gambit. A level of credibility they no longer have.

ScottKuma · 12-30-2005, 06:19 AM

In response to pan6467's lengthy post:

Although I voted for Bush, I started railing against USA PATRIOT as soon as it was announced. It seemed a clear indication of his intent to continue to weaken our individual rights. When I heard about the wiretap allegations, all I had to do was point back to USA PATRIOT and nod my head knowingly.

To be honest, I am not sure if he broke the law -- it sure seems as if he may have. Those on the left seem quick to judge; the right-leaning talk radio hosts seem convinced what he did was firmly within his powers as stated under Article II of the US Constitution. I've READ and RE-READ Article II, and can't find a single clause that allows the President to suspend someone's rights as given by law...with the possible exception of the (in my opinion) inadequate "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."

MY problem with the above is that it seems like by allowing wiretaps to go unchecked, he's directly violated the Constitution of the United States by completely bypassing our rights against unreasonable searches & seizures.

Does this constitute "High Crimes and Treasons" under which he may be impeached?

alpha phi · 12-30-2005, 10:11 AM

"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."

This is how Dubya read that passage

host · 12-30-2005, 10:41 AM

Ustwo, earlier in this thread, I directed this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=273

to your attention by starting it with two quotes of your prior statements.

In addtion to the material in the linked post above, I directed your attention to
statements made by Bush on April 20, 2004, and by Gonzales on Jan. 6, 2005:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=222

You did not respond, but you posted this today on the
"Government Manipulation of a Free Press" 
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps not in print, but on the radio, all I hear the left talk about is the wire tapping story trying to make it into something it isn't. Its kinda cute as they dig thier own political graves for 2006 mid term elections

It would be a gesture of respect from you to the rest of us, and a boost for your own credibility, if you could provide an argument that attempts to justify your statement, since you made no attempt to refute the argument that both Bush and Gonzales misled the congress and the American people about warrentless wiretapping, and that they bypassed the FISA court and jeopordized future and past prosecutions by failing to follow the law and the paper trail of justification and documentation for their surveillance that the deliberations of the FISA court provides in every request that is submitted to it for approval.

In response to the "news" that the Justice Dept. will investigate the "leaks" that influenced the NY Times' warrantless search reporting that had already been delayed by at least a year from being released to the public by the "influence" of the Bush administration, SCOTUS Justice Black put a similar matter...the attempt by another Executive Branch to block publication of the classified "Pentagon Papers", during the Vietnam War in 1971, this way:

Quote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_0713_ZC.html
......In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do......

Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum.

stevo · 12-30-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum.

Woah.

Ustwo · 12-30-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum.

Guard yourself well with the Foil of Renyolds for verily I come for thee!

Willravel · 12-30-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Guard yourself well with the Foil of Renyolds for verily I come for thee!

Wow, that response really makes me think!!

All you have to do it you want to shut down host is prove him wrong. I've not seen that done, so until then it is host who makes qualitied acusations and points, and you who retorts with jibberish. Who do you think people will think is right?

Ustwo · 12-30-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Wow, that response really makes me think!!

All you have to do it you want to shut down host is prove him wrong. I've not seen that done, so until then it is host who makes qualitied acusations and points, and you who retorts with jibberish. Who do you think people will think is right?

I've already posted why to me this is a non issue, I've already posted why I think this non-issue will only help the Republicans in 2006 and 8, I am not the only one who saw it that way (I posted that too) and I think the whole thread here is quite silly and a hopeful attempt to 'get Bush'.

I don't know what host does for a living, what he does for fun, who his friends are, or where he lives (or do I) but I don't have time to rehash my thought.

I only WISH I was an agent of the shadow government trilateral commission, skull and bones division, sent here to confuse and monitor the activities of freedom loving and clear thinking Americans because then I would get paid for my time I spend on these forums when I should be doing something useful like cleaning my desk or working.

12-21-2005, 02:52 PM	#282 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread. You switched from "hoping" someone would be set free, to "thinking someone should be set free." I have yet to see anyone jump up and down with joy over the idea of terrorists, or questionable terrorists being set free. What I have read supports the position that some posters think that a given US citizen would have to be let free if their 4th Amendment rights were violated, pursuant to the various stipulations. I can appreciate your position that you don't care if the law was broken, although you don't see that it was or believe it have been, due to the fact that you feel it is the nation's best interest. There are two clear possibilities. 1. Law was broken, and that has consequences. 2. Law was not broken, end of discussion. From what I've seen from reading about the authorization, that's a very broad interpretation to say that Congressional authorization to use necessary force in response to the terrorist threat of 9/11/2001 covers the abrogation of the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, but I suppose we shall see. I personally am glad this debate occurs, regardless of the outcome. Its the only way for our liberties to remain intact in a de facto sense. I am not worried about this giving away our "playbook" to terrorists, so to speak. The only terrorists / bad guys who would be ensnared by phone conversations are those too stupid to be aware of the prevalent case law regarding wire taps. If these idiots thought about it for a second, they wouldn't discuss it over the phone in the first place. In short, if the administration or the Congress or the intelligence agencies feel they must break the law to stay one step ahead, then that's a decision they have to make. When they make that decision, they are (to be redundant) breaking the law, and there are consequences to those actions. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-23-2005, 05:41 PM	#303 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	It's strange to me that Ustwo's straw man argument wasn't just directly replied: President Bush didn't break the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act; he broke the F.I.S.A., which has been in place for 30 years. Democrats aren't "blocking" the Patriot Act, it's still in effect and will continue to be in effect until agreed upon by a bi-partisan majority and finalized. Finally, whether the president lied in 2004 isn't the issue he would be legally charged with. Lying goes to motive and inference of guilt. That's how lies have and will continue to be interpreted by prosecutors and juries. That coupled with Tom Daschle's recent revelations that discussions with the administration specifically ruled out the notion that the authority to use force against Iraq gave him special domestic powers in this regard. But that was a valiant attempt to direct the situation to Clinton lying under oath (about whatever--especially irrelevent given that prosecutors almost always give people the ability to "remember" a more true account before prosecuting for perjury a la repeat visits by current administration officials testifying to the grand jury before initiating a perjury charge) instead of the reality that President Bush has consistently lied to our representatives and public about violating his citizen's 4th amendment rights. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

12-24-2005, 02:17 AM	#305 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What I don't understand is if they are just "tapping" international calls for our "safety" does that not mean they are missing all the domestic terrorist phone calls? I mean if I were a terrorist and I was in the U.S. the last thing I would do is call my friends in the Middle East to make sure I had the plans right. And given there are a few on the Right here that want to believe I am not all that intelligent, I'm sure the terrorists would have thought of this also. I mean Hell, if I needed to communicate with the heads of my organization, I'd just wait for the courier to cross the Mexico border as an illegal and wait till my nearest Wal*Mart hired him to stock shelves and clean. __________________ 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?"

12-28-2005, 05:05 AM	#311 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Host, I think that it is showing desperation. They can't fight what they are doing, public opinion is tearing them apart, even senators from their own party are looking to investigate and one has to ask, what isn't Bush coming clean about. It took a newspaper report to uncover this, what is he doing that isn't being reported? Of course Murdoch is going to attack his competition. He wants to be the only game in town. But I don't think his attacks are going to work much anymore. People are tired of hearing 9/11 as an excuse for everything. Plus, as I pointed out above, how the Hell can you say you are protecting the nation when you allow 1000's of illegals to cross the border every single day? Are we truly supposed to believe that every terrorist is going to call their friends overseas and give the plans? I'm also tired of the Right's argument that "we have forgotten the horrors of 9/11"...... To anyone using that FUCK YOU how dare you use that to further your own purpose and to excuse the president for his illegal actions. I cannot nor will not forget 9/11, but I will not allow a president to use that as an excuse to commit illegal actions. I will not be told that because I want to hold the president to the laws of the land, that I am a traitor, that I have forgotten or that I am weak. The people using these excuses have no better defenses than attacking. They cannot defend the actions of the president, they cannot even support the actions of the president. All they can do is attack and threaten and blame the "leaks"..... Then there's the argument I heard yesterday about the warrants, the question was "why didn't he get the warrants even after the fact?" The response was laughable. "Well, the court is not a rubber stamp and they may not have approved of it. We're supposed to let these people go then? I believe some people have forgotten the true horrors of 9/11 because Bush has protected us." When the rebuttal was "the last major attack before 9/11 happened 8 years before in 1993, and the one before that was OKC a US natural that had no Al Quida ties. So what makes you believe that we would get another one now/" The answer was..... "well regardless, Bush is doing what needs to be done." I'm watching the local news right now and they are having e-mails on and the 5 they read all stated that Bush should be investigated. One made a good point that Bush came forward on this only because of the Times report and questioned what is going on that he doesn't have to come forward on because the news isn't reporting it. The anchor states, "we are at war and the president is doing what is best for all of us." Guess what news affiliate..... The scary part for me is if we do try to investigate Bush, he has nothing to lose then and what might he do? And if we do impeach him, does anyone feel safer with Cheney as president? With Condoleeza? With Hastert? How far down the presidential chain do we have to go? And here is the blow that not a single Righty can answer yes to.... and since they can't I would guess that that shows they truly cannot support Bush's actions, that it is only their hate that allows him their leniency. If this were Hilary, or Bill or Kerry or Gore..... would you still argue that they haven't overstepped any boundaries? I would still have my position. Would you? __________________ 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?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-28-2005 at 05:12 AM..

12-30-2005, 05:36 AM	#312 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	(EDIT): Oops...already covered... __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me Last edited by ScottKuma; 12-30-2005 at 05:46 AM.. Reason: My point was already beaten to death.

12-21-2005, 08:32 PM	#289 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	At this point, the question of whether actual laws were broken is less interesting to me than the question of what the political and PR fallout will be. Remember that "political capital" that Bush crowed about after his re-election? That shit is spent. Are we looking at three years of Bush on the defensive?

12-21-2005, 09:37 PM	#290 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	RB, there was no "political capital" with a vote as close as that one. No second term, war-time president ever got such low numbers. It was a great sound bite, however.

12-22-2005, 11:08 AM	#297 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Bush's lie may not have broken the law, but it was more serious than Clinton's lie since it had to do with our own privacy rather than his.

12-22-2005, 01:59 PM	#299 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I have duplicated Host's posts on three or more occasions in the past, and I have had a couple of mine duplicated in this thread. My errors were due to reading too casually and hope I have corrected that. My duplicated posts can only be due to the sheer size of this thread. It must be a Politics first, that we have stayed out of trouble for so long.

12-27-2005, 06:22 PM	#308 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple? Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press." I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News. We (the people) endured five years of msm obsequiousness to this administration. The only reason the press has returned to the role of government watchdog, in my opinion, is that they perceive the administration as weakened. This "watchdog" sells news for profit, just like any whore. Shakran, this rant isn't directed at you or your obvious integrity. The Miller's, Woodward's and others that sold their journalistic integrity for personal or monitary gain have earned the wrath of everyone still believing in an independent press, including yourself. Perhaps that is the key to accountability? Censure by your peers might be far more effective than getting cranky with my local paper that depends on national feeds.

12-30-2005, 06:02 AM	#313 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	That's nothing new. The strategy here is, attack the leaker to squash the leak. It's worked well in the past--notice that we're not talking anymore about starting a war based on the unsupported claim that Saddam got nuke materials from Niger, but we spent WEEKS dealing with who leaked Plame's identity. Course, that one bit 'em on the ass too... Only problem is, it takes a level of credibility to run that gambit. A level of credibility they no longer have.

12-30-2005, 06:19 AM	#314 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	In response to pan6467's lengthy post: Although I voted for Bush, I started railing against USA PATRIOT as soon as it was announced. It seemed a clear indication of his intent to continue to weaken our individual rights. When I heard about the wiretap allegations, all I had to do was point back to USA PATRIOT and nod my head knowingly. To be honest, I am not sure if he broke the law -- it sure seems as if he may have. Those on the left seem quick to judge; the right-leaning talk radio hosts seem convinced what he did was firmly within his powers as stated under Article II of the US Constitution. I've READ and RE-READ Article II, and can't find a single clause that allows the President to suspend someone's rights as given by law...with the possible exception of the (in my opinion) inadequate "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..." MY problem with the above is that it seems like by allowing wiretaps to go unchecked, he's directly violated the Constitution of the United States by completely bypassing our rights against unreasonable searches & seizures. Does this constitute "High Crimes and Treasons" under which he may be impeached? __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me

12-30-2005, 10:11 AM	#315 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..." This is how Dubya read that passage __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.