Slashdot Mirror

According to this article the links were fake. So all you need is a link that says child porn here and people who click the link will go directly to jail. Or, at least, get their homes raided. Even if the link really didn't feature photos of exploitation of children. Nah, no way this rule could be abused.

Wasn't Gore proposing this back before 2008?

(In case you can't tell, my pet peeve is deficits.)

Why? You never said what was wrong with deficits.

Deficits at a small percentage of GDP are no particular problem. See the graphs on the whitehouse budget page.

If the total debt as a percentage of GDP is flat, then it isn't a problem for the future -- no more than it is a problem for the present, at least.

Deficits are a problem, but they aren't a bigger problem than taxes or spending. The deficit as a "ticking time bomb" is yet another false scare. Folks who think of themselves as responsible folks don't like financing government with debt. But responsible folks need to be responsible to reality, not to unjustifiable alarmism.

There's only one link that can be legitimately used with the phrase miserable failure.

Either way, you're simply wrong. (You seem to like bold.) If you want to stick to facts, let's review a few.

The Illegal Warrantless Surveillance program, or "The Surveillance Program", TSP, as you so quaintly call it, was in full swing for several years before the "Protect America Act" (your own reference) was even introduced (in early August 2007). Said "Act" was a long belated attempt to retroactively clothe the illegal program the President attempted to pretend he had the authority to authorize, and he was called out on it. He does not have any such authority, and never has. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is VERY explicit about what authority the president has, even in a time of war, and "TSP", is way over the line.

As much as you seem to want to believe, simply renaming a program doesn't make it go away.

Renaming things is a favorite tactic of this administration to keep doing the same things they're told again and again they aren't allowed to do. The long, sordid history of Total Information Awareness is a good example of what I mean, and given the Administration's track record on this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was directly related to "TSP", just one more head of the hydra they've created.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program has not existed for over a year, since 17 January 2007. All foreign intelligence collection in the meantime has occurred under the guise of FISA and the temporary and recently-sunset FISA modifications provided by the Protect America Act. With the expiry of the Protect America Act, ALL foreign SIGINT collection reverts to the 30-year old FISA rules.

If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it. Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance.

The other important thing to remember is that foreign intelligence collection never requires a warrant or court oversight of any kind; the FISA modifications were designed to enable easy foreign intelligence collection via assets on US soil or traffic that may travel physically through the United States. It does not matter in the least if the other end of the conversation is a US person on US soil, as long as they are not the target of such collection.

Such collection is always legal and allowable without a warrant if the collection occurs outside of the United States and the US person is not the target of such surveillance. Special and very extensive measures are undertaken to conceal the identity of US persons in such collection.

The main difference with what became known as TSP, and refined in the Protect America Act, was the provision to enable such collection via means to which we have easy and routine access; namely, the massive amounts of communication traffic flowing through equipment under US control. Whether or not you may agree with that is a different issue entirely. The purpose was never to target US citizens without a warrant. The purpose was to collect foreign intelligence via US assets. Currently (after PAA expiration), if traffic travels through the United States, even if BOTH ends are non-US persons physically outside of the United States, the Intelligence Community is prohibited from collection without a warrant. That's the "Intel Gap" we wanted to close.

The only problem with the submission?

TSP no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.

ALL surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation. The change was absolutely done to make such surveillance easy.

Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and ALL surveillance must again happen only via FISA.

There is no TSP or any warrantless surveillance program. What a horrible summary.

Of course, I'm sure a bunch of people will respond, "Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF." Oh, how convenient: arguing about something that we can't prove one way or another? Please, let's keep the discussion in the realm of known facts, namely, that TSP no longer exists. The article even says as much. Did the submitter not even RTFA?

I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail

the WILL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE

But of course, President sockpuppet prefers not to mention that....

The President himself doesn't feel the need to mention that. He was admonishing Congress yesterday, claiming that:

Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.

Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.

Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail, and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. , and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill.

Of course, as you said, all previously authorized wiretaps under the expiring act go on, and as the House Intelligence Chair put it:

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

In summary: There really doesn't seem to be a need for this law at all, let alone the provisions like telecom immunity.

So, apparently my original post dealt with something called the "Protect America Act", which is different than the ongoing immunity for the telecoms due to illegal wiretapping. But it turns out that the "Protect America Act" is related (in the sense that it deals with the power of government to spy on people without court authority) and relevant (because they are currently talking about it in Congress to get it extended).

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007
Dateline: August 7, 2007

This Act of Congress made it legal to wiretap lines OUTSIDE of the US.

Original vote of Aug 4, 2007

A recent vote extended the Protect America Act (originally intended to expire on Feb 1, 2008) to be good until the end of this current week.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html. This appears to be a congressional authorization for the use of force. Based on that, how can you come up with the idea of an unconstitutional war?

For the record, no I did NOT support the war in 2002/2003, but I do support it today. Why? Because we have a moral responsibility to clean up the messes we make. I'd love to see our troops come home, but what was started is, unfortunately, not over yet.

By the way, why ever would you think I would support John McCain? He's not too big on the constitution, either!

For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.

Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.

As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.

The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government

Taking Steps to Rationalize the Nation's Intercity Passenger Rail System
Curtails Federal subsidies. $800 million for Amtrak, which represents a significant but necessary cut to the railroad's Federal subsidy.
Requires that Amtrak control its operating losses and focus on services that offer the most promise.
Reserves the bulk of funds for capital investment so improvements may continue along the heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor.
Reflects that Amtrak has taken few steps to align its business with the traveling public's demand for intercity rail service and that it consequently continues to hemorrhage taxpayer funds.
Provides State matching grants. $100 million for State matching grants for intercity passenger rail capital projects to empower States, not Amtrak, to address their transportation goals and priorities.

For example; notice the subtle content differences between:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and this
http://www.whitehouse.com/ ...and this
http://www.whitehouse.net/
http://www.whitehouse.pl/
...and so on...
(You can do the same thing with: http://www.dell.com/ http://www.dell.net/ etc...)

[loafula wrote] The pope just shit a brick

The fact that you wrote a joke like this (and that it was given a moderation score of 3 by other readers) indicates confusion amongst the Slashdot populace.

The media have tossed about the word "stem cells" very irresponsibly, making it seem like the religious institutions and others (US President Bush) oppose "stem cell research". What the churches and Bush oppose is embyronic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryo.

This article is talking about Mesenchymal stem cells --- adult stem cells, which are not controversial. In fact, religious groups and Bush and others vigorously support adult stem cell research. Bush in 2001 stated the following:

URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/20010811-1.html
Date: August 11, 2001

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year the government will spend $250 million on this important research.

Here are some examples of confusing headlines that the media have deliberately chosen:

"Bush vetoes stem-cell funds bill" (from the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6224134.stm)

"President Bush's cynical stem-cell policy." (an editorial from Slate at http://www.slate.com/id/2090244/ )

"Bush to stem cell community: drop dead" (an editorial from MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/).

All of these headlines are addressing the vetoing of bills to fund embryonic stem cell research, but the headlines misleadingly make it seem like ALL stem cell research is under attack.

In addition, it should be noted that Bush et al were restricting United States government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Unrestricted private funding (not provided by the federal US government)of embryonic stem cell research has always been allowed in the United States, such as that provided through the (private) Howard Hughes Medical Institute http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040304074237.htm , and now state governments such as California and New Jersey. (That's the same Howard Hughes that Leonardio DiCaprio portrayed in the movie "The Aviator" directed by Martin Scorsese.)

Are the ethics of embryonic stem cell research to be taken lightly? Dr. James Thomson was one of the first two laboratories to successfully extract them from embryos:

Publisher: New York Times
Article: Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It
Author: Gina Kolata
Date: November 22, 2007
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?em&ex=1195966800&en=3d24427925954325&ei=5087%0A

Dr. Thomsons laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece

Economists have been critical of Greenspans 2003 decision to cut interest rates which, they argue, helped create the housing bubble, the collapse of which provoked this summers banking crisis.

So Bush wasn't president at that time?

Or here back in 2004: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/overcoming_the_bubble_economy.php

The damage from the overvalued dollar threatens to be even more dangerous. With President Bush largely maintaining the high dollar policy, the trade deficit and foreign debt have continued to rise at a rapid pace. The current account deficit hit an incredible $660 billion in the most recent quarter, more than 5.7 percent of GDP. This deficit will push total foreign debt to more than $3 trillion by the end of this year. On its current path, it will exceed $7 trillionapproximately 50 percent of GDPby 2009.

The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"

And I guess Bush never said this back in 2002, which was the signal to lower loan standards http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html - my comments in italics ...

But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We now know that not everyone who wants a home should be able to get one just because they can fog a mirror.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

this was the initial go-ahead by Bush for the private sector to eas up on lending standards for mortgages

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

so the mortgage industry came out with all sorts of snake-oil financial schemes, to extend the "dream" everywhere - ev

I really would like to join the conspiracy crowd. However, much as I try, I just can't get there from here. Seems to happen a lot around here...

First, most classified matter I've seen is so because of where it's born. If I write a memo to my boss requesting a vacation using a classified machine, it's classified. I can get it declassified by requesting same and, after approval, it almost certainly would be. Why would I do that, though? Do you really want me wasting your tax dollars that way?

Second, if you were truly interested in what the government is doing, or spending money on, try reading the budget submissions from the related agencies and the funding bills. For instance, since you mentioned the Manhattan program, let's try DOE/NNSA. For this year's funding request see http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/08budget/Content/Volumes/Vol_1_NNSA.pdf. You're probably interested in the section that starts on page 53. The office of the President takes that and makes a budget submission -- See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/doe.pdf. Then, for what they were authorized to spend and do, try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110HxtKyt:e379988:

You already knew all that, though, of course. No? What? Too much like work? Yes, it certainly is easier to whine than dig for those answers you claim you want.

The common thing I've noticed about conspiracy theories is that so much of our time is wasted on what's not available that the nagging issue of what *is* available will be reliably ignored. Let's justify this laziness by telling ourselves that this is what "they" want you to know. It just must not be true, right?

Lemmings. Gotta love 'em. Their life is so short :)

By our favorite simian/homo-sapien hybrid:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html#

No offense intended, but your Google skills must need work. Wikipedia for starters:

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
Total: $1.623T
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

More:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/
Office of the President: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/browse.html
Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/

I think that is sufficient to back up my point.

Other advanced features include

The sun is actually engineered, by nature, to provide all of the energy requirements for several planets, one planet already bears life.

waste management, containment, fuel reprocessing are located in one area, terrorist's cannot steal nuclear material from the sun.

the fuel cell is a handy "sun sized mass" which conveniently provides a orbital mass to anchor planets off.

Is engineered to operate long enough to allow several phases of civilisation to arise and become space faring.

C'mon, the hand of terrestrial nuclear power advocacy has got to be sore by now, but not from knocking. When we have a pragmatic look at nuclear power in commercial operation it is clearly not ready. If anything the last 50 years of nuclear reactor operation, and operating the fuel cycle has proved this conclusively. I'm not saying that research and development into better nuclear reactors shouldn't occur, just that the material technology to commercialise it on an industrial scale is not available in this point in history.

Sure, we have a responsibility to develop nuclear technology in our generation to address the waste issues, but only so we don't leave a toxic mess for a human civilisation that may look radically different to our own.

Why does a conversation about solar power automatically mean someone pipes up with the standard "build more nuclear power plants" argument? Nuclear power is a heavy greenhouse gas emitter and it just shows our politicians has run out of ideas when they disassemble economic protections for the American people to allow the oil companies to access nuclear industry subsidies. Clearly both industries are in decline and it's time to start divesting that funding into solar, wind, wave and geothermal power in a more balanced manner.

While I would love to believe some form of solar power would meet the world's needs, it simply isn't feasible with current technology.

Which is why Solar energy research should get immediate increases in funding right now! Take $10 billion dollars of the $70 billion spent on nuclear energy subsidies and allocate it to renewable's such as solar and you have doubled the R&D into these alternatives. Thats right folks the nuclear industry gets 7 times the funding allocated to ALL the alternative technologies COMBINED ($10 billion) and approximately 3 times the funding allocated to the oil industry ($25 billion). Little wonder why development of alternative energy technology has progressed at a snails pace. And that doesn't even include the tax subsides dolled out to nuclear, and even then it's still left behind a toxic mess of mine tailing, high level post reactor waste, depleted uranium etc etc etc. How can this corporate welfare be justified in America of all places.

Just follow the money. With $100 billion to nuclear/oil and $10 billion to EVERYTHING else you don't have to be a scientist to work out why these industries want to hang onto their share of the taxpayers pie. They don't care about the future - they just want their money now. America is awash with energy alternatives that are non-polluting, you are clearly blessed. You are a technological society so it's not beyond America to drive efficiency into the grid, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear development, coal sequestration ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Instead the nuclear/oil advocate wants us to believe that nuclear is the only way to address base load power when it is patently not

You shouldn't even be debating the degree to which the government wants to legislate morality. [...] Stop voting for do-gooder liberals.

You could throw a 50-foot net across Congress and not catch a conservative on either side these days.

The question is "Why are YOU spending MY money to achieve YOUR ends."

Let me throw that right back at you: BAM!. Funny, I don't remember asking anyone to give $1.2 billion dollars of mine and other people's money to Amtrak, either, yet for some reason we seem to be doing it. And the $8 billion dollars we give the EPA? I didn't ask to be billed for that. How about the $20 billion dollars we give the Tennessee Valley Authority to sell electricity to Tennessee and Kentucky? Is there some kind of collective decisive process going on here or something?

Welcome to democracy. I thought the GP explained that adequately, and if he didn't, your 5th grade social studies teacher should have. If she didn't, perhaps you owe society back some portion of the $84 billion the federal government alone (not counting states and cities) spends on education each year.

Ahmadinejade is pretty much an idiot

Yeah, but our idiots are better than their idiots!

U-S-A! U-S-A!

The money is there; it is simply about priorities. Take a look at the budget to get an idea of where the money is going instead of somewhere constructive.

The OMB has just directed the entire US Govamint to reduce itself to 50 connections to the internet. This has to be complete by June 2008! The fed probably has hundreds of such connections currently. I know this is going to be a major undertaking, to say the least. The memo ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf ) requires planning to be complete by January. The memo further instructs those with questions to contact Karen Evans at OMB...

Even HSPD12 isn't that ridiculous. It states that it must be implemented consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, which if you read section (b), is completely incompatible with the NASA process being described.

IANAL, but it sounds like there weren't any smart lawyers behind this idea anyway.

I've never seen any terrorist propaganda in the web

I see you've never been to this site!

-mcgrew

Military spending in the USA isn't even the #2 item in the federal budget today, and if the Pentagon were to be demolished, every member of the armed forces discharged, all of the bases closed... or in effect the Department of Defense eliminated from the federal budget, there would be virtually no impact on overall federal spending.

Maybe you should check the news about our failures more often.

I think we've been here before. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Indeed, this press release, for example is *very* encouraging:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

I'm sure glad its almost over... again.

Well according to the WhiteHouse http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/, the Dept of Homeland Security has terrorism as it's primary focus (at least that's how it's justified). However, their org chart http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_OrgChart.pdf shows they over arch quite a few agencies that don't really have anything to do with terrorism.

I don't disagree with your post being modded Insightful, and yet I question the value of the insight. "Maintaining perspective" seems to be the theme of this insight. In the geopolitical parlance, the practical implementation of "maintaining perspective" would be the "proportional response," a concept developed in the 1960s, as low intensity conflicts replaced larger scale wars. The idea being, if say, the Syrians hit an Israeli destroyer with a Silkworm cruise missile, then the Israelis would sink a Syrian cruiser with their usual flair...like a covert operation involving divers and/or dolphins. Tit for tat.

In the case of 9/11, we were faced with a truly stateless foe, and the proportional response concept could not be easily applied. Afghanistan, you say? Consider that even under the Taliban's shelter in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was and is essentially a worldwide movement. Ejecting them from Afghanistan would have proven inadequate; other venues - Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, even Baathist Iraq - could have provided haven, easy or otherwise, for the movement.

I submit that perspective has been maintained. Consider that leading up to 9/11, the dotcom implosion was still going strong, and on 9/12 the economy took a serious beating. And yet the nation did not fold. Why is that?

Because the President did not order a cruise missile with a tactical nuclear warhead to every madrassa between Riyadh and Peshawar. Because he did not launch a Trident at Damascus. Because he did not turn Teheran into glass. Instead, he warned of the long and lonely slog ahead, but continued to encourage people to live their lives. Tough times? Here's a tax cut! A classic Keynesian move to spur a flagging economy. Certainly no one will dispute the existence of added constraints to travel, identification, and maintaining privacy. But now I ask you to "maintain perspective" by realizing that these are but minor inconveniences.

The fact that you can continue to bitch about the President and not be incarcerated speaks volumes about the "loss of basic human rights" you alledge. I grew up in a Third World country run by a tin-pot dictator. I saw my first student riot in 1st grade, and wondered why the high school students were so mad - throwing rocks at an advancing wall of police shields. All our teacher could do was to have us duck down below the window sill so that we had a chance of not catching whiffs of tear gas (and other projectiles). I have had the fathers of classmates "disappear" for their views, and other fathers prosper - all because they had the right connections. Caught selling drugs? Meet the firing squad, baby. We don't need no stinkin' due process. Fight back? Well, it was not so easy, since said dictator confiscated privately owned firearms, including my grandfather's service revolver that saw him and his young family through an Axis occupation.

So again, perhaps the most powerful man in the world - the man who can unleash Armageddon - has indeed demonstrated the strongest restraint, and maintained perspective. Perhaps it is you who needs to reconsider your own.

I'm nice. I don't know about the changing accusations but this story looks like more evidence of high crimes to me. Are we following a felony here? This story really blew open in the media over the weekend. (Google news:Nacchio)

"What occurred before 9/11." You ask.

Well, as court documents (heavily redacted but showing enough to prove the time line) in the Nacchio trial state the whitehouse demanded wiretap information without court orders in violation of the FISA act. Nacchio refused and Qwest was passed over for big dollar contracts issued by the Feds. The rub is all this happened six months before 9/11. Why is that a story? Read on.

Perhaps this is a better article then the one linked in this story. From the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews
or this one. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html

It says the NSA was demanding wiretaps without court oversight six months before 911.

But on this whitehouse.gov page. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060511-1.html it says
"President Bush: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying." [White House, 5/11/06]

Not convinced? Watch this video
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/10/bush-pushes-for-telco-immunity/
"must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."

FOLLOWING? How about six months before!

Oh yea, Impeachment. "Bush administration was either incompetent or is guilty of malfeasance" http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__071015_bush_administration_.htm OK he's a known Bush basher.

"On December 17th, 2005, President Bush confirmed the existence of a National Security Agency eavesdropping program. That confirmation came one day after a report in the New York Times. The President said at the news conference, "in the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." Critics argued that Bush became the first sitting president to admit committing a felony, when he circumvented the courts by not getting a subpoena from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court, as required by law." http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=7112345&nav=0RY5

This would be Bush bashing; "Bush is a fake cowboy" http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/vicente_fox_cowboy_bush_is_scared_of_horses.php or "Bush is lazy" http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html but I won't resort to that kind of low stuff.

(2) Why can't two things be on the same day?