Censure? What Censure?

Karen, It's 3:22 mountian time.. finally found this posted about 30 minuetes ago from AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/downing_street_memo

Did Bush Commit an Impeachable Offense?
By Senator Barbara Boxer
t r u t h o u t | Letter

Monday 19 December 2005

Boxer asks presidential scholars about former White House counsel's statement that Bush admitted to an 'impeachable offense.'
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future."

Boxer's letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Bush's Illegal Spying
By David Cole
Salon.com

Tuesday 20 December 2005

The president defied a major Supreme Court ruling to authorize hundreds of wiretaps inside the US.
With the revelation of domestic spying by the National Security Agency, the message transmitted by the Bush White House is crystal clear: When the president decides existing law is insufficient to protect Americans, he'll move ahead on his own and do whatever he deems necessary in the war on terror.

Bush is defiantly battling critics, insisting that his decision to conduct warrantless wiretaps on hundreds of people inside the United States, including American citizens, was necessary and fully consistent with the Constitution and federal law. Neither claim stands up to scrutiny. The president acted unnecessarily, and more significantly, in direct violation of a criminal law.

The secret spying program was said to be necessary because getting court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is too time-consuming. That position is difficult to accept: Warrants requested under FISA can be approved in a matter of hours, and the statute allows the government in emergency situations to put a wiretap in place immediately, and then seek court approval later, within 72 hours. But the true reason behind the administration's position is less difficult to decode - the desire to circumvent a key limitation of FISA. Despite the statute's breadth, it permits wire taps only on agents of foreign powers, and would not have permitted them on persons not directly connected to al-Qaida. Apparently seeking to cast a much wider net after 9/11, the president simply ignored the law and unilaterally - and secretly - authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

Was it legal to do so? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the president's authority rests on two foundations: Congress's authorization to use military force against al-Qaida, and the Constitution's vesting of power in the president as commander-in-chief, which necessarily includes gathering "signals intelligence" on the enemy. But that argument cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. In 1952, the Supreme Court considered a remarkably similar argument during the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, widely considered the most important separation-of-powers case ever decided by the court, flatly rejected the president's assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. President Truman had invoked the commander-in-chief clause to justify seizing most of the nation's steel mills. A nationwide strike threatened to undermine the war, Truman contended, because the mills were critical to manufacturing munitions.

The Supreme Court's rationale for rejecting Truman's claims applies with full force to Bush's policy. In what proved to be the most influential opinion in the case, Justice Robert Jackson identified three possible scenarios in which a president's actions may be challenged. Where the president acts with explicit or implicit authorization from Congress, his authority "is at its maximum," and will generally be upheld. Where Congress has been silent, the president acts in a "zone of twilight" in which legality "is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." But where the president acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," Justice Jackson maintained, his power is "at its lowest ebb," and his actions can be sustained only if Congress has no authority to regulate the subject at all.

In the steel seizure case, Congress had considered and rejected giving the president the authority to seize businesses in the face of threatened strikes, thereby placing President Truman's action in the third of Justice Jackson's categories. As to the war power, Justice Jackson noted, "The Constitution did not contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries, and its inhabitants."

Like Truman, President Bush acted in the face of contrary congressional authority. In FISA, Congress expressly addressed the subject of warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. Congress then went further and made it a crime, punishable by up to five years in jail, to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization.

Attorney General Gonzales contends that the authorization by Congress to use military force somehow implicitly gave the president power to wiretap Americans at home. But nothing in the authorization even mentions wiretaps. And that claim is directly contrary to the express language in FISA limiting any such authority. While intercepting the enemy's communications on the battlefield may well be an incident of the war power, wiretapping hundreds of people inside the United States who are not known to be members of Al Qaeda in no way qualifies as an incidental wartime authority.

In light of Congress's explicit rejection of unchecked wiretap authority, Bush, like Truman before him, is clearly in Justice Jackson's third category. To uphold the president here would require finding that Congress has no authority at all to regulate domestic wiretaps of Americans - a proposition that would require overturning decades of established federal law built on congressional regulation of electronic surveillance.

Had the president's legal advisors consulted Youngstown, the leading Supreme Court case on unilateral executive power in wartime, they would have realized that the appropriate course, if the president felt FISA was insufficient, was not to act secretly and unilaterally in defiance of the law, but to ask Congress to change the law. Bush had a convenient vehicle to do so; the administration delivered legislation within a week and a half of 9/11 that ultimately became the Patriot Act, and which granted numerous expansions of FISA authority - including the infamous "libraries" provision, and an expanded ability to conduct foreign intelligence wiretaps in criminal investigations.

Bush has argued that seeking approval for the wiretaps more openly might somehow have tipped off al-Qaida to the possibility they would be subject to surveillance. But many U.S. tactics in the war on terror, in addition to the provisions under FISA, already put terrorists on notice of precisely that possibility. Moreover, Bush's argument proves too much, because it could be applied to every counterterrorism statute. The price of democracy - and indeed, its strength - is that the broad outlines of government must be agreed upon in public, not imposed unilaterally behind closed doors.

It is possible, of course, that the president's advisors overlooked the Youngstown precedent, despite its status as the court's most important case on executive power during wartime. In the infamous Justice Department torture memorandum of August 2002, John Yoo - who also reportedly wrote the memo justifying domestic wiretaps - made a similar argument that the commander-in-chief authority included the power to order torture, in direct contravention of a statute criminalizing torture and a treaty prohibiting it under all circumstances. That memo did not even cite Youngstown. But ignorance is no excuse. The president acted in clear contravention of a criminal law enacted by Congress, and a Supreme Court precedent, both directly on point.

Bush acted, in other words, as if there are no checks and balances in the American system of government. Some things changed drastically after 9/11, but we cannot allow that to be one of them.

-------

CENSURE n.
1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.
1. To criticize severely; blame.
2. To express official disapproval of: "whether the Senate will censure one of its members for conflict of interest" (Washington Post).

[Middle English, from Latin cnsra, censorship, from cnsor, Roman censor; see censor.]

Thesaurus:
censure -- harsh criticism or disapproval
animadversion, condemnation, disapprobation -- an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable; "his uncompromising condemnation of racism"

------

IMPEACH tr.v.
1a. To make an accusation against.
1b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

[Middle English empechen, to impede, accuse, from Anglo-Norman empecher, from Late Latin impedicre, to entangle : Latin in-, in; see in-2 + Latin pedica, fetter; see ped- in Indo-European roots.]

Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

Word History: Nothing hobbles a President so much as impeachment, and there is an etymological as well as a procedural reason for this. The word impeach can be traced back through Anglo-Norman empecher to Late Latin impedicre, "to catch, entangle," from Latin pedica, "fetter for the ankle, snare." Thus we find that Middle English empechen, the ancestor of our word, means such things as "to cause to get stuck fast," "hinder or impede," "interfere with," and "criticize unfavorably." A legal sense of empechen is first recorded in 1384. This sense, which had previously developed in Old French, was "to accuse, bring charges against."

[Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]

-----

'nuff said,
Otter

"In the United States impeachment at the federal level can apply only to those accused of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", according to Article II, Section IV of the US Constitution" From Wikipedia

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

For once I'm going to be deadly serious here. My first reading of Conyers report does seem to indeed rise to the level of impeachable offences. I just want to point something out, impeachment is not conviction. In and of itself to impeach Bush will not stop the abuses of power. Nixon resigned in the face of the charges, and in hindsight it was probaly a more honorable act than we would normally give him credit for. Bush has no such honor, it will go to the House. We MUST have the votes to convict, anything else would be a failure.

First and foremost we have to stop preaching to th choir. It will take a sizable group of Republicans in the both the Senate and the House to accomplish this. We have to start contacting them NOW. As Karen has pointed out late December and early January are ideal times. We have to let them know that we not only back Conyers call, we expect, nay demand that the proper actions be taken. We dare not approach just those we know favor our cause, we must enter the lion's den and convince those of the President's party that the time has come to redeem themselves.

Secondly we must make sure that the choir is singing the same song. We all have many and diverse reasons for wishing to see this President removed from office, for once we must understand that the result is more important than our own particular issues.

Remember, impeachment without conviction is failure.

Senator Byrd: No President Is Above the Law
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005I.shtml
Robert Byrd states that the president claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the president unchecked power to spy on our own people, to create covert prisons for secret prisoners, authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them, authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around US law, or give the president the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

To flesh out NonnyO's reference just a little bit more:

"The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than 'trust me.' But, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy."

(snip)

"The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates."

"I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd

impeach the chimpanderer in cheat,
Otter

Ellen's helping us maintain our balance... check out this part of one of her recent blog posts at Ellen of the Tenth:

Hey Alberto, if you decide to do one of those sneak and peak searches in my house, here are a few tips:

- Don't antagonize the Democat, it's nap time no matter when you come in and her bite is worse than her bark.

- It wouldn't kill you to vacuum.

- You can watch cable, but I'm not giving you the parental control code to watch porn or O'Reilly.

- You can eat anything out of the fridge, but I'd watch that tuna, not sure how old it is, and if you can identify that black thing in the back, let me know.

Check out her blog here...
http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2005/12/military-dictatorship.html

And thanks for the chuckle, Ellen!

Deputy Calls on Bush to Apologize during Afghan Inaugural Ceremony
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005H.shtml
With tears in his eyes, President Hamid Karzai concluded his speech for the inaugural ceremony of Afghanistan's first parliament in 30 years, deeming that "Afghanistan is back on its feet again after decades of war and occupation." One deputy, however, asserted that "President Bush owes us an apology for supporting extremist war lords, the Northern Alliance criminals," well-represented in the new parliament.

UK Minister Lied over CIA Flights
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005C.shtml
The British Foreign Office privately accepts that CIA rendition flights did pass through its territory, a diplomatic source told United Press International.

IMHO: With a bit of solid detective work, a good lawyer/judge should be able to come up with excellent PROBABLE CAUSE to charge the pResident with international crimes as well as high crimes and misdemeanors within the US. Crimes for which indictments could stick, and which could send him (and his co-conspirators in his administration) to jail. Since 2000, The Cretin and his administration have consistently acted outside and above the law, like the Constitution and the laws written for the last 200++ years do not apply to them. That attitude is either just plain crazy or morally reprehensible.

With charges and/or convictions for high crimes (felonies) and misdemeanors, that should be grounds enough for impeachment.....

Bipartisan call for wiretapping probe
Cheney says Bush has right to authorize secret surveillance

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three Democratic and two Republican senators have sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence committees, asking for an "immediate inquiry" into President Bush's authorization of a secret wiretapping program.

"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," says the letter, which was signed by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, as well as GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe.

"These allegations, which the president, at least in part, confirmed this weekend, require immediate inquiry and action by the Senate," said the letter, which was sent Monday.

President Bush confirmed Saturday that he had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept calls to or from people inside the country with known ties to al Qaeda or its affiliates, when the other party on the call is outside the United States.

The surveillance is conducted without obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, which the president said was necessary because authorities needed to move against terrorists more quickly than that court could allow.

"I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties," Bush said in a news conference Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

Posted by: Ladyteche at December 20, 2005 05:23 PM

The republican representative can't even let 5 seconds go by without mentioning the so-called-"War on Terror."

Ok...so if Bush and this administration and the neoCON supporters are so effective on the war on terror, then WHERE is Osama and WHY are terrorist running around in Iraq.

Sorry for the shouting in the following post:

I have been reading the blog for the last several days and have been awestruck by the absolutely excellent persuasive writing. Boy, we got rhetoric like nobody else. Let's use what we got and convince others of the danger that this country is in. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Get the word out. Use your talent beyond this blog. Take what you have written and submit it to an editor(s). THE LAW IS ON OUR SIDE!
We can make our case, but LadieTechie is right (Posted by: Ladytechie at December 20, 2005 06:06 PM) we must remained focused. We must work to change the Congress by virtue of the 2006 elections. It is only with that change that WE THE PEOPLE can say NO to an autocrat with messianic delusions.

OT:

Spoke with Barry a little while ago; he sounded just fine! He may go home tomorrow--all went well!

Place good wishes here:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=980&pid=3851&st=0&#entry3851

Seriously...

Brace yourself for fresh violence in Iraq THE ELECTIONS ARE NOW OFFICIALLY IN DISPUTE.

The Sunnis ain't having it, the insurgency will kick back up again now. Probably starting tomorrow.

Just posted the story on Reb Nation if your interested.

http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2005/12/and-georgies-war-zone-elections-falls.html

The story is hitting MSM a little bit .. 2 pages worth (this is about half). Check out the Repub talking points .. predictable.

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Akron Beacon Journal, OH - 31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Update 1: Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Forbes - 38 minutes ago
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they misled ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Washington Post, United States - 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN - 50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Congress to censure Bush and Cheney over Iraq war
San Diego Union Tribune, United States - 52 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
San Jose Mercury News, USA - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
KFMB, CA - 1 hour ago
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they misled ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Biloxi Sun Herald, USA - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Brocktown News, USA - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers (, , ), D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
WJLA, DC - 1 hour ago
Washington (AP) - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush (website - news - bio) and Vice ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Leading The Charge, Australia - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers (, , ), D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Herald News Daily, ND - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers (, , ), D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Ely Times, USA - 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers (, , ), D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Kentucky.com, KY - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Duluth News Tribune, MN - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Conyers Wants to Censure Bush, Cheney
FOX News - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
CBS News - 2 hours ago
(AP) Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they misled ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscription), MN - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
The Conservative Voice, NC - 2 hours ago
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they misled ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Fort Worth Star Telegram, TX - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
TheNewsTribune.com (subscription), WA - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
ABC News - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON Dec 20, 2005 — Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, IN - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
Newsday, NY - 2 hours ago
By Associated Press. WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
OregonLive.com, OR - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Macon Telegraph, GA - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker Wants Bush and Cheney Censured
phillyBurbs.com, PA - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Lawmaker wants Bush and Cheney censured
Kansas City Star, MO - 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying ...

Not My Prez...

WOW, you've been busy

``I think the vice president ought to reread the Constitution,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

The IRC is getting lively again... join us there.

Please recommend this diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/12140/637

Posted by: not my president at December 20, 2005 07:52 PM

Thanks! Looks like this lame excuse ridden sneaky criminal pResident is finally getting a little truthfull press.

I find this whole topic so rediculously stupid, but it just made the main headlines on cnn.com (guess they had to counter the bad news on intelligent design with something)...

Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 7:08 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- In the cultural battle over whether to use the seasonal greeting "Happy holidays" or "Merry Christmas," the latter appears to be winning, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the poll, which surveyed 1,003 adult Americans by phone, 69 percent said they prefer "Merry Christmas" over "Happy holidays," which garnered 29 percent.

Compared with the 2004 Christmas -- or holiday -- season, the number of people who said they use "Happy holidays" has dropped 12 percentage points, from 41 percent to 29 percent.(Test your holiday spirit)

That's bound to be good news for some Christian conservatives who've been pushing for advertisers and stores to wish patrons "Merry Christmas" rather than the more secular and inclusive "Happy holidays."

Those who prefer "bah humbug" were not included in the survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Much of the greeting debate has been driven by how people prefer to be greeted by clerks at stores and public institutions. In the poll, 61 percent of respondents said more stores and institutions using "Happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" is a change for the worse.

Last year, 43 percent said the use of "Happy holidays" was a change for the worse.

On the political front, although the campaign for "Merry Christmas" appears to be waged largely by conservative Americans, many Democrats and liberals appear to be affected by it, according to the poll.

A majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said they preferred "Happy holidays" last year. But this year, a majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said their preference was "Merry Christmas." Those findings have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points.

The poll was conducted Friday through Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/index.html

p.s. Merry F***ing Holidaze, ya morons.

Posted by: marc trager at December 20, 2005 08:49 PM

Another proof that the right-wing wackos have the upper hand, along with the gay marriage question and Ford's recent temporary cave-in to the AFA.

I'll take "Merry Christmas" when the Christians stop acting in a death cult-ish manner, and care about people rather than the Armageddon.

Kerry: White House spying unconstitutional, Bush excuse `lame'
By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer | December 20, 2005

BOSTON --Domestic spying authorized by the White House "doesn't uphold our Constitution" and President Bush offered a "lame" defense in recent public appearances, Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to Bush in the 2004 presidential election, also said the alleged White House leak of a CIA agent's identity was more serious than the media's disclosure of the spying program.

Bush said Monday it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details of the program to The New York Times, and he suggested the Justice Department is investigating the leak.

Though leaking any classified information is against the law, "there is a world of difference between what the president's engaged in and what was leaked out of the White House," Kerry told reporters after addressing ironworkers at a local labor hall.

"The leak in the White House was an effort to destroy somebody and his family and attack them for telling the truth," the senator said, referring to former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. Her identity as a CIA analyst was exposed in July 2003 after Wilson challenged an administration justification for the Iraqi war.

"The leak that took place in this case is a leak that -- I'm not excusing it -- is to tell the truth about something that violates the rights of Americans and doesn't uphold our Constitution," Kerry said.

The Republican National Committee batted away the criticism.

"While President Bush remains focused on defending Americans against those intent on doing us harm, John Kerry remains focused on attacking President Bush," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.

During a news conference Monday, Bush issued a forceful defense of the program he first approved after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying Congress gave him the power to authorize the spying under a broad mandate to protect the country "by all means necessary."

"I think the president's explanation is lame," Kerry said. "The fact is that there is no wording whatsoever in the law that permits what he engaged in. ... And the president's claim that he has some inherent authority to do this -- against the stated intention of Congress not to -- is simply wrong."

Bush's senior aides have said the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. They said there is often no time to use a special federal court empowered by Congress to approve domestic spying, even though that approval can be sought after spying is conducted in time-sensitive cases.

During his conversation with reporters, Kerry revealed he plans to travel to Iraq late next month. He also said he would visit India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Marc,

Thank you for posting that.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser said if Conyers "spent half the time condemning terrorism that he does condemning the President of the United States, he would be a credible voice in the war on terror."

Ok look

Freedom Riders..... Add your opinions

http://thepaulrevereproject.blogspot.com/

I agree that we need to go into the lion's den and apeak to our Republican congressmen about the spying issue. I just sent an e-mail to my very conservative congressman, Jeff Miller, calling for him to join with Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter and show me that he has some integrity about this issue. I'm sick of people who damned well know better supporting this monster in whatever he does just because of his party label. Censure isn't nearly enough- nothing will suffice but impeachment over this matter. But it may have to wait until November to take place. What we need to do now is keep this issue going until election time and get the American people angry enough to elect congressmen who will do the job. We can't expect the president's own party to have an ounce of integrity about this thing- there are very few honest Republicans out there. But every single member of the House is up for election in November, and if the American people are convinced enough that W needs impeaching, they'll vote democratic. I don't even care that it would put Cheney in the White House- he's there already pulling all the strings. At least that damned smirking chimpanzee would never show his face on my TV set again.
I'm a little P.O'ed tonight. Maybe y'all can tell.

Framing question of the day:

What happens in the "strict father" model when the father goes overboard and becomes a mentally unstable, abusive individual?

I'm going to call all the Republicans I can.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

I have unused cell phone minutes or can fax.

Posted by: Veritas at December 20, 2005 10:27 PM

The actual term is 'Family Anniahlator'

The kill the family to save the family.

Christy

By Googling, I see that is an actual social psychology/psychiatry term. Whew!

The questions hangs in the air: WHO WILL BE THE MEDIA???

We will be the media. We are the media now. Make a press pass for yourself and go at it.

I am still calling Republicans - left messagse for Ted Stevens & Lisa Merkowski just now, about spying on citizens & about tying the Alaska drilling to the defense budget bill - how wrong that would be.

Conyers articles are being picked up by newspapers & local tv news but they appear to be trumped now by articles on how Cheney is defiant that spying is ok.

Point
Counterpoint

Has it/will it hit the foreign press so it is known there is resistance?

Mostly red state papers are using the "Cheney Says" headlines, burying the Conyers psychologically. That may be their strategy.

Never mind that Cheney has a main aide who has a pending court case for outing a CIA agent and that prisons are being discovered every so often that no one knew about.

Posted by: DiAnne at December 20, 2005 10:52 PM

Yup

Their crimes are absolutely disgusting.

The pathology is actually quite simple.

They maintain control over the family by killing them all.

Donors Underwrite DeLay's Deluxe Lifestyle

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants - all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.

Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests.

Public documents reviewed by The Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two.
(snip)

Put them together and a lifestyle emerges.

``A life to enjoy. The excuse to escape,'' Palmas del Mar, an oceanside Puerto Rican resort visited by DeLay, promised in a summer ad on its Web site as a golf ball bounced into a hole and an image of a sunset appeared. The Caribbean vacation spot has casino gambling, horseback riding, snorkeling, deep-sea fishing and private beaches.
(snip)

AP's review found DeLay's various organizations spent at least $1 million over the last six years on hotels, restaurants, golf resorts and corporate jet flights for their boss and his associates.
(snip)

-Campaign and PAC reports filed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., show several payments to companies for travel, including Cracker Barrel, Union Pacific, Schering-Plough and Home Depot. But there were few visits to golf courses, and those were mostly close to home.

-Reports from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., show expenses at resorts in South Carolina, New Mexico and Puerto Rico. But he too holds most events closer to home, like Las Vegas casinos and Lake Tahoe resorts.

-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has held events at ritzy hotels such as The Mark in New York and the Four Seasons in Atlanta, but had few corporate flights or visits to resorts, her reports show.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., comes closest to rivaling DeLay's travels, reporting fundraisers at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in Florida, the Ritz-Carlton in Kapalua, Hawaii, the Phoenician Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz., and the Waterfall Resort in Alaska. Hastert's groups also paid for dozens of corporate jet flights and restaurant meals.

(snip)

DeLay's travels with recently indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff are now under criminal investigation. But those trips were paid by special interests directly under the banner of congressional fact-finding.

DeLay's own political empire has underwritten far more travel.

The destinations for DeLay or his political team include a Ritz-Carlton hotel in Jamaica; the Prince Hotel in Hapuna Beach, Hawaii; the Michelangelo Hotel in New York; the Wyndham El Conquistador Resort & Golden Door Spa in Fajardo, Puerto Rico; and the Phoenician Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz., built by Charles Keating before he became the most public face of the savings and loan scandal in the early 1990s.

There's also the Ritz-Carlton in Naples, Fla., offering ``dazzling views of the Gulf of Mexico, warm golden sunsets and three miles of pristine beach'' plus golf, a spa, goose-down comforters, marble bathrooms and private, ocean-view balconies. Rooms run from about $389 to more than $3,000 a night in December, the month DeLay's PAC spent $4,570 on lodging there in 2004.
(snip)

The villas have up to three bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms and French doors that open onto terraces or balconies facing the Caribbean. A moon-shape pool hugs the edge of a steep cliff, its waters spilling over and appearing to blend into the sea. Villa prices average about $1,300 a night.

Guests get their own butlers. The resort offers six swimming pools and an 18-hole championship golf course. Its casino served as the setting for the last scene in the James Bond movie ``Goldfinger.''

DeLay's donors have also financed visits to country clubs and tournament-quality golf courses, including the exclusive Baltusrol Golf Club in Springfield, N.J., site of this summer's PGA Championship; Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Farmington, Pa., home of another PGA event; and Harbour Town Golf Links, a Jack Nicklaus-designed course on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

``World class. Dynamic. Luxury resort. Spend a day, spend a week, spend a lifetime,'' another DeLay fundraising spot, the ChampionsGate golf resort near Orlando, Fla., invites on its Web site.

The resort, where a round of golf typically costs $70 to $80 per player on top of lodging, has two championship courses designed by pro golfer Greg Norman and offers players a Global Positioning Satellite system it boasts ``acts as a professional caddie.''

Dining at fine restaurants also is routine. The stops for DeLay and his associates include Morton's of Chicago, where the average dinner for two goes for about $170 before tax and tip, and ``21'' in Manhattan, a longtime glamour spot where American caviar goes for $38 for a taste.

When DeLay wants to head somewhere without the hassle of commercial travel, he often asks a company for its jet and uses donations to pay for it.

Dozens of businesses have loaned DeLay their planes, from tobacco giants UST, RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris to energy companies like El Paso, Panda, Reliant and Dynegy.

R.J. Reynolds let DeLay use a company plane at least nine times since 1999, once joining Philip Morris in making jets available for a DeLay PAC fundraiser at a Puerto Rican resort in winter 2002. R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said planes are loaned usually at lawmakers' request and are only done if jets aren't needed for company business.

``It's much more convenient as opposed to your regular commercial travel,'' Howard said, noting there is no need to go through airport security.

On R.J. Reynolds' planes, smoking is allowed and there are usually beverages and deli-style food. There's more leg room and the convenience of phones.

The smoking rule suits DeLay, who likes to chomp on cigars while golfing and reported spending at least $1,930 in PAC money on cigar-shop purchases. The cigars were reported to the Federal Election Commission as donor gifts.

DeLay's political committee also reported a $2,896 shopping spree at the Amelia Marche Burette gift shop on Amelia Island, Fla., for donor gifts. The shop carries ``gourmet cookware, Sabatier cutlery and gadgets for your every need.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5493940,00.html

Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the N.S.A. to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cellphone call or sending an e-mail message. As a result, people that the security agency may think are outside the United States are actually on American soil.

Vice President Dick Cheney entered the debate over the legality of the program on Tuesday, casting the program as part of the administration's efforts to assert broader presidential powers. [Page A36.]

Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush's order allowing some domestic surveillance.

But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years.

Mr. Bush and his senior aides have emphasized since the disclosure of the program's existence last week that the president's executive order applied only to cases where one party on a call or e-mail message was outside the United States.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former N.S.A. director who is now the second-ranking intelligence official in the country, was asked at a White House briefing this week whether there had been any "purely domestic" intercepts under the program.

"The authorization given to N.S.A. by the president requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States," General Hayden answered. "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States."

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales also emphasized that the order only applied to international communications. "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors," he said. "Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States."

A spokeswoman for the office of national intelligence declined comment on whether the N.S.A. had intercepted any purely domestic communications. "We'll stand by what General Hayden said in his statement," said the spokeswoman, Judy Emmel.

The Bush administration has not released the guidelines that the N.S.A. uses in determining who is suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and may be a target under the program. General Hayden said the determination was made by operational people at the agency and "must be signed off by a shift supervisor," with the process closely scrutinized by officials at the agency, the Justice Department and elsewhere.

But questions about the legal and operational oversight of the program last year prompted the administration to suspend aspects of it temporarily and put in place tighter restrictions on the procedures used to focus on suspects, said people with knowledge of the program. The judge who oversees the secret court that authorizes intelligence warrants - and which has been largely bypassed by the program - also raised concerns about aspects of the program.

The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings.

General Hayden, at this week's briefing, would not discuss many technical aspects of the program and did not answer directly when asked whether the program was used to eavesdrop on people who should not have been. But he indicated that N.S.A. operational personnel sometimes decide to stop surveillance of a suspect when the eavesdropping has not produced relevant leads on terror cases.

"We can't waste resources on targets that simply don't provide valuable information, and when we decide that is the case," the decision on whether a target is "worthwhile" is usually made in days or weeks, he said.

National security and telecommunications experts said that even if the N.S.A. seeks to adhere closely to the rules that Mr. Bush has set, the logistics of the program may make it difficult to ensure that the rules are being followed.

With roaming cellphones, internationally routed e-mail, and voice-over Internet technology, "it's often tough to find out where a call started and ended," said Robert Morris, a former senior scientist at the N.S.A. who is retired. "The N.S.A. is good at it, but it's difficult even for them. Where a call actually came from is often a mystery."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?ei=5094&en=c385132b746e1109&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

As Sen. Frank Church pointed out way back in 1975:

"At the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology…

"I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

definitely a bridge too far,
Otter

Donors Underwrite DeLay's Deluxe Lifestyle
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_go_co/delay_living_on_donors

snip

Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests.

Public documents reviewed by The Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two.

Instead of his personal expense, the meals and trips for DeLay and his associates were paid with donations collected by the campaign committees, political action committees and children's charity the Texas Republican created during his rise to the top of Congress. His lawyer says the expenses are part of DeLay's effort to raise money from Republicans and to spread the GOP message.

snip

And most definitely in the Go There, Do That Department:

You can add your name to the following letter by going to http://www.johnconyers.com -- and while you're there, be sure to leave a comment thanking Congressman Conyers for having a pair and being willing to be among the very first Reps and Sens to stand up and lead the charge to finally pry the keys to the White House from the neocons' cold, dead fingers.

(Oh, yeah, and don't forget to visit http://www.impeachpac.org/ and put your $.02 in there, too -- or, better yet, your $2.)

-----

Letter Advising President of Censure
and
Steps to Begin Special Committee Investigation

Dear Mr. President:

We are brave, proud, patriotic citizens of the United States. We love our country and are writing to express our profound disappointment with you and your administration for your conduct surrounding the Iraq War, the collection and use of intelligence, and your disrespect for the laws of this great nation.

We are calling upon Congress to form a Special Committee to investigate your administration's abuses of power and report any offenses which rise to the level of impeachment.

We are also calling upon Congress to immediately censure you and Vice-President Cheney.

We have great love for our country and faith in the government institutions provided for in our constitution. We believe that the integrity of our nation is at stake and have supported these steps only after your administration has refused to come clean with the American people at every opportunity.

Respectfully,
John Conyers

-----

impeach the lying liars in bubbleboy's bubble,
Otter

Spy court judge quits in protest
Jurist worried that Bush order tainted work of secret panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post
Dec. 20, 2005

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

‘A great national debate’
"There's going to be a great national debate on this subject," Specter told reporters yesterday, while emphasizing concerns over the White House's legal arguments in support of the program.

The hearings, possibly in several committees, would take place at the beginning of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war is also likely to figure prominently in key House and Senate races.

Hagel and Snowe joined three Democratic colleagues -- Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) -- in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence panels into the classified program.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it, and I'll be watching it as this debate goes on over the next few weeks," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

The White House continued to insist yesterday that the classified surveillance program is legal and that key congressional leaders have been informed of the NSA activities since they began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested that the secrecy around the program may prohibit White House cooperation with any congressional investigation. "This is still a highly classified program, and there are details that it's important not be disclosed," McClellan said.

"We've already briefed the leadership and the leaders of the relevant committees," McClellan said, "and the attorney general's going back talking to additional members about this so that they do have a better understanding of this authorization and what it's designed to do and how it is narrowly tailored and limited in how it's used."

more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/

Robertson's resignation was reported hours after Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended the surveillance program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.

Cheney -- a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ford -- said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam eras.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al Qaeda.

"I believe the Congress -- as a coequal branch of government _ must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine.

from kos today:

But no distortion is more blatant, I think, than the one being circulated now that both Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless searches.

Think Progress does a quick and painless job of eviscerating the myth. Let's take a closer look and put this lie to rest. Yes, both Clinton and Carter issued executive orders pertaining to foreign intelligence surveillance. But neither of these even remotely authorized warrantless searches of American citizens, as Bush's order does.

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!

BUSH'S ORDER IS UNPRECEDENTED AND ILLEGAL
In stark contrast to the Clinton/Carter orders, Bush's order marks the first time that an American President has unilaterally turned our nation's massive spying apparatus against its own citizens. Unlike the Carter order, Bush has not followed the check-and-balance requirements of FISA. And unlike Clinton, his order allows the government to spy on communications of ordinary Americans. We learn this morning that Bush's haphazard approach of "screw the law and the spy at will" has resulted in the interception of purely domestic communications. We also learn that Judge Robertson, who is one of only 11 judges appointed to the secret FISA court, has resigned in protest of Bush's policy. Republicans are calling for inquires into the matter. This is a grave matter. Do not let the apologists on the right use illogic and outright lies to defend the violation of our constitutional rights.

As this investigation proceeds, defenders of the President will grow more and more shrill. They'll hiss, they'll attack, they'll fight like a wounded and dying animal to protect their Dear Leader. But the law doesn't lie: Bush's order is unprecedented. And no amount of spinning can change that fact.

go here to see the original and get all the embedded links...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/21/8157/6595#23

And here's the original ThinkProgress reference:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Did you ever wish you could be a fly on the wall at the Bush family Christmas dinner. I wish I could. I'd like to know of George the first has anything to do with the way that W is totally destroying the family name in the history books. George the first had has little problems too- such as completely destroying the American economy, Iran contra, etc., but no one ever mentioned the idea of impeaching him. And a hundred years from now- it's going to be this George Bush that kids read about in their history books as one of the worst presidents in history. If they're as dimwitted as most Americans today, they'll never know the difference between the two Bushes- the name will just be mud throughout the rest of American history. Poor George Sr.- I never felt sorry for him before, but now I do. Just a little bit.

There are 4 Republican senators who have Bill Frist upset...

More details in this WaPo article...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001488.html

The four are:

Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Sen. Murkowski indicates that her office has received phone calls from people outside her state upset with her stand on this. Supportive phone calls may be due to those standing up for our rights as American citizens.

There are 2 Dems that are not standing up against the Patriot Act though their names are not mentioned in the article. Anyone know who that might be?

Linda...

I've felt worse for bugs that I've stepped on.

Save your compassion for those more deserving.

Get over it.

Lawmakers say Bush briefings did not fulfill legal requirements

The limited oral briefings provided by the White House to a handful of lawmakers about the domestic eavesdropping program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement under the National Security Act that calls for such reports to be in written form, congressional officials from both parties said on Tuesday, the New York Times will report Wednesday, RAW STORY has learned.

The White House has refused to describe the timing and scope of the briefings, except to say that there were more than a dozen. But among the small group of current and former congressional leaders who have attended the high-level gatherings conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House, several have described them as sessions in which aides were barred and note-taking was prohibited.

All told, no more than 14 members of Congress have been briefed about the program since it took effect in 2001, the congressional officials said. Now lawmakers from both parties are debating whether those members-only briefings provided a sufficient basis for oversight of an activity that is only now coming under intense congressional scrutiny.

"You can't have the administration and a select number of members alter the law," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who heads the Judiciary Committee, said this week. "It can't be done."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this week that he had received only a "single, very short briefing" on the subject this year, after taking over as his party's leader. Reid has called on Congress to review not only whether the program was authorized, but also what he called a "flawed congressional consultation system" in which the White House maintained the upper hand.

There are 2 Dems that are not standing up against the Patriot Act though their names are not mentioned in the article. Anyone know who that might be?

Posted by: dwahzon at December 21, 2005 09:06 AM

Based on the vote on Dec. 16th, my guess is that it's Nelson from Nebraska & Johnson from South Dakota.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358#position

Dwahzon

"Sen. Murkowski indicates that her office has received phone calls from people outside her state upset with her stand on this. Supportive phone calls may be due to those standing up for our rights as American citizens."

Wow - I called her & Ted Stevens last night. I mentioned Patriot Act, wiretapping without warrants and tacked on Alaska Wildlife drilling.

Posted by: nmp at December 21, 2005 12:36 AM
snip
"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales also emphasized that the order only applied to international communications. "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors," he said. "Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.""

I think this goes to Linda E's feeling that her scrabble communications with her friend in Canada were being intercepted.

You know - sometimes I'm sure all of us feel like a lot of this is conspiracy theory. But each day that goes by shows more and more clearly that we're not in Kansas anymore. Not to state the obvious, but there is some really serious s*#t going down under this administration.

Where's my country?

See?

I am still calling Republicans - left messagse for Ted Stevens & Lisa Merkowski just now, about spying on citizens & about tying the Alaska drilling to the defense budget bill - how wrong that would be.

Posted by: DiAnne at December 20, 2005 11:04 PM

I want to call all of the Republicans.

A new growth industry in technology...

Technofascism

hattip to kos poster Thor

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14556&hed=Searching+for+Security§or=Industries&subsector=SecurityAndDefense

Need an excuse for just about anything you do that's potentially illegal?

The 'War on Terror' Made Me Do It
In the wake of revelations that President Bush ordered his secret police to spy on Americans, Senators from both Parties are crying foul, judges are resigning in protest, and the media is discussing the 'ifs' and 'whens' of impeachment. But what is the President saying amidst all this hullabaloo?

"The 'War on Terror' made me do it."

Well...if this excuse works so well to justify the willful disposal of The United States Constitution, I wonder what else it could justify?
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2005/12/frameshop_the_w.html#more

For another good chuckle:

2-0-5 George Bush's Year in Review - from JibJab

http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx

More Deibold election stuff:

Category: National Politics
Subject: California SOS Traps Diebold

California "Hack" test stalled as Diebold certification derails

BREAKING - Dec. 20, 2005: California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson
has laid a subtle and elegant trap. Today, California threw Diebold
Election Systems' pending certification into a tailspin, using
Machiavellian logic designed to cast doubt
on the federal testing lab process, the upcoming HAVA deadline and
Diebold voting systems simultaneously (while standing neatly aside to
watch the house of cards collapse).

This move follows on the heels of a devastating hack demonstration by
Harri Hursti sponsored by Black Box Voting, which took place in Leon
County, Florida on Dec. 13. This hack manipulated memory cards by
exploiting design defects and Diebold's customized "AccuBasic" program
code.

Here's how the California trap works: In a terse letter to Diebold,
State elections chief Caren Daniels Meade writes, "Unresolvedsignificant
security concerns
exist with respect to the memory card used to program and configure the
AccuVote-OS [optical scan] and the AccuVote-TSX [touch-screen]
components of this system because this component was not subjected to
federal source code review and evaluation by the Independent Testing
Authorities (ITA) who examined your system for federal qualification. It
is the Secretary of State's position that the source code for the
AccuBasic code on these cards, as well
as for the AccuBasic interpreter that interprets this code, should have
been federally reviewed.

"we are requesting that you submit the source code relating to the
AccuBasic code on the memory cards and the AccuBasic interpreter to the
ITA for immediate evaluation. We require this additional review before
proceeding with further consideration of your application for
certification in California."

And herein lies the trap. Federal testing authorities are supposed to
rely on standards set by the Federal Election Commission. The FEC
standards prohibit "Interpreted code" - thus, the AccuBasic
"interpreter" is illegal. (The entire
AccuBasic source code tree is written in a home-brewed language that
Diebold programmers made up themselves, making it more difficult for
certifiers to examine.)

The Hursti memory card attack demonstrated in Leon County Florida
manipulated the voting system by passing code through -- drum roll
please -- the Diebold interpreter, using a set of programs called
AccuBasic which was written in a concocted computer language and (now it
is revealed) was never examined at all by federal testing labs.

The ITA dilemma: ITAs have the choice of either recommending code that
explicitly violates FEC standards (placing an unsupportable liability
burden on them) or admitting that the original certification was
defective. If the ITAs retract their
recommendation, it will effectively strip Diebold of its federal
certification, and may also affect its older products.

The Diebold dilemma: Diebold can refuse to submit its code to the ITAs,
but that will lose the state of California, continuing a pattern
initiated last week when two Florida counties dumped their Diebold
machines. Alternatively, Diebold can submit its code and watch as the
federal authorities sever their product line
from the U.S. market.

The position is made more unstable because Diebold is now fending off
stockholder suits by an armload of attorneys piling on to solicit
clients for a voting machine-related securities fraud lawsuit.

Link: http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Call to Action: Letters to the Ann Arbor News needed to expose the
SOS-required use of Diebold AccuVote machines in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw
County

Posted by: Carol at December 21, 2005 10:30 AM

Carol, did you catch it? Abramhoff might flip and give evidence.

And a hundred years from now- it's going to be this George Bush that kids read about in their history books as one of the worst presidents in history. If they're as dimwitted as most Americans today, they'll never know the difference between the two Bushes- the name will just be mud throughout the rest of American history. Poor George Sr.- I never felt sorry for him before, but now I do. Just a little bit.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at December 21, 2005 09:03 AM

Yeh Linda! They'll still be paying off his DEFICITS and his welfare for the rich policies.

Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

December 21, 2005, 10:30 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court. The Post quoted two associates of the judge.

An aide to Robertson said the resignation letter submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts was not being released. Robertson did not step down from his district judgeship in Washington.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not comment on Robertson's reported resignation or the reasons cited for his departure. "Judge Robertson did not comment on the matter and I don't see any reason why we need to," McClellan said.

Robertson was one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

The court was established by Congress in 1978 and its members, appointed by the chief justice, do their work in private.

Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.

Robertson was appointed a federal judge by President Clinton in 1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist later appointed Robertson to the FISA court as well.

Robertson has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of detainees at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, most memorably in a decision that sidetracked the president's system of military tribunals to put some detainees on trial.

Robertson's resignation was reported hours after Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended the surveillance program and called for "strong and robust" presidential powers.

Cheney -- a former member of congress, defense secretary and White House chief of staff under President Ford -- said executive authority has been eroding since the Watergate and Vietnam eras.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," Cheney said.

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president. ... You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

"I believe the Congress -- as a coequal branch of government -- must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.

Bush and his top advisers have suggested senior congressional leaders vetted the program in more than a dozen highly classified briefings. Several Democrats agreed said they were told of the program, but did not know the full details and had concerns.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, on Monday released a letter he wrote to Cheney in July 2003 that, given the program's secrecy, he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., pushed back Tuesday, saying that if Rockefeller had concerns about the program, he could have used the tools he has to wield influence, such as requesting committee or legislative action. "Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools," Roberts said.

Sparrow -

I saw that!! I'm still on the case, Capn. ;)

Is there a deal in the works for Abramhoff?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Abramoff_said_to_discuss_plea_deal_1220.html

Posted by: Carol at December 21, 2005 11:01 AM

Cool! @@@ ;-)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion on Wednesday by the narrowest of margins, 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote.

And here's the WaPo:

Abramoff Reportedly Negotiating a Deal in Which He Would Plead Guilty, Testify

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122100106.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

CHIMPEACH!

CHIMPEACH!!

CHIMPEACH!!!

CHIMPEACH!!!!

not that I feel strongly about this or anything, you understand,
Otter

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/arctic.drilling.ap/index.html

Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=c298d636b33c8c10&ei=5094&partner=homepage

New York City Police Join in at Demonstrations (undercover) - WHY?