Lies and the Twilight Zone

The NSA has been spying on Americans (and everyone else) since the 1980s. This revalation isn't really a revalation. Maybe he did authorize them to do it directly but that was never really that big of a problem in the first place.

Through a system known as "Echelon," pretty much all forms of electronic communication are monitored including phone calls (land-line and mobile), e-mails, internet traffic, radio communications, ect.Echelon is a multi-national project with the NSA handling the US end of it. How it works is there are numerous sites around the globe that take in all of these signals. It is truly a massive amount of information and for intelligence purposes most of it is garbage. Large banks of computers hash through this mountain of information looking for certain keywords and phrases that are determined by the people running the system. When these are detected those intercepts are pulled and processed further. If they make it far enough they'll end up in front of a human being who will make the final determination of whether it is useful or not.

Friendly countries whose intelligence services are a part of the system simply do the "spying" on Americans (because for them it is not illegal), and then pass the information back to US authorities. This is basically information laundering and that makes it completely legal. These partner countries include the US, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Hokie:

"Maybe he did authorize them to do it directly but that was never really that big of a problem in the first place."

Boy howdy, are you ever missing the boat.

I mean, like, dude, you are *so* totally missing the boat.

all hail to the chimpanderer in chief,
Otter

Posted by: Hokie Explorer at December 20, 2005 01:21 AM

Since the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe, the intelligence agencies have searched for a new justification for their surveillance capability in order to protect their prominence and their bloated budgets. Their solution was to redefine the notion of national security to include economic, commercial and corporate concerns.

An office was created within the Department of Commerce, the Office of Intelligence Liaison, to forward intercepted materials to major US corporations. In many cases, the beneficiaries of this commercial espionage effort are the very companies that helped the NSA develop the systems that power the ECHELON network. This incestuous relationship is so strong that sometimes this intelligence information is used to push other American manufacturers out of deals in favor of these mammoth US defense and intelligence contractors, who frequently are the source of major cash contributions to both political parties.

While signals intelligence technology was helpful in containing and eventually defeating the Soviet Empire during the Cold War, what was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world. The European Parliament is now asking whether the ECHELON communications interceptions violate the sovereignty and privacy of citizens in other countries. In some cases, such as the NSA’s Menwith Hill station in England, surveillance is conducted against citizens on their own soil and with the full knowledge and cooperation of their government.

This report suggests that Congress pick up its long-neglected role as watchdog of the Constitutional rights and liberties of the American people, instead of its current role as lap dog to the US intelligence agencies. Congressional hearings ought to be held, similar to the Church and Rockefeller Committee hearings held in the mid-1970s, to find out to what extent the ECHELON system targets the personal, political, religious, and commercial communications of American citizens. The late Senator Frank Church warned that the technology and capability embodied in the ECHELON system represented a direct threat to the liberties of the American people. Left unchecked, ECHELON could be used by either the political elite or the intelligence agencies themselves as a tool to subvert the civil protections of Constitution and to destroy representative government in the United States.

But despite the real threats and dangers to the peace and protection of American citizens at home and abroad, our Constitution is quite explicit in limiting the scope and powers of government. A fundamental foundation of free societies is that when controversies arise over the assumption of power by the state, power never defaults to the government, nor are powers granted without an extraordinary, explicit and compelling public interest. As the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pointed out:

"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security “necessities” to justify an encroachment upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism: Its very gravity counsels that courts be cautious when military necessity is invoked by the Government to justify a trespass on [Constitutional] rights."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=348)

Despite the necessity of confronting terrorism and the many benefits that are provided by the massive surveillance efforts embodied by ECHELON, there is a dark and dangerous side of these activities that is concealed by the cloak of secrecy surrounding the intelligence operations of the United States.
The discovery of domestic surveillance targetting American civilians for reasons of “unpopular” political affiliation – or for no probable cause at all – in violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution is regularly impeded by very elaborate and complex legal arguments and privilege claims by the intelligence agencies and the US government. The guardians and caretakers of our liberties – our duly elected political representatives – give scarce attention to the activities, let alone the abuses, that occur under their watch. As pointed out below, our elected officials frequently become targets of ECHELON themselves, chilling any effort to check this unbridled power.

In addition, the shift in priorities resulting from the demise of the Soviet Empire and the necessity to justify intelligence capabilities resulted in a redefinition of “national security interests” to include espionage committed on behalf of powerful American companies. This quiet collusion between political and private interests typically involves the very same companies that are involved in developing the technology that empowers ECHELON and the intelligence agencies.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html

December 20, 2005
F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

"Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.

"The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said. "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."

A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

"It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

"You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology."

The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests.

In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."

In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage.

When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division.

But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations.

"The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that."

Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files.

"It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism."

Anyone care to speculate if the FBI's been looking at us?

And speaking of lies and the lying liars who spew them out over the public airwaves and pollute the press with their jingoistic falsehoods...

[rant]

Right-wingnut pinup-girl Ann Coulter -- who if she wasn't a long-haired blonde female with photogenic cheekbones would still be just another, albeit particularly strident, voice in the neocon wilderness -- wrote these comments in the November 24, 2005 edition of her syndicated hate-speech column (yes, on Thanksgiving day even):

-----

"In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger."

"Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong."

[snip]

"(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)"

[snip]

"By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)"

[snip]

"What are we to make of the fact that – as we now know – the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

"They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

-----

Now, at first glance, it might seem that Ms. Coulter is just another brainwashed right-wing extremist sociopath with a very big mouth but a very small heart. And that's quite possibly true.

But she's also an unabashed attention-seeking quasi-intellectual who leaks bile from every pore while spewing hate and lies and propaganda anywhere and anytime she can. And that means she's as dangerous as she is loathsome.

In case you're still not sure about her skewed view of reality, here are just a few more tidbits from her voluminous catalogue of lying lies and venomous venalities:

-----

Reporters and liberals 'want it to be against the law to be a Republican, and they would like us in Guantánamo" [9/29/05]

"I think a baseball bat is the most effective way [to talk to liberals] these days" [10/6/04]

"I'm not blaming the Democrats for 9-11 alone. I'm blaming them also for the [USS] Cole bombing, for the embassy bombings, for 20 years of attacks that have not been stopped" [8/16/04]

"[Former President Bill Clinton] raped a woman and molested interns in the White House" [5/20/04]

"I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they're pretty much George Bush's bitch" [1/10/05]

"Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?" [2/3/05]

-----

It's not like Ms. Coulter's over-the-top rhetoric has gone unnoticed or entirely unopposed. Her newspaper columns have been dropped by dozens if not hundreds of papers (including my own local rag) because of their unmitigated hate speech content. As Media Matters points out in their short bio of her:

"Coulter first came to national prominence as a legal correspondent and pundit for MSNBC, which fired her for insulting a Vietnam veteran. The conservative National Review dropped her column after she responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by stating that America should 'invade their [terrorists'] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.' In an interview with The New York Observer, Coulter stated that '[m]y only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.' USA Today also removed Coulter as a columnist covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention after she referred to the gathering as the 'Spawn of Satan convention.'"

Nice, huh?

Ms. Coulter is not just a misguided apologist for the farthest of the far-right wingnuts. Imho, she also is just plain mean-spirited, vicious, coarse, selfish, greedy, and astoundingly unfair and unbalanced in her bilious neo-fascistic ravings.

So by now you are surely wondering why I've even bothered to give her dishonest and degrading witchiness any screen space here at all, then.

Well, I decided to do so because the folks over at Media Matters are calling for a grass-roots campaign to have CNN fire her sorry butt, too. And that sure seems like a good idea to me. (I have no illusions that anyone could ever get her away from Faux News, not even with a crowbar, teargas, and a ten-ton towtruck.)

Here's the link to the Media Matters Ditch-Coulter call-to-action page:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511290009

And don't just stop with CNN, by the way -- please feel free to email every newspaper, magazine website, and other media outlet that propagates her propaganda and voice your outrage at their aiding and abetting her opporunity to continue spewing out her hate and her bile and her lies.

[/rant]

if ann coulter hates me then I must be doing something right,
Otter

Western Music Is Banned

TEHRAN, Dec. 19 (AP) - President Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran's radio and television stations, reviving a cultural decree from the early days of the 1979 revolution.

Songs like George Michael's "Careless Whisper," Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" have regularly accompanied Iranian broadcasts, as do tunes by the saxophonist Kenny G.

But the official daily Iran reported Monday that Mr. Ahmadinejad, as the leader of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enforcement of a ruling by the council in October to ban Western music.

Music was outlawed as un-Islamic by Ayatollah Khomeini soon after the revolution. But as the fervor of the revolution started to fade, light classical music was allowed on radio and television. Some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980's.

Okay I am back sorta of, Funeral over my first grandbabies going back to Okalahoma, ( Not Biological grandbabies but thats a whole nother story) Incidently for everyones info, our Troop loving government is no longer moving familes of soldiers stationed in Iraq if they chose to stay the last rotation so they could be closer in case their spouse was injured they are S.O.L when their spouses are sent back for a second or third tour.

Onto the reason for this post, two polls came out today one in the Washington Post(.com) on for CNN Gallup. I have to say they confused me, less than 2 weeks after that lovely op,ed explaining that the Washington Post and the Washington Post.com were not the same paper(laughing) The Washington Post gives the president one of the best approval rating since... well I cant remember. Okay switch to CNN who everyone knows uses Gallup to poll, and they have been a pretty realiable aid to the President (they like him). They say numbers still at lowest point despite all these lovley I am Responsable speeches( in which he says he is responsable then takes NO responsibilty. Basically I am responsable but I am not).

Could someone smarter than me explain this to me please? Because frankly I am confused.

On Topic: I think this newest revalation about the spying going on by our government on our own people is an Impeachable offence but how many people really believe that the corrupt Congress is actually gonna do anything about it? I mean come on there are now a laundry list of things the President and this administration have done that could be and probably are impeachable (that would be under the standard that Republicans used to judge Dems not the ones they use to judge themselves by the way. Even if by some miracle Dems could push this issue we would lose because not only to Republicans roll over and let Bush and compnay scratch their belly's several Democrats do to.

Hugggs To All, April

Sorry for the Typos lol Otter decode and dont give me a hard time :)

But Matthew, the president and the vice-president both said they were only spying on terrorists, so I feel pretty safe that they are not spying on me, because I trust them.

p.s. Today is National Lie Through Your Teeth Day

April,

I think the other things in the laundry list of Impeachable crimes don't reach home.

But everyone values their privacy. So when they hear "Bush ok's spying on Americans" they realize they could be spied upon without the court's approval. Sure, many people say, "I have nothing to hide" but they've all know in their heart that it doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide but it's YOUR choice WHO reads your emails or listens to your phone calls.

And when they realize big brother IS watching them, it has more meaning than some "vague" leftist comment about "Civil Liberties" which means about as much to them as goobledy-gook does to someone who doesn't originate from Goobledy-land.

And thus, when you do some simple connections for these people: Bush SPIES on you + CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS = IMPEACHMENT , I think this really does hit home for more people.

Marc; shame on you lieing is very very bad. They are honest remember they never lie and hey they want to save you money because they a Fiscally(sp) responsible. Everyone else just wants to spend our tax dollars on stupid things like oh I dont know.. Health Care and college education. That would be bad but Billions on War hell thats a good thing.

Sparrow it may hit home but I am starting to sound like Marc the people in this countries attention span is only as long as a nats rear. Tomorrow something will happen and they will forget a silly little thing like the President approving spying on us.

Don't know if anyone already posted this but....

William Kristol and Gary Schmitt have a column in today's Washington Post that advances a simple premise: the president "uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." While Congress legislates for the 'in general', the president is the one who must face particular crises, ones whose dimensions, dangers and particularities legislators could not have foreseen. This mix of responsibility and authority gives the president the unique and awesome power to set aside Congress's laws in the over-riding interest of securing the nation.

This is a doctrine fraught with danger in a constitutional republic. But it is not a new theory and it is not without some merit.

A little more than a year ago, I discussed this in a post about an earlier Pentagon report which argued that the power to set aside laws is "inherent in the president." That principle is simply not reconcilable with the principles of our republic. But no less a man than Thomas Jefferson considered a possible exception ...

If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson -- when he was later thinking over the implications of his arguably unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase (and again this is from memory -- so perhaps someone can check for me) -- argued that the president might find himself in a position in which he might have the right or even the duty to disregard the law or some stricture of the constitution in the higher interests of the Republic.
Jefferson's argument, however, wasn't that the president had the prerogative to set aside the law. It was that the president might find himself in a position of extremity in which there was simply no time to canvass the people or a situation in which there was no practicable way to bring the relevant information before them. In such a case the president might have an extra-constitutional right (if there can be such a thing) or even an obligation to act in what he understands to be the best interests of the Republic.

The clearest instance of this would be a case where the president faced a choice between letting the Republic be destroyed or violating one of its laws.

But that wasn't the end of his point. Having taken such a step, it would then be the obligation of the president to throw himself on the mercy of the public, letting them know the full scope of the facts and circumstances he had faced and leave it to them -- or rather their representatives or the courts -- to impeach him or indict those who had taken it upon themselves to act outside the law.

As I recall Jefferson's argument there was never any thought that the president had the power to prevent future prosecutions of himself or those acting at his behest. Indeed, such a follow-on claim would explode whatever sense there is in Jefferson's argument.

If you see the logic of Jefferson's argument it is not that the president is above the law or that he can set aside laws, it is that the president may have a moral authority or obligation to break the law in the interests of the Republic itself -- subject to submitting himself for punishment for breaking its laws, even in its own defense. Jefferson's argument was very much one of executive self-sacrifice rather than prerogative.

This is where Kristol and Schmitt's hypothesizing fails republican muster. The president may well find himself or herself in situations that the Congress could not have anticipated or ones where the well-being of the country requires the president to ignore the letter of the law. (Only in the most extreme cases is this even conceivable -- but at least for the sake of conversation let's posit the possibility.) But the factor here is not the president's unique ability to judge these matters; the issue is time and urgency. Certainly, at the first practicable moment the president has to take the matter before the appropriate members of Congress, explain himself, request that the relevant laws be revised and open himself up to the possibility of real accountability for his actions.

And yet it seems pretty clear that this is not what the president did. The White House gave briefings to four or six members of Congress and then prevented them from discussing the matter either with colleagues or with staff. That makes the consultation pretty close to meaningless.

Kristol and Schmitt conclude by writing ...

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.
But this makes no sense. The Congress can't hold the president accountable or legislate on these matters for the future if they're never informed of what the president is doing. That's obvious. There may be some situations Congress can't have foreseen in advance; but Kristol and Schmitt are talking about a situation the president has prevented the Congress from considering even after the fact.

That's the end of constitutional government. No individual is absolute in a democratic republic. But this principle allows the president to make himself just that.

-- Josh Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

or this.....

Imbalance of Power?
By Dan FroomkinSpecial to washingtonpost.com
Monday, December 19, 2005; 12:00 PM

President Bush's acknowledgment that he unilaterally approved domestic spying is the latest piece of evidence supporting complaints that his White House operates essentially unchecked by the legislative and judicial branches.

Scott Shane writes in the New York Times: "A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency. . . .

"With the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney, legal theorists in the White House and Justice Department have argued that previous presidents unjustifiably gave up some of the legitimate power of their office. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it especially critical that the full power of the executive be restored and exercised, they said. . . .

"But some legal experts outside the administration, including some who served previously in the intelligence agencies, said the administration had pushed the presidential-powers argument beyond what was legally justified or prudent. They say the N.S.A. domestic eavesdropping illustrates the flaws in Mr. Bush's assertion of his powers.

" 'Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat,' said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. 'But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme.' "

Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer write in Sunday's Washington Post: "In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.
"The president's emphatic defense yesterday of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and residents marked the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress. . . .
"Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as 'plenary' -- a term defined as 'full,' 'complete,' and 'absolute.' "

Gellman and Linzer write that Congress in the 1970s passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expressly made it a crime for government officials "acting under color of law" to engage in electronic eavesdropping "other than pursuant to statute."

But the Bush administration has argued that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."
And Gellman and Linzer write: "Other Bush administration legal arguments have said the 'war on terror' is global and indefinite in scope, effectively removing traditional limits of wartime authority to the times and places of imminent or actual battle."

Democratic Senator Russell Feingold said Saturday in a statement : "The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king."
The NSA Story

Here is the text of Bush's live radio address on Saturday.

Peter Baker wrote in The Sunday Washington Post: "President Bush said yesterday that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists because it was 'critical to saving American lives' and 'consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.' . . .
"Advisers said Bush decided to confirm the program's existence -- and combine that with a demand for reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- to put critics on the defensive by framing it as a matter of national security, not civil liberties. . . .

"Congressional Democrats and some Republicans have expressed outrage at the NSA program, saying it contradicts long-standing restrictions on domestic spying and subverts constitutional guarantees against unwarranted invasions of privacy. . . .

"Bush justified his order on his presidential powers as commander in chief as well as his interpretation of the congressional resolution authorizing him to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, passed days after the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit. But Bush did not explain his constitutional thinking, nor how the 2001 resolution gave him the authority to order domestic spying. He took no questions, and aides would not discuss the legal issues surrounding the program."

David E. Sanger wrote in the Sunday New York Times: "In his statement on Saturday, Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information."

Will Congress Reassert Itself?

Dana Milbank wrote in the Sunday Washington Post: "After a series of embarrassing disclosures, Congress is reconsidering its relatively lenient oversight of the Bush administration.

"Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by several recent reports, including the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and, last week, the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. After five years in which the GOP-controlled House and Senate undertook few investigations into the administration's activities, the legislative branch has begun to complain about being in the dark. . . .

"In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said 'it's a fair comment' that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and 'ought to be' doing more. . . .

"Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration. . . .
"Democrats list 14 areas where the GOP majority has 'failed to investigate' the administration, including the role of senior officials in the abuse of detainees; leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame; the role of Vice President Cheney's office in awarding contracts to Cheney's former employer, Halliburton; the White House's withholding from Congress the cost of a Medicare prescription drug plan; the administration's relationship with Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi; and the influence of corporate interests on energy policy, environmental regulation and tobacco policy."
Gail Russell Chaddock writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "From a standoff over the Patriot Act to pushback from Capitol Hill on the treatment of detainees, secret prisons abroad, and government eavesdropping at home, tensions between the Bush White House and the Republican-controlled Congress have never been more exposed."

Andrew Rudalevige , a political science professor at Dickinson College and author of the new book, The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate , recently wrote for NiemanWatchdog.org: "The 'imperial presidency' can only be empowered by an 'invisible Congress.' It's time for another Congressional resurgence. . . .

"In our system, strong presidential leadership is essential -- but if unchecked and undebated it can also do damage to the soul of our self-governance. Our government is built on the presumption that (in James Madison's phrase) 'ambition [will] counteract ambition.' But so far Congress's ambition has largely manifested itself in a desire to avoid the blame that can be associated with making difficult decisions."
Rudalevige asks: "After the 9/11 attacks, and again in October 2002, Congress granted the president very broad authorizations to use force -- in the first case, against opponents defined by the president himself. Should legislators revisit these 'blank check' resolutions in the light of additional information about the executive decision-making process that led to the Iraq war?"

Froomkin Watch

The White House gave reporters just over two hours notice this morning that Bush would hold a press conference at 10:30 a.m. ET
.
I filed my column today before the press conference began. And (bad timing) I have to take tomorrow off. But I expect to be back on Wednesday
.
Last Night's Speech

Here is the text of Bush's prime-time Oval Office speech last night.

The president is getting a lot of credit from journalists this morning for sounding chastened, conciliatory, even humble. Some are writing that he is finally admitting his mistakes and engaging his critics. But a close reading of his speech makes it quite clear that he did neither last night.

During the past two weeks, Bush has been more realistic than before about the obstacles in Iraq.

But when it came to admitting mistakes, Bush acknowledged tactical errors and intelligence failures by others. He didn't take responsibility for the bad intelligence -- just for "the decision to go into Iraq." He was still unwilling to admit he's made any mistakes himself. And in fact he said he has "never been more certain" about the mission in Iraq.

Some of Bush's speech was directed at his critics -- a first. He even voiced one of their major concerns -- that "we are creating more problems than we're solving" -- and called that an "important question." All quite unprecedented
.
But Bush then moved right into one of his classic straw-man arguments, attacking those who believe that "the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them." The arguments made by critics are quite different. They argue, for instance, that the occupation is turning ordinary Iraqis into terrorists, is turning Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, and is distracting from the greater war on terror. Bush didn't mention those arguments
.
And there is a big difference between speaking to critics from the Oval Office -- and actually hearing and responding to their criticisms in person.

The Analyses

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "As more of the country abandons him on Iraq, Bush has embarked on a campaign to bring the war back into the fold with a more realistic assessment of mistakes and of challenges ahead. Last night's national address from the Oval Office ended a two-week series of speeches by imploring the American people to stand behind him, to swallow their skepticism and take hope from last week's Iraqi election, to believe that a greater good will come from the sacrifice.

"Bush addressed opponents of the war in a far more direct and, at moments, almost conciliatory manner, acknowledging that 'this war is controversial' and saying he has heard those who disagree with him. 'We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission,' he said
.
"Yet as he signaled deference to their sincerity, he made clear he saw their approach as disastrous to the nation and he further drew a distinction 'between honest critics who recognize what is wrong and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.' And for all of the concessions, Bush signaled he has not changed his core beliefs, however disputed they may be, about the value of the war and its link to the larger campaign against radical Islamic terrorists."

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "Rather than dismissing critics with a wave of the hand and an acid retort, as he often has, he asked those who opposed the invasion to help make the biggest gamble of his presidency work. But he never backed away from his insistence that, with patience, the United States will claim victory, as he has defined it.

" 'There is a difference,' he said with an edge in his voice, 'between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
'
"Mr. Bush's use of the term 'defeatists' lay at the rhetorical crux of his new argument. The main obstacle, he now contends, is not the insurgency or the anti-American sentiment in Iraq; it is the risk that Americans will give up too early and let terrorists believe they have intimidated 'America into a policy of retreat.' It is an argument he made forcefully in the four speeches that preceded his Oval Office address, when he contended that Al Qaeda believed that Americans would abandon Iraq as they abandoned Vietnam."

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times: "The president, speaking in a steady voice punctuated by the constant gesturing of his hands, nonetheless acknowledged his critics more than he has in the past, and adopted a more humble tone."

Tom Shales writes in The Washington Post: "Grim-faced, yet with a trace of anxiety in his eyes, Bush delivered the remarks seated rigidly at a desk, making a variety of hand gestures as he spoke and wearing one of his traditional baby-blue ties."

Fact Checking?

Thom Shanker writes in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush spoke broadly of the deep commitment to the mission found among American officers and troops in Iraq, and he noted that even 'the terrorists' have sent communications among themselves that admit 'they feel a tightening noose, and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.'
"But Mr. Bush, in his speech, did not cite assessments by the Pentagon, the military and American intelligence that acknowledge the complex nature of an insurgency made up of foreign fighters, former government loyalists, Sunni and Shiite militants and even common criminals -- a complicated mix that offers no single solution for stability."
Doyle McManus writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush also quoted selectively from recent opinion polls to suggest that Iraqis were satisfied with the course of events in their country. 'Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead,' he said.
"He was quoting almost verbatim from the findings of a recent poll in Iraq that was sponsored jointly by ABC News, Time magazine and other news organizations.
"But the same poll had findings that Bush left out: Fewer than half of Iraqis -- 46% -- said their country was better off than it was before the war; half said it was wrong for the United States to invade in 2003. Two-thirds said they opposed the continued presence of U.S. troops, and almost half said they would like to see U.S. forces leave soon."

Mike Allen writes in Time: "Democrats point out that the binary choice Bush offered does not allow for the possibility of a quagmire, where victory is not a choice -- and the whole notion of victory must be redefined."

Had I been writing a fact-checking story last night, I would have noted Bush's explanation of the consequences of pulling out of Iraq. "We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before."

And I would have noted the counter-argument, made by William Odom on NiemanWatchdog.org, that pretty much everything Bush says would happen if we left is happening already.

Cheney's Trip

Richard W. Stevenson writes in the New York Times: "Vice President Dick Cheney paid a surprise visit to Iraq on Sunday, the opening move in the White House's extraordinary daylong effort to shore up public support for continued military involvement in the country.

"The highly scripted day unfolded exclusively behind concrete barriers, barbed wire, armed guards and the other measures to ensure his safety, and came as insurgents broke the relative calm since the national election on Thursday with a string of attacks in central and northern Iraq that left at least nine people dead."

In his pool report to colleagues, Stevenson wrote that Cheney switched from his red, white and blue 757 to a C-17 cargo plane for the unannounced flight into Baghdad. "An enormous Airstream motor home had been custom-fitted inside the center of the plane so that the vice president could travel in comfort. Lower level Cheney staffers sat in three rows of seats in front of Airstream II, while your poolers were herded over to the steel-and-canvas contraptions lining the sides of the plane. Journalists had a front row seat to the massive stainless steel sides of the motor home."

The trip was so secret that even the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, didn't know Cheney was there until they came face to face.

Cheney gave a speech to 650 troops at the Al-Asad Air Base. Here's the text .

After the speech, however, Cheney held a smaller, roundtable discussion with troops.

The White House did not release a transcript of that discussion. The Associated Press reports that Cheney faced "tough questions from battle-weary troops. . . .

"Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.

" 'From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains,' said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. 'We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain -- how Iraq's looking.' "

Here's Cheney's response, via Stevenson: "Well, Iraq's looking good. It's hard sometimes, if you look at just the news, to have the good stories burn through. Part of it is that what we're doing here, obviously, takes time. It's hard, tough, day-in, day-out kind of work that all of you are involved in. But from our perspective, from the standpoint of the president, we spend a lot of time on it between us. It's probably the single most important problem on our platter that we have to deal with -- and we do every day. . . .

"I think we've turned the corner, if you will. I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq," the vice president said. "We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news."

Jonathan Finer and Naseer Nouri write in The Washington Post: "Violence and civil unrest surged across Iraq on Sunday as Vice President Cheney made his first visit here in more than a decade, praising what he called the 'remarkable' turnout by voters in nationwide elections Thursday and telling U.S. troops that the country had 'turned the corner.'

"Shrouded in fortified compounds and shuttled between venues by squadrons of helicopters, Cheney came on a day that underscored the deep economic and security challenges the country faces."

Cheney in Afghanistan

Cheney then flew to Kabul, where he watched from the front row as Afghanistan's national assembly took its first oath of office.

Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press describes Cheney's chaotic arrival in Afghanistan.

"The Cheneys' seven-hour visit to Afghanistan began when their unmarked C-17 cargo plane landed at Bagram Air Base. They then flew by helicopter to a spot outside the parliament building. The chopper stirred up a massive dust storm, but the Cheneys were shielded when they ducked into a black sport-utility vehicle.

"Security forces surrounded the Cheneys' vehicle and walked along as it moved with their hands on the side of the vehicle. A gun-toting Afghan soldier dressed in fatigues pushed the rest of Cheney's entourage against an outside wall until the gates to the parliament building closed behind them.

"Afghan security forces insisted on searching all the bags carried by members of Cheney's staff and the press who were left outside.

"Secret Service agents objected, saying they had already been checked. A White House advance staffer already on site came out and angrily demanded that the Afghans admit military aides carrying the briefcase that contains the U.S. government's nuclear weapon codes.
" 'I'm telling you to open the gates now,' the White House staffer said. 'These are the vice president's military aides.'
"The Afghans allowed Cheney's military aides through but insisted on doing complete body searches of the rest of his traveling party."
Cheney on Nightline

Cheney held an interview yesterday with Terry Moran that will be aired on ABC's Nightline tonight. Here are excerpts .
Defending the NSA wiretaps, Cheney said: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."
And, he said: "Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11."
He added: "[W]hat I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country."
Here's another exchange:
"Moran: Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong?

"Cheney: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the U.S. did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled."

Bush on PBS

Here's the text of Bush's interview on Friday with Jim Lehrer of PBS's Newshour.

Lehrer repeatedly push Bush to comment on the NSA story. Bush refused.

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I-- Jim, I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they-- people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It's the policy of this government, just not going [to] do it, and the reason why is is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people."

Just not going to do it? He did it less than 24 hours later.

Lehrer also tried to get Bush to talk about the Plame case.

"JIM LEHRER: Robert Novak, a columnist, says that-- he's the guy who the whole world knows first printed Valerie Plame's name as being a CIA operative. He says now that you know, he's certain you know and leaked her name. Do you?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, I'm not going talk about the case. I've been asked not to talk about the case by the prosecutor and I'm not going to. I appreciate his bold assertion, however.

"JIM LEHRER: In other words, you don't-- you're not going say anything about this?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I'm really not.

"I, you know, I'm-- you know, I made a statement the other day about another case about Tom Delay, and my point in bringing up Tom Delay's name in terms of another case going on in Texas was, is that people are innocent till proven otherwise. All people are. And I feel the same way about the Fitzgerald investigation but it's an ongoing investigation. There are still loose ends that evidently he's looking at and I'm just not going discuss. . . .

"JIM LEHRER: Well, why would Novak say something like that?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Better ask him. I don't know.

"JIM LEHRER: You don't know. Okay.

"The -- you mentioned Tom Delay. Why did you say he was innocent?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I was-

"JIM LEHRER: This is an interview with Brit Hume
.
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I did and -- but the point I was making was innocent till, until otherwise proven, and I was also asked did I hope he would come back to Congress. The answer was yes.
"JIM LEHRER: But you-- I looked very carefully at that transcript . I mean, you essentially said he was innocent. I mean, you weren't -- that wasn't -- you weren't really saying that then. You were just saying he's presumed innocent?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I-- that's exactly what I was saying
.
"JIM LEHRER: Okay."

Weekend Retreat

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times from the Chesapeake Bay retreat of St. Michaels, Md., where "Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have found peace and quiet in their new weekend hawks' nests, even if their presence in this Chesapeake Bay retreat causes a racket in town."

Cryptome.org has collected all sorts of information on Cheney's new home, including a virtual tour of the property.

Late Night Humor

Jay Leno via the New York Times : "In a speech, President Bush said, 'As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.' Yeah, well, I don't think he has to worry about other people trying to take credit for that one. That's like the captain of the Titanic saying 'hitting the iceberg, that was my idea.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

April... You make it sound like sounding like me is a bad thing! ;-) xoxoxo

Only the stupidest could govern the stupider, stupid.

I said it, I meant it, I'm here to represent it.

Ok I emailed local Reug rep Frommkin's article and Josh Marshall's.
Also email Pelosi asking for imoeachemnt on wide chares -not just spying- failure to uphold constitiution or something.

Will balls grow in DC?

One of the "Go To" papers for media integrity nowadays is the Toledo Blade. Check it often!

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051220/NEWS09/512200320

• Bush money network rooted in Florida, Texas | 12/19/2005

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/NEWS09/512190311

• Criminal probes entangle numerous fund-raisers | 12/18/2005

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS09/512180354

• Bush fund-raisers cash in by giving — then receiving | 12/18/2005

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS09/512180341

April,

Are you saying we've been rearended?

... and Matthew, George Michael's "Careless Whisper" was banned at my house a hell of a long time ago.

Wham!

OK Pellosi's came back because not a constitiuent. Directed me to democraticleader.house.gov-with no email options except tech on site.
Reviewing what is one site I do not see any understanding outside the beltway.
These folks just do not understand basics.
And no way to contact them.
pity

Only on a site that embraces diversity such as the DCP could you find a post about being rearended followed by a George Michael song reference, and by total coincidence mind you.

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Marc,

The DCP is a nonpartison site. As such, we can not endorse enemas anymore than we can endorse a specific candidate for office.

However, as an educational site, should you decide to post the pros or cons of enimas...

Senator Stevens is now trying to sneak his ANWR drilling Christmas present to his oil corporation handlers into the Defense bill. He says if people want Katrina victims' aid approved they will have to roll over for this. What a sick thing to say! The response to the global warming that caused this catastrophe should be to accelerate destructive climate change even more?

Well, Maria Cantwell is not rolling over. She has sworn she will lead a FILIBUSTER to have this out of place language removed. We're not rolling over either. We will fight this last minute stunt until Santa Claus fires up his sleigh. Please call your senators at once at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 and submit the action page at

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/anwr.htm

Also some of you may have gotten mail from Senator Kerry, who sounded positively outraged.

Democrats say they never OK'd wiretapping
Bush on the defensive after revelations on domestic spying

Updated: 5:36 a.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

“I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities,” West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. “As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney.”

Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration’s four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

Bush on the defensive
Bush, accused of acting above the law, on Monday issued a forceful defense of the program he first authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His senior aides have stressed the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. And Bush said it was “a shameful act” for someone to have leaked details to the media.

He bristled at the suggestion at a White House news conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.

“To say ’unchecked power’ basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject,” he said angrily. “I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.”

Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress’ top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were just now educating the American people and Congress. “The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States,” he said.

The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush’s handling of the war on terror. It follows allegations of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and of torture and other mistreatment of detainees, and an American death toll in Iraq that has exceeded 2,150.

more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10542545/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines

NYT Published Wiretap Story Because of a Reporter's New Book
THE NATION
Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story
The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say.

By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer

The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussions.

The Times report has created a furor in Washington, with politicians in both parties and civil libertarians saying that President Bush was wrong to authorize the surveillance by the National Security Agency without permission from a special court.

The initial Times statements did not say that the paper's internal debate began before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election — in which Iraq and national security questions loomed large — or make any reference to Risen's book, due out Jan. 16.

But two journalists, who declined to be identified, said that editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush's November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-me...

FOCUS | Jonathan Alter: Bush's Snoopgate
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Z.shtml
Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate - he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to al Qaeda - but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Anyone care to speculate if the FBI's been looking at us?

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at December 20, 2005 06:53 AM

=========================

Matthew --

They follow me wherever I go. In fact, I've gotten rather friendly with one of the gentleman assigned to me.

I call him 'X.'

Dictator, ummmm, I mean, pResident Bush said,

"“To say ’unchecked power’ basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject,” he said angrily. “I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.”

Wow! Two truths: unchecked power and Dictatorial to HIS presidency!

Then he threw in the whopper!

Darth defends the Dark Side!

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence/

ABOARD AIR FORCE II - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and the expansion of presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said he believes the power of the presidency has indeed contracted since the Vietnam and Watergate era

'01 Resolution Is Central to '05 Controversy

E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By DAVID JOHNSTON and LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: December 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - At the heart of the debate over the legality of the program to eavesdrop on the international communications of American citizens without a court order is a Congressional resolution passed a week after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings that authorized the president to use force against those responsible for the attacks.

President Bush cited the resolution, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, on Monday at his news conference. So did Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who in a session with reporters said the Congressional measure, in addition to the president's inherent power as commander in chief, gave the government the power "to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."

The resolution itself is a single sentence, adopted unanimously by the Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives. It provides the president with sweeping but vaguely defined authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The resolution makes no mention of surveillance activity. Nor does it specify what is supposed to happen when American citizens, not themselves suspected of violating any law, come to the government's attention through actions taken under the resolution's terms.

"Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror - including myself who voted for it - that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States," Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in an interview on the "Today" show Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20legal.html

Sparrow rearended yes the sad thing is this came as no surprise to us who have been paying attention.

Marc

April

So yeah when I start sounding like you its not a good thing and the crapola is hitting the fan :) xoxoxoxoxo

PS it means I have lost alot of faith in our fellow man or woman as it may be.

Oh To Have A Brain.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/15927/634

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/32957/979

Here Bush is caught in his lies - says you need warrant for wiretap - & check out Rumsfeld

Eavesdropping isn't "force" - the sentence doesn't authorize eavesdropping.

Even people here who are apolitical are asking "Is Bush a dictator? Does he think he is?" Amazing.

April...

Marc is a realist.

No really.

Hey All,

Barry, the DCP business manager, is having serious surgery this morning. Send him good wishes HERE:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=980

I have not though seriously about Impeachment, with a Republican Congress and all, until I read dickbell's post above.

As we know dick is a serious and thoughtful person, who fights against extremism, hyperbole and irrational thoughts and arguments.

I have always thought that the photos of Bush's jacket and back and the mysteriously looking transponder in the last debate was shear nonsense and paranoia. I am in daily touch with the Kerry-Cleveland bloggers and have kept up with the theories of voter tampering with Diebold.As frsutrated as I was with losing Ohio I never bought into those theories either and probably ruffled a few feather here with my contrarian post about losing Ohio.

Call me paranoid, I now agree with Tom Daschel's comments yesterday not to be surprised with anything coming out of the Whitehouse and I am now reassessing.

Here are a few of my theories of Impeachment:

1. Wire Tapping the Kerry campaign and Chapin like dirty campaign tricks used in Ohio. Heck the Va. Republican party did just that and got caught.

2. Violations of the debate agreements using the mysterious transponder;

3. Contempt of Congress with illegal wire taps;

4. Knowingly accepting Abramoff dirty money;

5. Conspiring with Tom DeLay to illegally fund $190,000 to change the makeup of the Texas Legislature and Rovian plans of reDistricting .

I can't prove any of these things, maybe it will take a 21st Century Deep Throat or Butterworth like moment of finding secret tapes, but it is sure starting to smell like that.

the only thing that I am not buying into is Linda's theory about tapping our personal phones here. Linda I just don't think that we are that important to this administration.

Maybe we need to enlist John Dean to get to the bottom of this scandal.

Anyone care to speculate if the FBI's been looking at us?

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at December 20, 2005 06:53 AM

Matt, To the amusment of some, and the confusion of many I signed into the IRC last night with my real name, just to make it easier for the spooks.. no having to check IP's and barge into my Internet Service Providers office demanding names.

I did make a suggestion there that those of us who figure we're being watched use a FOIA request to check our FBI records. Granted, not everything will show up there, but any recent entries might at least give us a heads up. Might well be worth the bother of the paperwork.

Conyers Asks for our Help to Censure Bush

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/113636/15

Puppetmaster is back:

Cheney Defends Presidential Powers
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago

ABOARD AIR FORCE II - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years."

Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said a contraction in the power of the presidency since the Vietnam and Watergate era must be reversed.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," he said.

Cheney spoke from his plane's private cabin as he was making a trip aimed at boosting the United States' image abroad and its relationships with its war-on-terror partners. But after visiting Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, he was cutting his travels short, skipping planned stops in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to return to Washington to be on hand for session-ending Senate activity that could require his tie-breaking votes.

Cheney said he believes the American people support President Bush's terror-fighting strategy. "If there's a backlash pending," because of reports of National Security Agency surveillance of calls originating within the United States, he said, "I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow that we shouldn't take these steps to defend the country."

Cheney talked about terrorism and national security amid a burgeoning controversy at home over Bush's acknowledgment of a four-year-old administration program to eavesdrop _ without court-approved warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to the terrorist network al-Qaida.

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

Since the program's existence was revealed, lawmakers from both parties have objected and begun discussing a congressional investigation. Cheney said the opposition is politically unwise.

"Either we're serious about fighting the war on terror or we're not," the vice president said. "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat."

The vice president also told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been eroded since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act and anti-impoundment laws.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

Cheney said the White House helped protect presidential power by fighting to keep secret the list of people who were a part of his 2001 energy task force. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of discussions on developing a national energy policy while corporate interests were present. A protracted lawsuit ensued.

"I believe that the president is entitled and needs to have unfiltered advice in formulating policy," Cheney said. "He ought to be able to seek the opinion of anybody he wants to and that he should not have to reveal, for example, who he talked to that morning. That issue was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and we won."

Cheney said that "many people believe" the War Powers Act, enhancing the power of Congress to share in executive branch decision-making on war, is unconstitutional and said "it will be tested at some point. I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president."

Cheney noted he had served in the House for 10 years and said he has "enormous regard" for the legislative branch.

"But I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats of we face _ and this is true during the Cold War as well as I think is true now _ the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," the vice president said.

Cheney conceded that arguments over eavesdropping won't likely pass any time soon, saying, "It's an important subject."

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president," he added.

"You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," Cheney said. "I think there's a temptation for people to sit around and say, 'Well, gee that was just a one-of affair, they didn't really mean it.' "

"The bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," he said.

Nothing is more fundamental to the American system of government than the freedom of individuals against the heavy hand of government. Liberty, after all, was one of the unalienable rights the Continental Congress held to be "self-evident."

That liberty is severely compromised by a president who finds it acceptable to spy on citizens without so much as a secret court review, and who condemns questions about that spying as "shameful."

President George W. Bush's heartfelt pledge Monday to defend America would be more reassuring if he proved himself just as committed to the freedoms U.S. citizens cherish.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051220/OPINION01/512200332/1068

"Surveillance vs. the law"

In the best of times, there is a natural tension between safeguarding national security and respecting the liberties of Americans. In times of war, that tension becomes even stronger. In many ways, the Bush administration has been restrained in its handling of the war on terror, avoiding the gross abuses that occurred during past conflicts. But by launching a secret program that involves spying on Americans, it has overreached badly, and unnecessarily.

President Bush not only defends what he's done but vows to keep doing it, never mind the evidence that he is acting in violation of the law. If he persists in pressing beyond the bounds of presidential war-making authority, it will be up to Congress to press back and restore a sensible balance of powers.

http://tinyurl.com/9auby

Posted by: Ladytechie at December 20, 2005 12:43 PM

When it comes to the Bush Administration, Shakespeare's Witches (from Macbeth) said it best:

"Fair is foul and foul is fair."

The American people need a "sneak and peak" provision just to know what these knaves will be up to next.

2 thoughts. Alito needs to be intensely questioned about executive powers and the legal authority of this Administration under Artice 2, to spy on Americans w/o judicial authorization, in his confirmation hearings in January.

and secondly I have just called the Lieberman office to thank him for standing up to the perverse use of placing the ANWR provision in the defense appropriation bill. I urge others here to bite their tongues and do likewise.

We constantly and justifiably confront Sen. Lieberman when he is wrong, which appears to be most of the time, but he also deserves our praise when he takes bold positions like he is doing today to stand up to Frist and the energy lobbyist.

Senator Tom Harkin is on cspan2 discussing the trickle down economics Gregor was touting yesterday, and how it doesn't work and has failed so many times.

Hope G is watching.

Hope G is watching.

Posted by: Carol at December 20, 2005 01:27 PM

Shhhh, he's playing with his thesaurus.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

What a shocker- the sunnis are now saying the election was a fraud. Did anyone expect anything else, except for the brain dead American public who are busy listening to Bush crow about the democratic process in Iraq.
And I'm glad to hear that Olympia Snowe is now calling for an investigation of Bush's spying. I had named her to my daughter as one of the few fairly honest Repugs who might do that, and I'm glad to be proven right.
We all like that, don't we?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

What a shocker- the sunnis are now saying the election was a fraud. Did anyone expect anything else, except for the brain dead American public who are busy listening to Bush crow about the democratic process in Iraq.
And I'm glad to hear that Olympia Snowe is now calling for an investigation of Bush's spying. I had named her to my daughter as one of the few fairly honest Repugs who might do that, and I'm glad to be proven right.
We all like that, don't we?

sorry for the double post- I got a server down notice the first time around, and it automatically repeated itself. Hope it's my server and not DCP's.

OT, but:

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class
From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 12:40 p.m.
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

OT, but:

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class
From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 12:40 p.m.
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

THIS IS BIG:

http://johnconyers.com/

PLEASE get this all over the internet NOW!

Uh oh....delay for postings may cause double post......

Karen - also here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Censure_motion_introduced_in_House_over_1220.html

Censure motion introduced in House over Iraq, torture

Larisa Alexandrovna

Print This | Email This
Ranking House Judiciary Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for providing misleading information to Congress in advance of the Iraq war, failing to respond to written questions and potential violations of international law, RAW STORY has learned.

Stand with Congressman Conyers

Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
Investigate Impeachable Offenses

I am taking steps against the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability.

Join me to demand censure for Bush and Cheney in addition to the creation of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching the Bush Administration for its widespread abuses of power.

I have sought answers from the administration to questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and scores of other abominable abuses of power that pervade the activities of this White House. 121 Members of Congress and many citizens like you have joined me in asking these questions of the President.

I have just completed a thorough review of this administration’s misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at RawStory.com, and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]

It is time to take bolder measures in our pursuit of justice. This White House has responded to questions about its conduct with misleading statements, obfuscation, and vicious attacks against their critics. We must take the next step towards restoring accountability in our federal government. To this end I have:

• Introduced a resolution of censure for both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, and;

• I am calling upon Congress to create a select committee similar to the Ervin Committee, which investigated President Nixon’s Watergate crimes. This select committee should investigate those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment.

This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds. We have considerable work to do and I am going to need your help to make this effort successful. Join me in sending a message to the President, the media, and the American people that we are not going to stand for an imperial presidency any longer.

Sincerely,

John Conyers

Carol--Let's get Dick's piece out there too then. People need to know this is URGENT.

Impeach the Chimpanderer in Cheat and all his minions, asap.

not my damn president either,
Otter

Senator Byrd: No President Is Above the Law

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choosing to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as "domestic terrorists."

We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition, and the so-called "black sites," secret locations in foreign countries where abuse and interrogation have been exported to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation that through an executive order, President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government - the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people - by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government's role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

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.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities for cooperative action."

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

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.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election "a landmark day in the history of liberty." I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the times that try men's souls."

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of "national security" are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of "executive privilege" in order to avoid further embarrassment.

The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected?

This from article by Larry Johnson (former CIA) at Josh Marshall’s TPM Coffee House. Also reader comments discussing the issue.

Excerpts:

“Roving Wiretaps Capture a Terrorist
By Larry Johnson

The claim by President Bush that he needs to ignore the FISA process in order to nab terrorists shows that he either does not understand that this law has been used to actually capture a terrorist based on a phone call from a foreign country or he is hiding something… ” More . . .

And later reader comment:

“What he is saying is that to get a FISA warrant the Bushies would have had to acknowledge the source of information that caused them to want the warrant, and that was probably a tortured prisoner in violation of the Geneva Conventions. If they had made up a source of intelligence, that would be perjury, and they might have been caught. So, they just ignored FISA.

Larry Johnson’s response to this reader:

“You nailed it.”

More . . .
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/203041/68

So far nothing on the Conyers group for Censure except on progressive media.

Sorry to hear about the British families of Iraq war dead, whose inquiry into how US/UK went to war is going to go unanswered as there will be no investigation. More cover-up.

Glad to hear that many Iranians are ignoring the ban on listening to music that is not prescribed by the government, the head of whom is stuck in the '70s.

In his own words...Thanks to Atrios, DU, & Dean...
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5648333

Bush Then
Bush: Wiretaps “Require a Court Order.” “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#

Bush Yesterday
Bush: I Authorized Secret Wiretap Program Without Going Through the Courts. “To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks. So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. … This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda. I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation is -- for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html

Idiot mainstream media is making a comparison that both Sharon and Bush have had their poll ratings "surge"

yeah right

The only comparison is that Sharon is better than Netanyahu and possibly Bush is better than if we actually had Cheney (do we?)

(Monster)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

(America)
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

© Copyright MCA Music (BMI)
All rights for the USA controlled and administered by
MCA Corporation of America, INC

--Used with permission--

Report: The Constitution in Crisis
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml
In brief, we have found there is substantial evidence that the president, vice president, and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for said war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration.

Well written, progressive soldier returning from Iraq looking for work...anyone?

Saturday, December 17, 2005

A Question for YOU
Many of you have been reading my blog for quite some time now. I have never asked anything of you the readers (well, I haven't asked anything that wasn't rhetorical) but this time I am.

In a few months I will be out of the army and with that I will also be out of work. Those of you who have come to know me have read my thoughts and rants here on my blog and with those I ask you only for help with this. I am applying for jobs the regular way as well (as much as I can here from Iraq) but I know that all kinds of people have been reading what I write and perhaps one of you knows of some career that I would have never thought of applying for, but which would be good for me.

My blog tells more about me than any resume (but I have one of those as well) and so if any one of you has a career or job you think I might be suited for please feel free to email me and let me know. My email can be found on the right hand side of this blog.

On a separate note, I am very excited about going home (no I won't be home for Christmas, but soon after...) Take care, all of you.

Sgt Zachary Scott-Singley

http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/

Sorry, this is a long post, but it quotes and discusses the extent of the power and authority given to the executive and legislative branches of government in Article II and Article I of the Constitution, so it's important (I found this link on a TomPaine newsletter)....

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/20051218warpowers.html

The Ides of December:
Smoke, Mirrors and War Powers

by Jeff Huber

Future generations may look back on December 2005 as a watershed period in the evolution of the United States of America. The actions taken and decisions made during and subsequent to that month may determine the nature of the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our federal government for decades — and centuries — to come.

On December 15th The New York Times revealed that President Bush had, in support of the Global War on Terror, secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy without prior judicial approval on Americans inside the United States. The next day, many members of Congress expressed outrage at the revelation, and 47 members of the Senate staged a filibuster to block passage of a new Patriot Act.

On Saturday, the 17th, Mr. Bush made a live televised speech in which he admitted to having ordered the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance. In justifying his actions, he cited the “…constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief” and powers granted him by Congress in the Patriot Act and in the Authority for Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted on September 18, 2001.

In light of these events, the body politic must seek the answers to three vital questions:

Has Mr. Bush exceeded his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief;

Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority by granting Mr. Bush outside-the-box powers with the Patriot Act and the AUMF; and

Did the judicial branch fail in its duty to keep the legislative and executive branches inside the bounds of their constitutional authorities?
Hail to the Chief
Since September 11, 2001, President Bush has exercised extraordinary — some would say unprecedented — executive authority. The Bush administration has consistently justified its actions by playing on a widely held misconception that, when it comes to defending America, the executive branch is granted a broad set of formally defined war powers. But a study of the U.S. Constitution and laws derived from it shows that the notion of sweeping presidential authority in time of war is almost entirely illusory.

Under Bush, the executive branch has claimed the authority to hold individuals indefinitely without trial by labeling them as “enemy combatants.” This suspends the right to due process and puts accused individuals beyond the protection of the courts. The administration has also declared that its war-fighting efforts will not be bound by international treaties and conventions. In January 2002, then-White House Counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales advised Mr. Bush that portions of the Geneva Convention were “quaint” and “obsolete.”

Gonzales isn’t the only member of the Bush administration to argue that the executive branch is entitled to step outside the rule of law in times of war. Former Justice Department attorney John Yoo wrote or coauthored the key memoranda that encouraged the Pentagon and the White House to deny traditional protections to prisoners of war and detainees and was a principle author (along with current Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and others) of the USA PATRIOT Act. Two weeks after 9/11, Yoo wrote a memo stating, “In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the president’s decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.”

Mr. Bush himself has said that when it comes to countering terrorism, “Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law.”

But assertions that Mr. Bush or any American president has “plenary power” (meaning absolute and unqualified power) to make his own law or suspend civil liberties in time of war — declared or otherwise — are fuzzy constitutionality at best.

From the Top of the Deck
Article II of the United States Constitution defines the authority of the executive branch of the federal government. Here’s what it says about the president’s war powers:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States … and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That’s it. The Constitution mentions nothing about granting the president authority to assume any other powers or suspend laws in times of war.

Article I of the Constitution, which addresses the federal legislature, deals most of the cards in the war-powers deck to Congress, which it authorizes:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress[.]

The Constitution does not allow a president to assume congressional powers in time of war in his capacity as commander in chief of the military, nor does it give Congress the option of delegating its war powers to the president.

Habeas Corpus
Article I also contains the single clause in the Constitution that provides for the suspension of a civil right in times of war: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A habeas corpus writ orders that prisoners be brought to court to determine whether they are being detained legally. In declaring individuals to be enemy combatants, Mr. Bush has suspended their privilege of the writ; but since the authority to suspend the writ “in cases of rebellion or invasion” is mentioned in Article I (which discusses the legislature exclusively), a serious question exists as to whether the executive branch may exercise this power.

This very issue arose during the American Civil War. In 1861 President Abraham Lincoln gave orders suspending habeas corpus that resulted in the arrest of John Merryman and others opposed to the war. Merryman sought protection in the Maryland Federal Circuit Court, filing a petition for release from arbitrary imprisonment. Then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, was sitting on the Maryland Circuit at the time (until 1869 Supreme Court justices typically sat as circuit judges when the Supreme Court was not in session) and ruled in favor of Merryman.

LewRockwell.com provides a concise synopsis of Taney’s arguments :

In his Ex parte Merryman opinion, Chief Justice Taney … says the framers never intended for the executive to suspend habeas corpus.

…

Taney argues that it defies common sense to believe the framers would have trusted the executive with the right to suspend habeas corpus. They had just broken away from a powerful, despotic English monarch. Therefore, they distrusted a powerful executive, especially one who could arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.

…

Taney persuasively argues that the Constitution expressly denies the executive the right to suspend habeas corpus, even going so far as to say “I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of Congress.” To support this contention, Taney cites Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to suspend habeas corpus. He also cites the fact that Article I “is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.” To further support his case, Taney discusses Article II of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch. Taney writes that “if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the President, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.” However, Article II never gives the President this power.

This judicial precedent is significant in light of legislation Congress passed in intervening years.

The War Powers Act of 1973
In the aftermaths of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 in an attempt to limit a president’s ability to initiate and sustain “undeclared” wars. The ’73 War Powers Act prohibits a president from committing troops to combat for more than 60 days without a formal declaration of war or “specific statutory authorization” from Congress. (It grants a thirty-day extension under specific conditions to allow for the safe extraction of troops from a war zone.)

Section 8 (d) of the ’73 act specifically states that the legislation itself does not alter the constitutional division of war powers between the executive and legislative branches: “Nothing in this joint resolution … is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties.”

In other words, the ’73 War Powers Act contains no provision for a president to suspend any part of what Article IV of the Constitution mandates:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. [Emphasis added.]

The ’73 War Powers Act was reasonably effective at placing war powers back in the legislature where the Constitution intended them to be. But in the weeks and months after 9/11, Congress hastily passed legislation that many argue gave Mr. Bush unconstitutional dictatorial privileges.

Where the Wheels Came Off
The attention of civil-liberties groups to post-9/11 legislation has focused on the USA Patriot Act and its violation of key aspects of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Some legal challenges to certain sections of the act have been successful. Most notably, Section 505 of the act, the provision allowing the government to issue “national security letters” for access to customer records from internet service providers and other businesses without permission of the courts, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court in September 2004.

But a more significant piece of legislation has largely remained under the radar. Seven days after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed Public Law 107-40. This joint resolution, commonly referred to as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF), gave Mr. Bush “specific statutory authorization” to:

… [U]se all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This was the infamous “blank check” that Congress wrote to the executive branch, giving Mr. Bush virtually unreviewable, dictatorial powers to carry out his war on terrorism.

To date, the most visible judicial challenges of the constitutionality of the AUMF have been the convoluted cases of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Padilla v. Bush. The decisions of the federal judicial branch in these cases have been mixed.

America’s Dog Days in Court
In all three cases, the defendants were held under military jurisdiction, and U.S. District Courts found for the defendants’ rights to argue their cases in civilian courts under the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution and/or the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. But all three district court decisions were reversed by U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to hear further appeals in all three cases.

The Hamdan and Padilla Supreme Court cases are still pending. Questions exist as to whether the Padilla case will be heard at the high-court level, now that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has agreed to allow Padilla’s case to be heard in a lower civilian court. Some observers contend that Gonzales remanded Padilla to civil justice for the specific purpose of avoiding a Constitutional challenge of the AUMF and the Patriot Act in the Supreme Court.

The case of Hamdi (a U.S. citizen, as is Padilla) went to the Supreme Court, which reversed the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals verdict. Sort of. By an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Hamdi, as an American citizen, had the right to have his case heard in a U.S. civilian court. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”

Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union declared the Hamdi decision to be “a strong repudiation of the administration’s argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts.”

But not everyone was as enthusiastic about the Hamdi decision as Shapiro was. Attorney Elaine Cassel of Civil Liberties Watch thinks that Mr. Bush “won far more than he lost” in the Hamdi case:

The majority opinion was written by Justice O’Connor, and we all know what that means — a tortured crafting of facts cobbled to law that tries to give everybody something.

In fact, O’Connor’s majority opinion agreed that Congress had authorized Mr. Bush to hold suspected terrorists in indefinite detention when it passed the AUMF:

The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF.

…

There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.

O’Connor’s something-for-everyone opinion gave civil libertarians a modicum of victory, but it left open a Constitutional loophole that may affect American justice and the rights of U.S. citizens for years to come.

With the AUMF, the legislative branch transferred one of its constitutional powers — the suspension of habeas corpus — to the executive branch. In doing so, some legal minds say that it signed off on a blanket bill of attainder, a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without trial.

Article I of the Constitution plainly states, “No bill of attainder … shall be passed.” As in ever — peacetime, wartime, any time.

Therein lies the hidden danger of the Supreme Court’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision. Congress exercised a power — the bill of attainder — denied to it by the Constitution to give the president a power — wartime suspension of habeas corpus — specifically allocated to Congress by the Constitution. And the Supreme Court, theoretically created to keep the legislative and executive branches within the bounds of their constitutional powers, let them get away with it.

Dog Days Ahead?
In the weeks and months to come, Americans will doubtless hear no end of debate over war powers, constitutionality, executive privilege, congressional oversight and judicial responsibility. Too much of it will be Rovewellian propaganda that appeals to emotions at the expense of logic, reason and common sense. And entirely too many Americans will accept what partisan pundits tell them about constitutional authority without Googling “Constitution of the United States” and reading the document for themselves.

If the Senate filibuster on the Patriot Act holds, the 16 “sunset” provisions of the law will expire on December 31, 2005. Even so, the administration will still have the blank-check AUMF to use as its justification for Mr. Bush to exercise “plenary powers.”

In the worst-case scenario, Bush will emerge as an absolute ruler who can do whatever he wants in his execution of the Global War on Terror, with no checks, balances or oversight from any other branch or agency of government.

In that eventuality, the likes of Osama bin Laden will have achieved complete victory in the Global War on Terrorism. They will have destroyed our cherished federal republic.

Or rather, we will have allowed the Bush administration to destroy it for them.

Contributors to this article: KagroX, Cache, Cho, DEFuning, Sue in KY, Standingup, JeninRI.

IF I'm reading Huber's article correctly, it was unconstitutional for Congress to pass the joint resolution "Public Law 107-40" that allegedly gave The Cretin the plenary power he seems to believe he has.

Under Article I, all the war powers belong only to Congress. It says nothing about transferring war powers to a president. Under Article II, a president has NO (zero, zip, zilch, nada) war powers of any kind whatsoever. Wouldn't it take a Constitutional Amendment to make it possible to give a president war powers??? As is, he has none. That makes his stupid war in Iraq unconstitutional AND illegal, not 'only' illegal (and unjustified, immoral, and unethical) by international laws and treaties signed by the US in the past.

Posted by: NonnyO at December 20, 2005 03:11 PM

But Nonny, if Congress was found to act unconstitutionally, then wouldn't all those who voted in favor of the resolution...?

Plus, what are the odds that the Supreme Court is going to declare it an unconstitutional resolution?

Posted by: Carol at December 20, 2005 01:42 PM

Well, HOORAY!!! Someone still has their wits about them over what should be a non-issue, since it clearly violates the separation of church and state to teach creationism (ID) in the classrooms of America's schools.

MUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that President Bush has the authority to order international eavesdropping on suspected terrorists in the United States without informing a court.

"If we had been able to do that before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who were in San Diego in touch overseas with al Qaeda," Cheney said during a tour of earthquake damage in Pakistan.

"It's good, solid, sound policy," the vice president added. "It's the right thing to do."

Cheney's comments follow Bush's defense of the practice Monday during a year-end news conference at the White House. Bush said he "absolutely" has the legal authority to order the wiretaps, which are necessary to be "quick to detect and prevent" possible near-term terrorist attacks.

Bush said authorization is derived from the Constitution, and Congress following the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Cheney said such measures were necessary because the United States needed to "aggressively go after terrorists."

Critics say Bush had no legal standing to authorize such wiretaps without obtaining a warrant from a court in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Cheney said the program had "saved thousands of lives."

"It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," Cheney said.

Posted by: Veritas at December 20, 2005 03:23 PM

Yes, they would have acted unconstitutionally... they can plead temporary insanity if they want, but in the hysteria fomented after 9/11 when so many of them were jumping on the patriotic bandwagon and running around like cartoon characters looking for criminals to prosecute (most of whom died in the plane crashes, which left all of us thinking there was no way to obtain justice since the perpetrators of the crimes could not be put on trial), the senators and reps (of ALL people!) should have kept their heads and not voted against what was prescribed by the Constitution, their own best interests, and against the best interests of the citizens of this nation.

If legislators can't keep their wits about them in a crisis, perhaps they ought not be elected - or re-elected. Bandwagon patriotism makes them all look like fools.

The Supreme Court can only follow the dictates of the Constitution, the Amendments, and laws enacted by Congress. As I understand it, Resolutions are not Laws. IF that is the case, Congress can repeal the Joint Resolution called Public Law 107-40... which would also take away The Cretin's illusory "plenary power" to act outside the laws of this nation, since Article II does NOT give any president so much power he can act like a dictator. The Cretin's "war on terror" is ephemeral and undefined, and his paranoia about "enemies" makes him mentally unbalanced. Lamestream media does NOT help when they kow-tow to his paranoia and don't ask the hard questions necessary to put a definition to WHAT or WHO it is we are supposed to be afraid of. The "war on terror" is a grand delusion fostered on the people of this nation. But if that resolution was repealed, it would put a leash on The Cretin, and at least go a long ways toward restoring the balance of power. He would no longer be able to say it's okay for him to break the laws to "protect" the citizens of this nation by taking away our rights (it never was okay in the first place, but idiots seem to believe that lame "justification").

Our legislators have been acting like cowards in the face of corporate fascism since the Selection of 2000. It's past time for them to atone for their mistakes (and I still want to hear abject apologies from all of them for their misdeeds since 2000, for voting against the best interests of the people of this nation)....

Posted by: marc trager at December 20, 2005 03:35 PM

To catch a criminal, detectives have to have EVIDENCE... judges and juries demand EVIDENCE to bring in a conviction. And the criminals have NAMES. To obtain a search warrant, detectives have to present a judge with PROBABLE CAUSE to do a search (or wiretap). The vague 'terrorist' label has never meant anything to me since the first time I ever heard it. What are the NAMES of these alleged criminals, where do they live, what are they doing that is illegal, and what is the EVIDENCE against them that would lead to PROBABLE CAUSE to get a warrant, then charge them with a crime to get a conviction? Specifics and details... I need specifics and details... and I'm not hearing specifics and details from the administration (or legislators, come to think of it).

The Chinkster has always had as much of a problem with details as The Cretin. All these sweeping generalizations (and LIES they both tell) mean nothing.

"If we had been able to do that before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who were in San Diego in touch overseas with al Qaeda," Cheney said during a tour of earthquake damage in Pakistan."

Yeah, and if Dumb-Dumb hadn't ignored that August 2001 briefing about Bin Laden wanting to use commercial airlines to attack US targets...

We ask the big questions. You decide.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6274/1682/1600/satan%20and%20son.4.jpg

Just in case anybody needed a reminder of what's at stake here... which in this particular piece of the blogosphere is highly unlikely...

-----

A Green Beret came to talk to us
Gave a slide show in the gym
Told about the Communists and the punji sticks
I thought I'd like to be like him

Long black wall
And nothing is undone
Long black wall
Sleeping in the sun

Chicago summer, 1968
Some high school kids out on a lark
Waved to the cameras on the evening news
And got teargassed in Grant Park

Long black wall
And nothing is the same
Long black wall
Shining in the rain

Everyone in college was against the war
We had long hair and Nixon stunk
Draft number high, draft number low
Stayed out all night and got real drunk

The vets came back on the G.I. Bill
In their field jackets and jeans
Drank black coffee and smoked cigarettes
And never spoke of what they'd seen

Long black wall
And nothing left to say
Long black wall
So many miles away

The man on TV said ten years had gone
Today a monument was raised
And when they wrote each name one at a time
The roll of dead took four whole days

Long black wall
And nothing is the same
Long black wall
Shining in the rain

Long black wall
And nothing is undone
Long black wall
Sleeping in the sun

(Michael Jerling, 1982)
http://www.michaeljerling.com

-----

sure feels like everything old is new again,
Otter

American Prospect has a post up with some authoritative references/links to the Church Committee and its work on the NSA and the Fourth Amendment as well as other references including one on the "Total Information Awareness" program titled 'Data Mining: An Overview' by the Congressional Research Service. Also a link to a Wired magazine article titled, 'The Bastard Children of Total Information Awareness'.

Check it all out here...
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008701

I particularly like his quote in the post above the one with all the links:

[here is] the soundbite version of my last two posts:

George Bush is trying to overturn the law designed to protect America from another Richard Nixon.

That's pretty much what Alberto Gonzalez' argument -- that Bush has "inherent authority as commander in chief" to order warrantless surveillance -- amounts to.

Yeah. That's what Nixon thought, too.

-----

"It's still hard to believe I had to write this song. It's ironic that I capitalized on the death of these American students. Probably the most important lesson ever learned at an American place of learning. David Crosby cried after this take."
-- Neil Young

-----

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drummin'
Four dead in Ohio

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'
Four dead in Ohio
Four dead in Ohio
Four dead in Ohio
Four dead in Ohio

-----

In the early 1970's, the citizens of this country finally learned -- whether they wanted to or not -- just what can happen when an unchecked imperialist administration is given free rein.

A lot of us are old enough to still remember those horrible, hateful years.

*Please* don't let the goons currently clutching the reins of power in Washingtoon make our children have to learn those same damn lessons all over again.

-----

Find the cost of freedom
Buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you
Lay your body down

-----

(Recommended reading: http://www.thrasherswheat.org/fot/ohio.htm )

I love my country but I hate their government,
Otter

Posted by: Cyrano at December 20, 2005 04:26 PM

What Cyrano said.... they had EVIDENCE of a possible attack coming BEFORE it did... and the EVIDENCE (legally obtained) was ignored ~ how brilliant was THAT?!?!?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml
Report | The Constitution in Crisis
By House Judiciary Committee Minority Staff
Tuesday 20 December 2005

The Downing Street minutes and deception, manipulation, torture, retribution, and coverups in the Iraq war.
Full Report: www.truthout.org/3.122005ConRes.pdf

Executive Summary

This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President's failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr. Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make legislative and other recommendations to him.

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

In addition, we believe the failure of the President, Vice President and others in the Bush Administration to respond to myriad requests for information concerning these charges, or to otherwise account for explain a number of specific misstatements they have made in the run up to War and other actions warrants, at minimum, the introduction and Congress' approval of Resolutions of Censure against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Further, we recommend that Ranking Member Conyers and others consider referring the potential violations of federal criminal law detailed in this Report to the Department of Justice for investigation; Congress should pass legislation to limit government secrecy, enhance oversight of the Executive Branch, request notification and justification of presidential pardons of Administration officials, ban abusive treatment of detainees, ban the use of chemical weapons, and ban the practice of paying foreign media outlets to publish news stories prepared by or for the Pentagon; and the House should amend its Rules to permit Ranking Members of Committees to schedule official Committee hearings and call witnesses to investigate Executive Branch misconduct.

The Report rejects the frequent contention by the Bush Administration that there pre-war conduct has been reviewed and they have been exonerated. No entity has ever considered whether the Administration misled Americans about the decision to go to war. The Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet conducted a review of pre-war intelligence distortion and manipulation, while the Silberman-Robb report specifically cautioned that intelligence manipulation "was not part of our inquiry." There has also not been any independent inquiry concerning torture and other legal violations in Iraq; nor has there been an independent review of the pattern of coverups and political retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics, other than the very narrow and still ongoing inquiry of Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

While the scope of this Report is largely limited to Iraq, it also holds lessons for our Nation at a time of entrenched one-party rule and abuse of power in Washington. If the present Administration is willing to misstate the facts in order to achieve its political objectives in Iraq, and Congress is unwilling to confront or challenge their hegemony, many of our cherished democratic principles are in jeopardy.

This is true not only with respect to the Iraq War, but also in regard to other areas of foreign policy, privacy and civil liberties, and matters of economic and social justice. Indeed as this Report is being finalized, we have just learned of another potential significant abuse of executive power by the President, ordering the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying and wiretapping without obtaining court approval in possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It is tragic that our Nation has invaded another sovereign nation because "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect our constitutional form of government.

Donors fund DeLay's Luxury Lifestyle:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/delay_living_on_donors

Just surfed around wondering if the Conyers story would be picked up.. AP at least has it.. no mention on msnbc.. they were covering Elton John's party..

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