Now that We Know George is Listening

Pentagon Illegally Spying on Activists
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205Y.shtml
The National Security Agency story has pushed military spying on anti-war groups off the front pages, and the Pentagon appears to have seized upon administrative error to explain away its slide into domestic spying.

Hey, Aunt Mavis, GO FOIA YOURSELF!

Monkey's Uncle

Props to Polly for this idea!

arbustito es falso y incompetente,
Otter

Bush's Impeachable Offense
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205M.shtml
Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing is the political will to impeach him.

Bothered by the NSA story
by Tucker Carlson

The argument for allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans is simple: It works. According to the New York Times, the federal government was able to disrupt a terror plot aimed at the Brooklyn Bridge by using information gleaned from intercepted phone calls that originated in the United States.

Domestic surveillance saves lives. That's the administration's position. Most Americans seem to agree.

I'm not entirely sold. I'm as against terrorism as anyone. And I think most of the criticism you hear from civil libertarians about the administration's handling of the war on terror is overblown. Bush may be a bad president, but this isn't a police state, not even close. (To claim otherwise is to insult the world's many genuine police states.) But I'm still bothered by the NSA story. Here's why:

Why didn't the Administration bother to get warrants for the wiretapping? Bush's aides claim there wasn't time; the terror threats were so pressing, bureaucratic niceties could have been dangerous. Sounds good, except that the 1978 law that governs federal eavesdropping allows the government to apply for a warrant after the wiretap has already been conducted. So that's not a serious excuse.

The real reason is that the White House decided it didn't have to ask permission to wiretap. Bush's lawyers concluded that as president of a country at war, he had the constitutional authority to take any steps necessary to protect the country, regardless of the law.

Bush's lawyers have a point. There are circumstances when the country's interests take priority over its laws. But by definition such circumstances are temporary. In the long term -- for instance, in the four years since 9-11 -- a president either has to obey the laws or change them. If Bush believes that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is incompatible with fighting the war on terror, he should ask Congress to scrap it.

Unfortunately that is not Bush's way. Bush distrusts rhetoric. He hates to explain and persuade. He'd prefer to decide and delegate. So instead of taking the time to convince members of Congress -- and for that matter the public -- that the government needs to start spying on Americans, he went ahead and did it in secret.

All of which might be fine, for now. There's no evidence the NSA hurt anyone. But the principle is troubling. Do we really want to empower the president to ignore Congress, our most democratic institution? Bush's defenders aren't bothered by the idea because they trust Bush. But Bush won't be in office forever.

Will they feel the same way when Hillary is president?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10284169/#051222a

And now, this totally off-topic bulletin from the Surreality Check Department:

http://tinyurl.com/dsnp4

life is weird enough even without a loonie in the white house,
Otter

marc:

Tucker Carlson may be irritatingly self-aggrandizing (and have totally terrible taste in ties), but he is an avowed libertarian rather than a right wingnut; and every now and again he really does Get It. Apparently this is one of those now-and-again times. And more power to him for it -- the more MSM peeps who keep shouting about the Chimpanderer In Chief's deliberate circumvention of the law of the land, the better.

what part of 'impeach' don't they understand,
Otter

From the article Nonny referenced above...

According to Turley, there's little question Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA warrant is low; more than 15,000 have been granted, with only four requests denied since 1979. In emergency situations, the government can even apply for FISA warrants retroactively. Nevertheless, Bush chose not to comply with FISA's minimal requirements.

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

Some insight into how the incompetent Bushco administration has mis-handled the Jose Padilla case such that leading conservative judges (one of them mentioned on the short list along with Roberts et al) are now seriously questioning them.

Courtesy of Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007828.php

No wonder those fine folks over at the DHS can't seem to find their own butt without both hands and a GPS transponder even if it glowed in the dark:

-----

The Department of Homeland Security was only a month old, and already it had an image problem.

It was April 2003, and Susan Neely, a close aide to DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, decided the gargantuan new conglomeration of 22 federal agencies had to stand for something more than multicolored threat levels. It needed an identity -- not the "flavor of the day in terms of brand chic," as Neely put it, but something meant to last.

So she called in the branders.

Neely hired Landor Associates, the same company that invented the FedEx name and the BP sunflower, and together they began to rebrand a behemoth Landor described in a confidential briefing as a "disparate organization with a lack of focus." They developed a new DHS typeface (Joanna, with modifications) and color scheme (cool gray, red and hints of "punched-up" blue). They debated new uniforms for its armies of agents and focus-group-tested a new seal designed to convey "strength" and "gravitas." The department even got its own lapel pin, which was given to all 180,000 of its employees -- with Ridge's signature -- to celebrate its "brand launch" that June.

"It's got to have its own story," Neely explained.

Nearly three years after it was created in the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense, DHS does have a story, but so far it is one of haphazard design, bureaucratic warfare and unfulfilled promises. The department's first significant test -- its response to Hurricane Katrina in August -- exposed a troubled organization where preparedness was more slogan than mission.

[snip]

-----

For the full story from today's WaPo, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/9z8j7

too bad this country's gone to Iraq in a handbasket,
Otter

New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205K.shtml
Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies, and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

Aimes information. But I see nothing in it about them using a warrentless investigation to apprehend him.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/spy_2-20.html

House GOP split from Senate on Patriot Act

26 House members demanding inquiry into surveillance... Breaking

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Frank James Sensenbrenner (R - WI) has rejected a Patriot Act compromise reached by the Senate.

The Senate had agreed to extend controversial provisions of the Act six months, setting it to expire in the summer of 2006.

Instead, Sensenbrenner is calling for just a one month extension of the Act.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senbrenner_rejects_Senate_Patriot_deal_1222.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6155.html#comment-18467

fox anchor goes beserk....

Oh, BTW...they're framing it a choice between, get this...

"National security or Civil Liberties."

Now I told you before when you say, "Civil Liberties" they want you to think of wacko lefties.

So I replied to the legislative aid, "Well, the Constitution, specifically the forth ammenment"

and so he sneared out, "It's a choice between national security or the Constitution."

Bye, bye America and Democracy is what I replied to him.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A court that oversees government surveillance will receive a secret briefing about President Bush's controversial domestic spying program, a judge on the court told CNN.

The briefing, to be held behind closed doors, will address concerns about the legality of the National Security Agency program, U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Howard said.

The program allows the government to eavesdrop on U.S. residents without obtaining warrants.

Howard said the session was put together after colleague James Robertson resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Monday.

Robertson, who remains on the federal bench, reportedly resigned in protest of the NSA program. The existence of the program was made public last week.

Howard said the briefing, which will be held in Washington, will be closed and classified.

The surveillance court, made up of 11 judges from across the nation, was created in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The legislation mandates that intelligence agencies seeking to monitor domestic conversations must ask the court for a warrant.

The Bush administration argues the NSA program is exempt from that requirement.

Several FISA court judges are raising concerns about the program, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the briefing.

Those concerns include questions about whether the Bush administration has overreached its authority, and whether information that might have been gathered illegally was used to obtain warrants from the court, the newspaper said in Thursday's editions.

Howard said he doesn't share those concerns and wasn't aware of them until he read his colleagues' quotes in the newspaper.

He said the judges have been discussing logistics of the briefing by e-mail. NSA and other government officials are expected to explain the purpose of the project and the legal reasoning behind it.

The classified program has been in existence since shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. It allows the NSA to monitor U.S.-based communications so long as one end of the communication is overseas.

Government officials also have said only people suspected of having a connection to al Qaeda or another terrorist organization are placed under surveillance.

Many Democrats and civil rights advocates say the program is not lawful because it was not explicitly authorized by legislation.

President Bush and other administration officials have argued it is legal and cite as justification Congress' post-9/11 anti-terrorism declaration as well as the Constitutional authority given the commander-in-chief.

Howard would not say whether he had been told any details of the classified program.

"The terrorist threat is so grave the president needs to use every tool possible, and it has to be accomplished with lightning speed," he said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said the NSA program was not meant to circumvent the FISA process but to augment it.

Howard criticized Robertson's decision to resign from the court, saying federal judges should not enter the political realm.

It "disappoints me he used resignation as a protest," he said. "That is getting into the fray."

Robertson, however, has refused to give a reason for or otherwise comment on his resignation. His term was scheduled to expire next May.

Howard, Malcolm Jones
Born 1939 in Kinston, NC

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 10, 1987, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on February 25, 1988, and received commission on February 26, 1988.

Education:
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, B.S., 1962

Wake Forest University School of Law, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
U.S. Army Major, 1962-1972
Legislative counsel, U.S. Secretary of the Army, 1971-1972
General counsel and marketing manager, Dixon Marketing, Inc., Kinston, North Carolina, 1972
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina, 1973-1974
Deputy special counsel, Executive Office of the President of the United States, 1974
Private practice, Greenville, North Carolina, 1975-1988
Civilian aide, U.S. Secretary of the Army for North Carolina, 1986-1988

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Griffen Bell was once called "Best Dress" by Blackwell and supported Bush. I can not see how he relates to this warrentless spying.

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

Posted by: marc trager at December 22, 2005 03:48 PM

Uh huh.... Besides the illegal, unjustified, unethical, and immoral war he started, The Cretin has repeatedly broken laws in this country, and no one (except bloggers and a very few op-ed journalists) ask any questions to hold The Cretin and his administration to account (and few try to get straight answers to direct questions - they just let the administration continue to repeat LIES. Certainly, *our* inept Congress has done nothing responsible along those lines, and I'm sure the people on this blog can't be the only people in this nation emailing and calling our legislators. Senators and Reps must know how dissatisfied we are with how they are governing this nation as evidenced by the bone-headed, dim-witted decisions they've been making since 2000, and how the Chimperor-in-Chief is handling the affairs of this nation (or else they're as stupid and selfish as he is and they're ignoring the media and their constituents in favor of the corporations paying them PAC monies...).

And, I'm still waiting for *any* elected senators or reps to start apologizing to the American public for their idiotic legislation and laws passed since 2000 that have directly and negatively impacted the citizens of this nation and the world, thanks to believing a man they knew was a LIAR before he was ever given his office by SCOTUS....

Let's review...

Howard said he doesn't share those concerns and wasn't aware of them until he read his colleagues' quotes in the newspaper.

Howard criticized Robertson's decision to resign from the court, saying federal judges should not enter the political realm.

It "disappoints me he used resignation as a protest," he said. "That is getting into the fray."

Ummmm, earth to Howard, so is going on record with the largest news organization on the planet saying there will be secret hearings about the secret program, and saying "The terrorist threat is so grave the president needs to use every tool possible, and it has to be accomplished with lightning speed".

CNN found this gem, a Reagan appointee... hmmm, did Rush call Daryan and put this one into play (or did he just whisper it to her with that bloated cigar breath?)

What friggin' tools.

Posted by: sparrow at December 22, 2005 04:14 PM

I wonder that this hasn't become a cliche on this blog.. it is of course the answer to sparrow's jerk

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin

impeachment without conviction is failure

I just found out why they never made "The Way We Were, Part II"...

Hubble finds new moons, rings around Uranus

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/12/22/uranus.hubble/index.html

Ok, I found the connect with Griffen Bell. Read this!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Griffen+Bell+Statements+on+Bush+spying

Prior to the summer of 2002 most Americans were unaware that, in addition to the state and federal court systems they learned about in grade school, another judicial system existed that operated in total secrecy. This judicial system—created in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)5—was specifically tailored to provide a check and balance between Fourth Amendment principles6 and the government’s authority to use electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence/national security purposes.7 Americans would be even more surprised to discover that during the 24 years the hush-hush judicial system had been in existence it had “always given the government what it wanted”8…until May 17, 2002. On that date the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) broke decades of silence by issuing its first ever published opinion.9 The opinion was signed by all seven judges, an “en banc” occurrence not addressed in FISA but also not unprecedented.10 The FISC opinion dealt with modifications, minimization and “wall” procedures (separating criminal and foreign intelligence investigations) in rejecting the Justice Department's request to use the recently passed USA Patriot Act11 to allow counterintelligence agents and criminal prosecutors to work more closely together. The seven judges appeared to be taking a stand against their perceived misuse of FISA surveillance for law enforcement purposes instead of what they believed was the statutes intended purpose—the gathering of foreign intelligence information. The FISC opinion was carefully crafted by the presiding judge, Judge Royce Lamberth, for public release by omitting references to anything classified. When the DOJ didn't release the decision on its own, the FISC judges took the unprecedented step of releasing it to the Senate Oversight Committee (per the request of Senators Leahy, Specter and Grassley).12

OMG...the webpage disappeared WHILE I was looking at it.

There couldn't be a reason could there?

sparrow strikes again! (aka The Bird Flu)

From Rawstory:

Without debate today, the House acted to extend controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT ACT to February 3, 2006--five months short of the deadline approved by the Senate.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Frank James Sensenbrenner (R - WI) had rejected the deal reached by the Senate.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did not oppose the one-month extension, stressing the fact that "ninety percent" of the law would be unaffected by the move. She also issued a statement announcing that she would have preferred a six- or three-month extension to the single month proposed by Sensenbrenner.

The House and Senate must now reach an agreement about the amount of time before the the provisions expire.

Sparrow,

Here's the link to an article I posted a couple days ago. In it Glenn Greenwald explains the FISA law and how it's being twisted in the RW talking points and blogs.

Interesting post here about how the right-wing blogs are deliberately mis-quoting the FISA law to say that the NSA spying is legal from Glenn Greenwald...

Sunday, December 18, 2005
Purposely misquoting FISA to defend the Bush Administration

Defenders of the Bush Administration are resorting to outright distortions and deliberate falsehoods about the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) in order to argue that the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens complies with the mandates of that statute. To do so, they are simply lying -- and that term is used advisedly -- about what FISA says by misquoting the statute in order to make it appear that the Administration’s clearly illegal behavior conforms to the statute.

This is a real case study in how total falsehoods are disseminated by a single right-wing blogger who is then linked to and approvingly cited by large, highly partisan bloggers, which then cause the outright falsehoods to be bestowed with credibility and take on the status of a conventionally accepted talking point in defense of the Administration.

read the rest here...
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/purposely-misquoting-fisa-to-defend.html

Another state to cross off the list of places to visit/live...Ohio

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place
The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to the Taft's desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.

WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID.

"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.
--snip--
WEWS was told that Taft is expected to sign the bill into law, but legal experts expect that it will be challenged in courts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wews/3133362

Thank you dw. I will go through that link.

In the meantime, On the other link this came up. And that helped clarify things for me as well. Now I realize many of you may have already known about this, but I didn't. 2002-2004 was not a period where I ever heard the news.

Anyways, maybe there are others out there like me who never saw it before. So for me, it's helped to trace it back. I guess I'm starting at the beginning.

Warrantless Intelligence Surveillance

Laws are simply words written in ink on a piece of paper. People bring the words to life. Behind every statute is a story—a reason for its existence—and the people who wrote it, interpreted it and enforced it.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was a hard fought compromise between the executive and legislative branches of government. Watergate and the abuses revealed in the Church Committee Report,16 combined with the threat of civil and criminal liability against individuals in the government,17 and the telephone company, had a chilling effect on warrantless electronic wiretaps.18

While the executive branch continued to assert its long-held position of “inherent authority” to authorize warrantless surveillance for “national security” purposes, the constant threat of lawsuits and the never ending Fourth Amendment challenges to the surveillance left them in a precarious position. There was always a chance that a case could make its way to the United States Supreme Court and there was no guarantee what that Court would do.

The only clue to the Supreme Court’s mindset was its 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court (more commonly known as the Keith case). 19 There, the Court held that the Nixon Administration’s warrantless surveillance of domestic groups “to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of Government” violated the Fourth Amendment.20 The Court stated the term “domestic organization” meant “a group or organization composed of citizens of the United States and which has no significant connection with a foreign power, its agents or agencies.” 21 The Court’s ruling left open the question of whether surveillance of those with ties to a foreign power, its agents or agencies—for national security purposes—required judicial authorization as well.22

Abramoff May Testify against Dozens in Congress
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205A.shtml
Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under indictment for fraud in South Florida, is expected to complete a plea agreement in the Miami criminal case, setting the stage for him to become a crucial witness in a broad federal corruption investigation, people with direct knowledge of the case said.

Hahahahahaha.... she laughs sardonically. I'd actually bet a whole quarter that the only people Abramhoff will tattle on will be only the lowest of the low in the food chain leading to the top ~ the expendable people. They might be in WA, but they will be minor players... but it may get Abramoff a 'get out of jail free' card from those highest on the food chain of political and corporate politicians if he protects them....

madame defarge:

Ay, oh, way to go Ohio.

freedom is a privilege not a luxury,
Otter

At Last, 'Impeachment' Talk Appears in Media
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205E.shtml
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in the media have started mentioning the “I” word, or at least the “IO” phrase: impeach or impeachable offense. The sudden outbreak of anger or candor - or, some might say, foolishness - has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

And to quote our inestimable Otter: "IMPEACH the bam dastards...!!! We want our country back!"

Hmmmm..... wonder how mad I'd be if I attempted to look at national news in Lamestream Media tonight and heard nothing about the word IMPEACH?!?

NonnyO:

I suspect that your head would explode.

chimpeach 'em all,
Otter

Ira, if you're out there, this one's especially for you. But I suspect it will rile just about everyone else too... Un-frigging-believable...

I Spy A Democrat?

Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons for the Bush/Cheney NSA spy ring can be found in the extra-legal activities of their favorite Texas son.

In 2003, Tom Delay, the ex-exterminator turned money launderer, began using the Department of Homeland Security as his personal surveillance team. And who was the Ham spying on using our tax dollars and without any oversight whatsoever?

Turns out Hammy was tracking Texas Democrats who had left Texas to break quorum on the yet another questionable piece of legislation.
--snip--
More importantly even, since every intelligence agency is fixated on anti-war groups, dissenting voices, and on anyone not in the 37 percentile that approve of this administration, just who is tracking the terrorists?

Read the rest; it's quite interesting...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/i-spy-a-democrat_b_12730.html

Arlene Getz | Where's the Outrage?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205F.shtml
Bush’s defense of his phone-spying program has disturbing echoes of arguments once used by South Africa’s apartheid regime. Arlene Getz tells why Americans should examine the parallels.

Two articles on this link... both worth the read.

Otter - I do suspect my head would explode, which is why I'm not watching Lamestream Media infotainment "news" and am still reading and blogging.... ;-) Anyway, if they did accidentally whisper the word IMPEACH, I'd likely die of shock....

HURRY..go vote at CNN/ Lou Dobbs tonight !!

do you have a link Patti? What are we voting on?

The poll question was whether or not the Patriot Act should be extended for 6 months, 4 years, indefinitely, or not at all.

67% of those responding to the poll said that the Patriot Act should not be extended at all.

looks like they're not *all* sheeple out there,
Otter

My LTE:

Constitutional Crisis-

After Nixon's illegal, warrentless investigations of peace protesters and democrats, FISA was enacted to allow investigation of potential terrorists, but to stay within the bounds of the constitution.

We discovered that since 2002 Bush and the Republican leadership has gone beyone the scope of what was LEGAL through FISA and instead has wired tapped peace protesters and political dissenters as well as "potential terrorists."

Despite the new spin they try each day, and you hear about in the news, they crossed the bounds of legal and constitutional directives.

We have a constitutional crisis; we have a regime who wants you to chose between democracy (our constitution) or what they claim is "national security", yet this is a false choice.

The choice is: Impeach or allow your democratic freedoms to disappear.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11340.htm
The Making of the Enemy:
Part One of Two
Only in America
By Manuel Valenzuela
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11355.htm
The Making of the Enemy:
Part Two of Two
The Myth of the Superhuman Enemy
By Manuel Valenzuela

Grab a cuppa or two.... Part I is what we've been talking about as far as sheeples for the last however many years, and Part II is talking about who will be the next "enemy" and how *we* will be brainwashed into believing there is a new "enemy" out there to fight.... Long, but well worth the read...

...and it makes me wonder greatly about the dumbing down of America via media and our school system....

Posted by: Otter at December 22, 2005 03:32 PM

I looked at your Aimes link on the previous thread, but I still see nothing that implies he was caught BECAUSE they used a warrentless investigation.

Am I to assume it was warrentless?

My understanding is that FISC replaces the usual system of getting a warrent but is still the same as a court issued warrent. Am I misunderstanding?

Posted by: dwahzon at December 22, 2005 05:32 PM

DW.

Something is wrong with the link. As soon as it loads, I can see the article for all of 30 seconds, then as the connection completes, it disappears.

Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

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

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_pf.html

Another Right Winged person named in the above article, John Negroponte (and involved in Iran Contra:

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

This is the link the Representatives aid Aaron sent me. I can't get it to open.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Re: Polly's header:

Dear Aunt and Uncle Weinie Heads,

How long have you known Bush and his helpers have
been breaking constitutional law and spying on Americans' correspondence, on the telephone and over the internet and in emails?

No, that wasn't Santa and his helpers spying in to see if you're naughty or nice. It was men with government orders to tap into correspondence of regular U.S. citizens like you and me.

Even though you said you aren't sure if Robertson and Dobson and Falwell are part of them Dominionists, you did say we all have to be very careful because them fellas may not be the "real thing" when it comes to Christians. I remember you even saying something to the effect that they "could be the anti-Christ", or even "false prophets".

But I wouldn't go worryin' yer pretty little weinie heads about gettin' throwed in the clink or anything.

Now that they probably have been watching you guys as well as myself, feel much freer to talk to me about these things. We don't have to hide how we feel any longer, because, gee, they already have us on file, in my estimation!!

Bunches of heavenly love,

Your loving neice OfNebachenezer

Our friends April and Marc will be pleased to hear that Diebold is pulling out of N.C. after refusing to release source code.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2003170

Aaron said that the intellegence committee met 12 times in the last 3 years (or since the inception of Bush's spying), yet this is what Senator Rockefeller said on the the so called "accountability" of it.

Read this

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/

Keep in mind, while Republicans are saying there was oversite, when I called Rockerfeller's office, they said his questions were never addressed.

Perhaps the Republicans on the intellegence committee had more information.

But since this was considered highly classified, Rockerfeller was not even allowed to ask his legal aids if this was constitutional.

Be sure to look at the PDF of the letter Rockerfeller wrote to Bush in 03.

Michel Chossudovsky: The Anglo-American War of Terror: :

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World
War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked
upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity.
http://tinyurl.com/btj3v

MORE on the brainwashing of the American public and manufacturing the "war on terror" to achieve PNAC aims.... This, on top of Valenzuela's writing is frightening....

P.S.

Aunt and Uncle Weinie Heads.

I have been feelin' so blessed and so full of joy I have been SCREAMIN' HAL-LEH-LEW-YUH (Yessiree) at the top of my lungs as I go jumpin through snow drifts.

Do yew know how joyful it is to know you kin let it all hang out now, and tell it like it is? Because, I know you was afeard them folk might could hurt ya if they ever heard ya say anythin' like "Pat Robertson could be a false prophet". Or Bush is a liar. But, now that they already have your previous conversations on record, shucks, you can just let it all hang out and tell it like it hits ya now. You know. Don't be shy. It's okay. They been listenin' in on lots of folks, so, whenever you are in the urge to talk ~ just let er rip!!

More heavenly love,

OfNebachenezer

Senator Kennedy | On Wiretapping, Bush Isn't Listening to the Constitution
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205Q.shtml
"The president is not above the law; he is not King George. Yet, with sorrow, we are now learning that in this great land we have an administration that has refused to follow well-crafted, longstanding procedures that require the president to get a court order before spying on people within the United States. With outrage, we learn that this administration believes that it does not have to follow the law of the land." - Senator Edward Kennedy

Barry Crimmins | The Bonfire of the Inanities
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205S.shtml
"For 2005, my annual task of reviewing the past year has been complicated by an old adage: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here I sit, tangled in a web that many people began weaving way back when the Gipper was protecting us against deadly pollutants released by old-growth forests. It was a jumble out there this year - one that defies linear documentation." - Barry Crimmins

The Ohio think absolutely ruined my day. Does that mean they have seceded from the union, rejecting the Bill of Rights outright?

Posted by: Ellen Beth at December 22, 2005 08:47 PM

Maybe secession is a good thing for Ohio, given what happened there in the '04 election...

Hey Ellen

Send me a personal e-mail when you get a chance, please.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article334859.ece

ho ho ho

Leaving this for MARC..

Because we agree 1000 years is not long enough...

For my Love
For Micheal

Astonish Me.
Humble Me.
Heal Me.

Hate Me.
Hurt Me.
Feel Me.

Find Me.
Leave Me.
Hold Me.

Shape Me.
Make Me.
Mold Me.

See Me.
Believe Me.
Tell Me.

Touch Me.
Taste Me.
Smell Me.

Be Me.
Free Me.
Feed Me.

Know Me.
Love Me.
Need Me.

Christy Cole

Hey georgie...

If you can read this...

Go shag yourself.

And your little dog cheney, too.

There's something very twisted going on in Ohio at the moment. First the ban of same sex civil unions, now this decidely paranoia-inspired piece of legislation.

Oh sorry...Back onto the subject of my conversation with the legeslative aid.

Aaron said that Clinton, Carter, and Reagon have all made use of this FISA-warrentless spying process.

And I repeated back to him, Clinton, Carter, Bush and Reagon have all done this?

And his response was that Bush Sr didn't as far as he knew.

Now, I'm wondering WHY is he distanceing Bush Sr from this? Reagan can't defend himself and Clinton and Carter if they defend themselves will just be seen as Bush haters. So maybe the media needs to ask Bush Sr if HE spied on Americans without a warrent.

The Justice Department acknowledged Thursday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with ``the 'procedures' of'' the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, ``except as authorized by statute.''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

Merry Christmas from George W. Bush...

President Bush has authorized a reduction in U.S. combat troops in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said today during a town hall meeting at Camp Falluja, Iraq. "At the recommendation of our military commanders and in consultation with our coalition partners and with the Iraqi Government, President Bush has authorized an adjustment in U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15," Rumsfeld told 400 to 500 U.S. troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.main/index.html

p.s. Could he BE more transparent?

Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

There is one other statutory authority for wiretapping, which covers conventional criminal cases. That law describes itself, along with FISA, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

But Moschella argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Such eavesdropping, he wrote, necessarily included conversations in which one party is in the United States.

Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

Any comments on all the maneuvering with the Patriot Act extension? 3 months (NEVER!) --> 6 months (OK) --> 1 month (OK). I heard Sensebrenner emphasize yesterday that since it is out of conference it cannot be modified. So what do you think it's going to happen in January? I see it as a way to force the opponents to either cave in or let it expire and then be accused of the usual nonsense.

Sparrow

One of Bush's first acts was an Executive Order sealing presidential records including his dad's.

Posted by: Inuca at December 23, 2005 09:03 AM

You may be right. They are trying to make it an "all or nothing" deal.

But it's up to the other side to say that there are too many flaws as it stands now. AND let them point their finger at the Bush administration's illegal spying as proof.

Posted by: Bush I was not my president at December 23, 2005 09:19 AM

His dad's AND Chinkster's roles during Iran-Contra, along with about a dozen other people who were part of that fiasco who currently hold appointed posts by Cretin II are part of those sealed documents. I'm old. I watched the Iran-Contra hearings on TV (yes, back in those days they actually pre-empted soap operas for real news on regular networks - watching Reagan testify, seeing the look of utter confusion on his face, led me to believe he was already senile while in office - I'd seen the same thing with my grandfather). What's going on now with Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg for events that started many, many years ago. Some of this crap started under Reagan and Cretin I, and now Cretin II wants to out-do his daddy.

As far as bringing troops home? How long will that last? Weeks? Months? Only until after the Nov. '06 elections? Please. Even a child lying when he's caught with his hand in a cookie jar can tell a better tale than that.

Click on the links to the last three articles I posted last night and go check the PNAC web site. He (and PNAC) intend to make both Afghanistan and Iraq military outposts so they have closer access to invading other countries in that region. It's all about the control and the production of OIL because the world has reached peak capacity, the supplies of oil reserves underground will be dwindling from now on out, and Bushies and his corporate buddies intend to get rich off of the last oil left in the world, wich will give them world dominance, and the ability to rule the world through control of the oil (and control of the money they make off of the oil they sell). Period.

Everything else is a side issue, and they will break any law in this land or in the world to achieve their ends, and tell us it's "for our own good" to fight these unseen "enemies of freedom."

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S CONFESSIONS
G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet
Bush's advocacy of lawlessness lies at the heart of the right-wing agenda to remake America.
http://www.alternet.org/story/29995/

INTELLIGENCE ABUSE DEJA VU
Gary Hart, HuffingtonPost.com
Here we are again, 30 years later, and once again willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security expediency.
http://www.alternet.org/story/29990/

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY
Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Bush is not above the law; so why is he acting like a God-appointed king?
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/29983/

A BAD YEAR FOR GOLIATH
Rebecca Solnit, Tomdispatch.com
The torture, the poor, the scandals and the spying: was 2005 the moment when the world's last standing superpower began to totter?
http://www.alternet.org/story/29898/

THE 2005 P.U.-LITZER PRIZES
Norman Solomon, AlterNet
From primetime slime to self-praise, these awards honor the stinkiest media performances of the year.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/29959/