Bush Backed Spying On Americans

jb.hl.com writes "President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the U.S. without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported. The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S. When asked about the programme on U.S. TV, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"

Comments

Palpatine loses one

[beforewisdom]

Palpatine loses one:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10496539/

Re:Palpatine loses one

[the arbiter]

I'm not certain what you mean by "less kind intent".

No Democrat would deny Senator Lieberman the right to say or do anything that he likes; but if he's going to insist on taking a position contrary to what the majority of his party believes in, he will not get the support of, or access to, the resouces of the party - plain and simple.

The Republicans coined a term for this kind of politician as they also have a few mavericks who refuse to toe the party line...they call 'em RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have a DINO in Mr. Lieberman.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[AKAImBatman]

if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.

Lemme see, the Iranian President has claimed that the Holocaust never happened. It was entirely made up by the media to gain support the Jews. He also states that Israel should be wiped off the map and moved to Europe or Alaska. In short, the guy is nuts.

A commentator wrote an article in the Chicago Sun Times this morning that pretty well covered how it's going to go down:

1. The US has used up its "attack bad country" card for the time being, so they won't do anything.

2. Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities.

3. The UN will make more pointless resolutions condemning Israel.

Sound about right?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[MarkGriz]

"The Republicans coined a term for this kind of politician as they also have a few mavericks who refuse to toe the party line...they call 'em RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have a DINO in Mr. Lieberman."

Yes. God forbid a politician think for him or her self, instead of doing what they are told.
It's politicians like Lieberman (not that I'm a big fan) and McCain who stand up for what they believe in *despite* party affiliation that keeps me from losing respect for the political process entirely.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

said the holocaust never happened

Not quite. He called it a myth, claiming that not nearly as many people were killed as is commonly claimed (which is a common position to take in Iran). Not that Ahmadinejad isn't a rather disturbing character. It shows how poorly the "Domino Theory" for the middle east went, when someone like Khatami was replaced by someone like Ahmadinejad. The guy is frightening even to many Iranian hardliners because he's a follower of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a supporter of the Hojjatieh movement with close ties to the Haqqani theological school. The movement is based on the goal of bringing about the return of the 12th Imam by creating chaos on Earth, and was used by the Shah to try to wipe out the Bahai faith. I sincerely hope that he's not a member of the Hojjatieh movement. At least Ahmadinejad has stressed the importance of development and justice to bring about the Imam's return.

What a disturbing inverse-domino-theory this turned out to be :P

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Guppy06]

"The US would just say that Israel worked out something with the Iraqi government, and feign complete innocence."

You're humorously short-sighted. If an Israeli attack hits Iran from Iraqi airspace, Iran will cross the border into Iraq.

"Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming."

Stuff blows up. People look up, see planes flying south by southwest. Iranians put 2 and 2 together, invade Iraq.

Heck, that's even worse: it allows the Iranians to assume the planes were US forces.

(By the way, if you're jamming radar, you are the exact opposite of stealth.)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

As someone who has studies WWII in a great deal of depth, I would agree that the Holocaust *as we generally think of it* is a product of late war and post war propaganda. Furthermore, this has generally been exacerbated by research by Jewish scholars who are primarily interested in the experiences of their relatives. Not that this scholarship is incorrect-- it is just incomplete and people assume that the limited point of view (i.e. the Jewish experience in the camps) is the entire view. The real horrors of the work and death camps take shape only when the full scope of what happened there become known and parallels are drawn to the kinder, gentler genocides that were being quietly perpetrated in this country, in Canada, in the UK and elsewhere.

I am not one to speculate on figures-- what do the numbers matter anyway? What difference does it make if it were five hunderd thousand, six million, or fifteen million? The horrors of the death camps were systematic and independant of the number of those that lost their lives there.

The concentration camps were an integral part of the Nazi political machine. They were used to threaten those they wanted to join the party. They were used to get rid of dissidents. They were used to suppress any possible alternative political voice and so every nationalist organization unafilliated with the Nazis was generally banned by Himmler (examples included the Guido von List Gesselshaft, the Armanenshaft, and many others, some of which have survived to this day). Such bans were in effect regardless of whether the group opposed the Nazis or not. Indeed, I believe that the strategy was to use ethnic minorities (most notably Jews and Gypsies) as examples which could be used to threaten or intimidate the other citizens of the Reich into fearful loyalty to the Nazi party. In many ways, this is more horrifying than if it were simply a matter of racial hatred.

We should not forget so easily that genocidal programs were in effect in the US, and that some of the same ethnic groups that were targetted in the Third Reich were targetted here (most notably the Roma/Gypsies), mostly through forced sterilization. Such practices were common in the US, Canada, and the UK. Sure we didn't kill these people in mass numbers, but this doesn't make these actions any less evil. Similarly, a large number of techniques were employed to destroy the Native Americans as a cohesive social unit. These incldued some forced sterilizations, but also systematic attacks on native languages and culture. The institutional focus on the destruction of native languages and culture have remained in effect in this country through at least the early Clinton years (I do not know if anything has changed since 1994-- I believe it has but I have seen no concrete evidence that this is true).

Wow, there's a shocker.

[Skyshadow]

Whoa, wait: President Bush abusing his power? No, you've got to be kidding me. I can't believe it. After all, this is the guy who *wanted* to help New Orleans but just couldn't because of those darn rules maybe being in the way.

That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.

First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore (not that we ever did, right? I mean, I'm sure the folks at those secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe were Geneva Convention poster boys). Then the PATRIOT act gets blocked so they have to go deal with those darn activist judges to get warrants again. Now, people are acting like the President can't override statute with an executive order! Next thing you know, people will actually want leaders who follow the Constitution. Heck, this keeps up and nobody'll want to be President of the United States anymore - we're just takin' all the fun out of it.

I personally look forward to the day when the GOP has something to do with, you know, conservatism again. "Spend responsibly" rolls off the tounge better than "constant wanton abuse of power". Still, at least it was just violation of the basic agreement that forms the basis of our government and not, you know, a blowjob. Otherwise the nation might have to sit through another impeachment.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand criticizing the president for not bringing troops into New Onleans, particularly if you don't like him.

It seems to me that if you believe that Bush does habitually abuse his power, you would be especially supportive of a law that prevents him from using the military in that way.

One day the military are brought in during an emergency to serve as a temporary police force without following proper legal procedure, the next day they're brought in during an "emergency" to "gaurd" polling places.

The particular law governing the use of the military as a police force has been around since Lincoln, and for good reason.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Onan]

First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore...

Sadly, they appear to have, at least for the moment, found a way around such onerous strictures as that expectation that we behave like human beings. McCain's bill mandates that all US interrogations conform to the methods laid out in the Army field manual.

Given that it appears to be passing unvetoably, the Pentagon has simply changed the manual.

And declared the new version classified.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[_KiTA_]

Unfortuantely, President Bush has proven quite well that the Republicans are anything BUT the party of responsibility -- be it Personal Responicibility, Financial Responsibility, Military Responsibility, what have you.

Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise, the Democrats have been the party of at least financial responsibility for quite some time. Military Responsibility too, unfortunately -- at least the Democrats haven't sent people off to war with no plan other than "sit tight for a few years, we'll think of something."

What I don't get is why the people in the Republican party who really do have morals and ethics don't speak out against the path that Bush, Rove, and Cheney are taking their party down. It's clearly a complete 180 from where they're claiming to be. An ethical person coming out and saying "Ok, I don't care what Bush says, he's NOT a Republican, we're disowning him" would solve so many problems...

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[tgd]

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[dada21]

I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton or any President going back 3 generations. Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can.

Why do you think it took so long to release papers from Kennedy's time? National security?

Lies. Everyone has secrets to hide.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

"I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton..."

I disagree. Look at their wars:

Cliton got us into Kosovo.

• We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world.
• We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.
• We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents
• Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that.

Bush got us into Iraq.

• Bush alienated every country except Britain getting us into Iraq. We are now a pariah at the UN.
• Bush lied to us about why we were going in and used false intelligence to build the case. Bush's said reasons for going into Iraq have changed several times since he first started selling the war
• Bush's team had absolutely no plan for reconstructing Iraq, and they have no plan to this day. This has resulted in about 9 billion dollars dissapearing from the budget in fraud and corruption.
• 2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight. The violence it getting worse, not better. The military is stretched to their limits. This cannot continue without instituting a draft

"Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can."

Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.

Yes, politicians are power-hungry and corruptable. However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Politicans aren't all the same. Bush is *much* worse than Clinton.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

You sound like an armchair fiscal conservative.

I suggest you travel the world a little and see how different political systems pan out. You will probably come to the realization that:

1. Communism doesn't work. Old News.

2. Capitalist countries with social services and little governmental corruption do the best for their average citizen -- i.e. Japan, Australia, Northern European countries. They have a large middle class, with social mobility.

3. Purely capitalist countries fare the worst -- they have no middle class. Most of the people live literally on the street or in shanties -- I'm not talking crazy homeless guy, but mom, dad, and kids. There is a small class of wealthy elite who run the entire economy and government, and they keep it all for themselves. It never trickles down. They have unchecked power, and they have no interest in letting go of *any* of their power and money.

You want to know what country has the most productive economy? Finland. Yes, Finland, a country with cradle-to-grave social services. It also has a high standard of living and a large middle class.

I'm sick of these neocon hucksters trying to destroy the middle class. If you like corruption and business elites running everything, MOVE TO SOUTH AMERICA. You are trying to destroy the American dream. You and your ilk have worn out your welcome.

Reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Your posts are being recorded and may be used against you. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the President for all his hard work in protecting us from Eastasia, at great personal gain to himself.

Re:Reminder

[TripMaster Monkey]

You seem to be mistaken...Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Eastasia is our staunchest ally.

Please report to the nearest reeducation center. Thank You.

But the problem is...

[Jordan Catalano]

lawfully != ethically

In related news..

[PhrostyMcByte]

The senate recently rejected extensions to the patriot act.

None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Drudge Report.

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[Politburo]

Does that somehow make the actions less wrong?

Sounds strangely familiar...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Hmm...wasn't there another president who got in trouble for spying on other americans? Watershed...waterfall...waterbed...definitely water-something...

Oh yeah! Here it is!

And this is just the latest of Dubya and Company's shocking assaults against their own nation...sadly, an offence that would have been considered grounds for immediate impeachment (not to mention additional criminal prosecution) thirty years ago hardly raises an eyebrow today. Apparently, we're used to this sort of thing by now.

I'm pretty sure that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they fought and died so that we might have a nation free from tyranny.

Something else to trouble you:

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'm a little more concerned about http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bil l/index.html, which basically says that the Nuremburg trials are no longer valid precedents for US law.

"(It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders ... then it could be a defense in case of accusation,"

Nothing new ..

[Entropy]

Not that I am defending Bush, but the NSA spying on Americans is nothing new. Read "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford if you want a good look inside "no such agency" .. the only things to change from the book would be the tech, not the policies, politics and yes, paranoia.

Re:Nothing new ..

[Coryoth]

They don't handle foreign affairs, but focus on at home threats (Which made me question the need for Homeland Security, but anyway). The point is, their entire job is to monitor the US and US Citizens.

I'm honestly not sure how you could be more wrong. Instead of just guessing at what you think they do based on your own bizarre interpretation of the name of the agency, you could try actually looking up real information on what the role of the NSA is. From their website we see that their stated mission is a dual one, involving "Information Assurance" to protect US information, and "Foreign Signals Intelligence" to collect and process foreign communications. Feel free to actually read the executive order that defines what the NSA does. Spying on US citizens is precisely what the NSA is prohibited from doing, and handling of foreign intelligence is part of their mission statement.

Jedidiah.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Sure. Maybe they can make something out of the 1000s of 'approved mortgage' and 'p3nis 3nlarger' messages.

President acted lawfully

[192939495969798999]

He acted lawfully the same way that the mob boss doesn't actually "kill" someone, they just happen to know the guys that shot the victim. In the words of John Gotti, "It's good to have guns around ... but you don't want to carry a gun. You might get arrested."

Great quote

[Josh Coalson]

from here

"God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican.

Hell, why stop there, let's wipe with the constitution a little more and go straight to a Police State Act, then Sen. Kyl can argue "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Police State Act before it was passed." Yeah, a prison could be real safe too.

If 47 senators are so for it, maybe they should just "opt-in" to giving up their rights, instead of passing another odious law that will apply to them too? Oh yeah, that's because it won't apply to them. They are elite. Their names will never be on a no-fly list. Their personal information will never be stored at a company like ChoicePoint (if you ran ChoicePoint, the first thing you'd do is create a blacklist so that no one who could mess with your business model could be affected by a scam). But they're oh-so-ready to shackle the common man to keep him safe.

This makes slashdot?

[tpgp]

Why does this make slashdot when in the last two days we've had bush resisting torture legislation and his complicity in kidnapping citizens of allies

Re:Oh dear

[Rob the Bold]

"Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken."

I think what she means is: "Since the president defines what is legal, then what the president does, is, by definition, legal." Very much in keeping with the administration's claims of "Presidential Infalibility".

Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Savantissimo]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account? There isn't a single person on death row or executed in the history of the USA who has who has ordered so many killings, kidnappings and tortures. His utter contempt for the constitution and human rights is the root of the many forms of his criminality. Ordering illegal spying on thousands of Americans should by itself be enough to get him impeached, tried and sentenced to life in prison, but on the scale of his other misdeeds it barely deserves mention.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Gonzales should be quickly tried and promptly executed as a deterrent to our future officials who might think that they can use power for their own purposes rather than as servants of the electorate. We need to put our so-called leaders in permanent mortal fear of even getting close to violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Until then, they will continue to think that they can rule us rather than represent us.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[TheRaven64]

I think he could quite convincingly plead diminished mental capacity as a defence. Take today's example when asked how one used an iPod:

"I get the shuffle and then I shuffle the shuffle," he told confused reporters.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Seumas]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?

As many as he likes, as long as they don't involve consensual sex and hummers.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Jtheletter]

Good show. I just posted almost the exact same thing. Death or at least life in prison should be the minimum sentence for mucking with constitutional rights. As it stands now there's no fear from the politicians, at worst they serve a year or two of a reduced sentence in some cush-job prison (compared to true federal prisons). Most first-offense everyday crimes carry stricter minimum sentencing guidelines than what polititcians get for abusing an entire nation's rights.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Cautious? Why? The OP called for Bush (among other Administration officials) to be "quickly tried and promptly executed". This is a direct statement of a lawful process. The Congress has every right to Impeach Bush, and in fact any President. The courts of the land also have every right to try the President for crimes, once he's removed from office.

If we started calling for Bush to die from old age, will the Secret Service really have a case against us? Is the President immune from being indicted and tried for crimes that carry the ultimate penalty? What ARE you saying, exactly?

I disagree with the OP about ONE thing, however. As a clear enemy to the people of the United States, upon Bush's indictment for war crimes, he should be held in prison before seeing trial for the exact number of days that he has held Jose Padilla (who is on his third year and counting).

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Bogtha]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?

Just one. However, it has to be one that the majority of the USA cares about. Killings, kidnappings, torture? The average American doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to them. Now if Bush was caught getting a blowjob, it would be a different matter altogether.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[killjoe]

Saddam is on trial for torturing and killing people, maybe one day Bush too will be ontrial for torture and murder. He has tortured people and killed people after all. There is no dispute about those facts.

So the question is how many people do you have to kill and torture before you get the death penalty? I say one death is too many but hey what do I know, I am not a republican.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[babyphatman]

I've got a good quote from Noam Chomsky regarding Bush's supposed "diminished mental capacity"...

"Both political parties and the media are far to the right of the general population on a whole host of issues. And the population is just disorganized, atomized... And that's why the media and campaigns keep away from (political) issues. They know that on issues, they're going to lose people. So therefore you have... George Bush... this pampered kid who came from a rich family and went to prep school and an elite university. And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang, and he's off to his ranch to cut brush or something. It's like a toothpaste ad. And I think a lot of people know it."

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[cens0r]

But what if he got caught GIVING a blow job? That would make heads explode!

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[millennial]

That's a bullshit comparison. Why was Clinton being examined in the first place? Because he had CONSENSUAL SEX with an ADULT. Why did he lie? To try to salvage his marriage. Who died? NOBODY. Why is Bush being examined in the first place? Because he lied about WMDs. Because his vice president used to head the company that the government hands all its war-on-terror-related oil/rebuilding contracts to. Because he has given executive approval for the transfer of foreign POWs into prisons where we know torture takes place. Why did he lie? To protect his own ass, and cover up the crimes of people in his administration. Who died? Over 2100 American troops, tens of thousands of Iraqis (military and civilian), and several dozen tortured detainees.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[timeOday]

Just one. However, it has to be one that the majority of the USA cares about. Killings, kidnappings, torture? The average American doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to them.

I guess you're right. I just checked the CNN quickpoll on their front page.

Question: Should the government have been given the authority to spy on Americans without warrants after the 9/11 attacks?
Answer: 69% no, 31% yes.

A third of the US thinks establishing a secret police force with no judicial oversight is a real good idea.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[ScuzzMonkey]

A third of the US thinks establishing a secret police force with no judicial oversight is a real good idea.

Well, I'm pretty sure what they are actually thinking is, "Damn it, if those pinko Democrats would just let Dirty Harry and Rambo go after those raghead bastards and stop pesterin' 'em with all their RULES and their REGULATIONS, hell, we'd kick some ass and get unleaded down to $.50 a gallon by Christmas!"

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[AKAImBatman]

Just playing devils advocate for a moment (since it appears that Slashthink(TM) is in full force), but isn't this EXACTLY the type of thing that the Patriot Act made legal? I'm not saying that I like the Patriot Act, but it did get passed by a majority of the house and senate.

NY times sat on this for a year

[wwwrench]

The fact that the American government snoops on its citizens without any oversight is frightening, but perhaps not as freightening as this:

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight, gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.

The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling, subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful.

That the government removed the provision that wiretaps should be (effectively) rubber-stamped is shameful. That they kept the people in the dark about this decision is even more shameful. But that the supposed free press also kept this massive decision secret?? That's so fucked, I don't even know where to begin.

A vibrant democracy has a free press. In a democracy, you can speak your mind without fear. Your government is open, and their decisions are public and can be scrutinized. Heck, the public can even influence the decisions!

What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two figureheads. There are certainly places in this world, where they don't even pretend to live in a democracy, but this shouldn't give one much comfort.

America: Please. Do something. Your democracy is so shallow, it barely exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the invasion of other countries.

Why we aren't all at the barricades is beyond me.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[Neph]

After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting

Oh crap, I want a firmer number here. Did they wait exactly a year? Was it a roughly a year? Was it maybe a bit more than a year? Was the article originally going to be printed before election day 2004?

a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?

BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.

And this guy broke the story.

It sounds worse than it is

[rapierian]

First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program. Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further. For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[east coast]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

You don't think that didn't happen with the presidents "offical" aproval? Let's not get out of hand here.

But we already know what will happen, the Dems will take the presidents office in 2008 maybe and the same crap will be pulled but instead we'll just have the other half saving the same thing...

Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party. If we don't get motivated to throw another party into the mix and force parties to do more than lie and smile we're just going to have the same thing again and again, a new Waco, a new 9/11, a new Watergate, a new infringement somewhere somehow and the finger pointing will continue and so will business as usual.

You don't seriously think a Democrat is any more forthright than a Republican? Hell, they feed off each other and at the same time use each other as crutches. They know and accept this business deal. They know people accept them as the only game in town.

Let's impeach President Dummard

[NFNNMIDATA]

If treason isn't a good enough reason to be impeached, maybe we can come up some kind of blow-job scenario.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

This is a good question for GOP fans who claim to be conservatives. Conservatives don't believe in violating the nation's laws. That's what domestic surveillance without a warrant is.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[Dr. Spork]

Condoleezza Rice said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'

If this is true, it only shows how corrupt our laws have become. No serious person could think that Jefferson, Franklin and the other Constitution authors would ever think it's OK for a president to do something like this.

Third agency in 48 hours

[jamie]

In the past 48 hours or so, it's been reported that the NSA, FBI and DOD have all overreached into Americans' privacy.

At some point the question becomes: which of Bush's TLAs is not illegally spying on us?

But the saddest thing of all

[WormholeFiend]

is that people seem to forget that the previous president was nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob in the oval office.

Where are the calls to impeach Bush over his bloody lies?

Re:Support the President!

[Belseth]

Apparently you drunk the kool aide and I assume you voted for the SOB. You don't "have" to support a President that is abusing power. We here back in 1776 call in a democracsy and people have the right to support who they want not who they are told they have to support. I support the country and I support the troops. I do not support Bush and I do not support the war. Bush is a facist that makes jokes about how much easier it'd be if it was a dictatorship. Not sure how much easier he wants it given he gets pretty much everything he wants as it is. Haliburton and others are raping this country and Bush and his cronies are holding us down while we are gang rapped. Our rights have been taken away and yet studies have shown we aren't really any safer. Making us safer was never the issue. This is about power and robbing us blind. He deserves to be impeached. They impeached Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife. Bush is breaking laws that affect us all and has killed tens of thousands of people doing it, over two thousand americans. He's killed nearly as many americans as the terrorist and the war is still going on. What standard do you have for impeachment? "Well first they have to be a Democart" apparently. I'm not a Democrat, I don't like either party. Just how much lying cheating and stealing can go on before we do impeach him? He was making a case for invading Iran until some one pointed out to him that we don't have any troops to spare. If we really did get attacked now we'd be in a desperate situation. All our forces are aimed at Iraq. They've even been pulling them out of Europe to support the war. He says we'll pull out 30,000 this year. Well he sent 15,000 more last summer and the fighting hasn't slowed. Welcome to Viet Nam II the sequel. Funny a lot of us saw it coming. Wonder why he didn't?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

Where are Dubya's defenders now?

Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[jd]

The cards were rectangular, the chads were roundish and the legal case went in circles. Nothing square about it.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[garcia]

Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party.

Yes, because this holy "third party" will be so far detached from the two parties we currently have that none of this bullshit will go on, right? Oooh, you are thinking that we're going to get rid of ALL of those in office that are part of the "two party" system and replace them *all* with members from the "third party".

Technically, the New-aged GOP is exactly that, a "third party" that no one has ever seen in America before. One where ignorance, blatant disregard for everything the US stands for, and religious beliefs take precedence over everything else.

BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[hzs202]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Who cares when we have OpenPGP data encryption and voice scramblers!

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

mQGiBENkWOARBADxLXVbOGq/OZymr1qJlolh7CzCXK7kqzFfYJ LJKpm2UppVHdvB
3Wb6T+OQ9lwFOfd7nobjKtiOf1rjGcY/dLxj0bkXQMCnOb83IB C4QA+zgmdzJSUc
YreML13cQYE/MNsZigTij/2CwplngfcmkfLWOUhBbYkQOs1Stm 7KDID0mwCgnHce
r1IQvByGx1aHtNIVbk27OekEAMR664MGE309hpbMItV9ocFTCI UdsANSiZsYqmKr
hm/mDq7GWS8K7odoQmbGBsUYQNWv0r5N+CKDfeOGHN52AY1BKQ HHV2/00F0YhOQT
h4RZyMhMeV8zASiJgF/zViuV9TI14E6kF9cJRLchUXo4XUFTot DDrAedPDtdN5O8
WEyPBACFmALw8Zsi/ZSmJlm5skqsybNjpvKcdM0+zL7g32UXd3 X/0BRY1nOsxxq8
TjvV75tq1Lud+gkBlsu+p+Iw/En1tC//fqzH7kD6t1FOv67N3A SYDy631ievLPV2
JQL7+QBc0Z9ZKsnDynTsNdWyRmdLXwLi+XbRHQ5Yq4DnAV/amL QgSGFraW0gU2lu
Z2hqaSA8aHpzMjAyQGdtYWlsLmNvbT6IWwQTEQIAGwUCQ2RY4Q YLCQgHAwIDFQID
AxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCoG8ogZI8U++ylAJ9I8+BN1AEc8cXJF7 etHG6zfL0SpgCg
k2Iy+OUQfVnduJ5zI3YPFKYPfGe0Kkhha2ltIFNpbmdoamkgKH NwaWRlcm1hbikg
PGh6czIwMkBueXUuZWR1PoheBBMRAgAeBQJDZFpeAhsDBgsJCA cDAgMVAgMDFgIB
Ah4BAheAAAoJEKgbyiBkjxT7jbgAn2LPM44hQXj3cCOjO+2Zjv Hn3SUJAJwNS605
c0mP37J48liHqhbcIllearkCDQRDZFkFEAgApUXQ3k/c32jVqv iNTbPCKaIqU7LH
C7/c7IbUcTvai79vAcLn42aCP1airbIqHjY5sqIc3CsdnQrYXa CuPc+6AYJpoy0m
zfEWTa2fNzQtxaqgeDSvQGknpSzbawSbTbl74AueFDMva+vtjn RnIiuZkyGMcx5v
I7CPl+JhRid5q50e6a7qqkKdVz7eoSqXshJ5V1i47lv0o/8amu RkRB7m2Q9EeUzr
v0f9CQGcbbIi9CySUsh+4ezX6UGBZIzXLqwF76GrbwzzPIre0n Mtab1loKyXRqkV
nlkebdS5wUysh8pAkNWCDHCoz1vKUx/Z5mvfvNjFrTbT6oz/U5 3VnVkvdwADBQgA
hbxARlg7zBK+w1/wdNvFSKmwPy6E9cu21Ioa0FzqIvJB7UmSZ2 n5eIEwpbctQhAL
+FchSNN5wkNLgGX9WXSWSIabixDVxWjgw8sWPvuYRH8xtPjSHy OvY3LcBn5Yj+df
ZiFafHGpyOsk9EdTxWpmd+mv2XQJ+586mUmVItYIqxtH8f0Z21 fDM1mzHieDTCnN
9+nqhAW7emUoiL60hsvf/C5UwDASEuPhRDzbINn9bXxtuubKrO R61OncL2RUxw41
jaZ0FiY6to+O97sqhW2p2dXHERogWpd1S5MXMjrtpcCYAa2BmU iZACm9qMLd4EL9
bViKvAR76CVktHBIP0gAiIhGBBgRAgAGBQJDZFkFAAoJEKgbyi BkjxT7jN0An0oN
N9w3s4roFaQm+SzT6ebqD178AJ49o6sYJkYo/7Ek3/0GWQkN/W yOxJkBogRC7IUu
EQQAhD0xPF9jEBsbC09xgdaig5+YTrdvOwZu6jGENBEBiEjnGc XzSQ5JigAZdx4j
4P/+l3fzX3dQz2tTrkSX+kB6XKn6d+r/oZVxN1Vfe25bsUt+O+ XYovv6SFi4J5ek
tG3TN/o15ZpqZyc951EmuK9/CnHEdfj9lBePkTL8x4KKEpcAoI ML3/ZBy8MI+WoH /wH+jvVrGNpHA/9tc0d+OZ+jNwmnJUiRdVAM7zKPMxHEDAkC1G 55WOfHWUUFlWwl
u7FjGizsyWv++E4gq0K69AQyYU+e7LujUJnAuLbFWzPK6kaQ0Y 8U0tF8z1dc1aL3
WI29UOsjraWDtU0ektJEkT4nkVnUpd5o+THeK9pmSIF6KLgOp8 VUYaaGLAP+IWxg
716JLusO5bRwJzmzkJcR0qQQQCEq9ZifrK5wRszYeGVPYi5Zxi JraUoLFF58QFJ/
aiR5GFwutSLppRw9AwoTZHLTsQ0jpjVp5UVyNblzVnBmXWZRt+ C+p1wJKty0EflA
afXHw9MR5VGi0BkG/tm5SZYhFlmnKD5dML3elG60JEhha2ltIF NpbmdoamkgKE5Z
VSkgPGh6czIwMkBueXUuZWR1PoheBBMRAgAeBQJC7IrsAhsDBg sJCAcDAgMVAgMD
FgIBAh4BAheAAAoJELTcPjuVgsjEst8An1Kb07KUu6h3bUZYfk u857TbZ3+QAJ9n
3yv7T64pPc0Eqyyz7Oy0jQJRQrQqSGFraW0gU2luZ2hqaSAocH JpbWFyeSkgPGh6
czIwMkBnbWFpbC5jb20+iF4EExECAB4FAkLshS4CGwMGCwkIBw MCAxUCAwMWAgEC
HgECF4AACgkQtNw+O5WCyMT+ZwCaApCQ+vXrm24rQaeSYHJO09 1BsbEAn1y+oXmm
0ZtAekC2LsQsx7FEKd0B0f8AACGz/wAAIa4BEAABAQAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAP/Y/+AA
EEpGSUYAAQEBAEgASAAA/+EAFkV4aWYAAE1NACoAAAAIAAAAAA AA/9sAQwAIBgYH
BgUIBwcHCQkICgwUDQwLCwwZEhMPFB0aHx4dGhwcICQuJyAiLC McHCg3KSwwMTQ0
NB8nOT04MjwuMzQy/9sAQwEJCQkMCww

Re:legally done

[isotope23]

Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is.
Bullshit.

From the article :

"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."

When people inside the NSA have a problem with its constitutionality,
I think thats a pretty clear indication of just how legal it is.

Dear Pres. Bush,

[ENOENT]

Why do you hate America?

Ease up.

[Gruneun]

A guy has information that is new, shocking, and reveals a blatant violation of the constitution, and just because he's also an author of an up-coming book he shouldn't come forward with it?

I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.

No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.

Re:Ease up.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so"

no, the author comes out looking like instead of writing an article about it and letting it devolve into the standard fox/nyt fight back and forth, he chose to sit back and research the shit out of it, then publish something that cannot be brushed away, something thorough and well reasoned.

until we know the exact circumstances of the editorial decision not to print a year ago, it would be inappropriate to label the move opportunistic, well, any more opportunistic than a republican criticisng a liberal for sleazy business practices.

They said that they delayed a year to do more research. DOESNT IT SEEM LIKELY THAT A YEAR'S WORTH OF RESEARCH MIGHT PRODUCE ENOUGH MATERIAL FOR A BOOK!!??? I for one, think it just might.

And another thing, the NYT article very gingerly mentioned that the white house asked them not to publish. doesnt it seem likely that such a request, from the executive branch of the federal govt might make a paper a little hesitant to rush off and go shouting that the pres. had been violating the constitution and his oath of office? It would make ME slow down and do some research, that's for fucking sure.

Gettting a full book's worth of info and then putting that out there is a much less easily dismissed statement than a few articles. Given the Bush administration's ability to talk its way out of immediate criticism of gross misconduct, I'd say that the NYT's actions were the only reasonable response to white house pressure not to publish.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

I'm calling bullshit. It's easy to respond to these outrages by saying that Republicans and Democrats are all the same. But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton. And today, you've got Democrats standing up to oppose the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. Republicans and Democrats aren't the same, and we don't need a third party. We just need a government that gives a shit about civil rights.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[laughingcoyote]

Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.

The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.

Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.

I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Politburo]

I'm as much a Bush hater as anyone else.. and I loved Clinton, but his administration supported things like ECHELON, DMCA, and the Clipper Chip. That doesn't mean that all Democrats are anti-privacy, of course.. and the triangulation wing of the Democratic party is going out of style.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[swillden]

When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"

Did he really say that? Has it been reported by anyone other than Doug Thompson? Who is Doug Thompson, anyway? I'd actually like to pass this around to some people, but I need to know that it's for real.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[KarmaMB84]

Hint: It's in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that often the government will block anyone from taking it to court if they haven't actually been affected. The people who are affected probably don't know it or if they do, are in prison without access to the courts.

Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[Jtheletter]

The most important part of a functioning democracy is the free press. I have yet to hear a single solitary word about establishment of 'free press' in Iraq.

Considering how the US has treated other free press agencies like Al-Jazeer by "accidentally" bombing two of their buildings (the precise coordinates of which were specifically given to the military to prevent that sort of accident) as well as harrasing and possibly shooting some of their reporters, somehow I'm not surprised that no one over there has been too keen to start publishing the US's actions over there. Also, Iraq's government and our government's interest in it has nothing to do with democracy, do you really think if the Iraqis voted tomorrow for the US to leave that we would? Puppet governments aren't gone, just getting updates to the facades. Our government is not in the habit of respecting sovereignty or the press.

Re:Oh dear

[jdigriz]

Sorry, no. Previous Presidents ordered the NSA not to spy on Americans because they took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititution" Presumably that includes obeying it, since the Office of the Presidency only has power by virtue of it. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

A person's communications are his effects, even if they are not papers. Paper was the only external data recording and transmission medium available to the Founders. They would surely have included electronic communications today.

It won't just be the NSA reading your mail

[Stalus]

There's a part of the Dept of Homeland Security known as NVAC (National Visualization and Analytics Center). I'd suggest taking a look at their research agenda. Particularly the "Grand Challenges" section, and particularly the "Scalability Challenge" part of that.

Their target is to handle 1 billion structured messages/transactions per hour and 1 million unstructured messages/documents per hour. For reference, there are 6.5 billion people in the world, according to the CIA world factbook. 296 million in the US. When these numbers were presented to the IEEE Vis conference in 2004, questions arose as to whether they were going to get warrants for all of these transactions. The basic response was that they were going to 'anonymize' all of the data. First, do you honestly think that will happen? Second, how much do you trust the anonymizer? And lastly, do you trust the government to not turn off the anonymizer switch? It's a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling, isn't it?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Abcd1234]

Uhh... how is that even remotely similar to secret wiretaps performed by the government at the behest of the leadership?

Seriously... the politics in all countries are fucked up (and probably appears doubly so if you happen not to lean in the direction of the existing leadership *cough*conservatives*cough*), but at least in Canada, the government respects the rights of it's citizens (or did you forget about those post/9-11 omnibus security bills that got shot down because of fear of human rights violations?) Seriously, say what you want about Canadian politics, but it's a far FAR cry from what's going on down south right now.

Oh, and as a side note, remember who it was that wanted to take Canada to war based on false intelligence... those 'scary' conservatives.

Re:Oh dear

[Locke2005]

Wait, isn't that the crux of Sadam Hussein's legal defense? "I have not violated the laws of my country. I am the president. Whatever I say IS the law!"

Yet another impeachment count ...

[willtsmith]

Yet another impeachment count if the Democrats can find the spine to win the 2006 elections.

If you're not concerned about the president creating a US KGB, then you're a fascist and you don't deserve to be an American. You're an American hater because you hate the Constitution of the United States.

Flying flags does not represent patriotism. Nor does sporting yellow magnetic stickers made in China. Belief and upholding the CONSTITUTION makes you an American.

GW Bush is NOT an American. He is a demonic usurpur. He'd be far more comfortable living in Saudia Arabia.

Before everybody gets worked up...

[smitth1276]

Some informative commentary:

Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping.

-- Mark Levin at NRO.

It really is a good idea to get out of the echo chamber on occasion and read some of what the "other side" has to say. The NYT isn't exactly notorious for giving you the full story, nor is the BBC who simply summarized the NYT article.

But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[thule]

Hello people... the article mentions that the CIA and the Executive branch informed the Legislative branch this was happening. They were informed that phone number and email addresses collected during an arrest could be used to find ties to others. According to the article the information had to be acted on quickly. It worked. Others were ferreted out and arrested.

Anyone ever hear of FISA? Since the calls and email were international communications, it is within the purview of the CIA to intercept them.

The article also mentions that the government still has to get warrants for domestic taps.

If you don't like it... get FISA repealed!

Re:But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[swiftstream]

The difference between this and FISA is that FISA requires prior approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, as you would have known had you actually read the first three lines of the page you linked to:

Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

These taps were done without any judicial permission, which even FISA requires. The time required for a FISC approval (as short as a few hours if a case is urgent) was claimed to be too short, justifiying this.

One of the things I find most worrying about the entire thing, though, is summed up in this statement by Trent Lott:

``I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that.''

(see e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=aJFRC0JDD0lY&refer=us)

I don't want any man who puts security before freedom in my government. If I lived in Mississippi I'd try to do something about him; alas, I live in Utah, so I've got Orrin Hatch to worry about.

No, he didn't really say that.

[Cryptnotic]

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson. He was just making up a story describing what he thought a conversation with Bush would be like. Note in the article that Scalia says that the Constitution can mean "whatever we say it means". That is another ridiculous statement.

Basically, if you go around repeating this quote as real (as many on the "blogosphere" have done), it makes you look like an idiot.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[isotope23]

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.

From the article :
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "

from the followup

"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."

"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.

"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

"Yeah. He did." "

It was not an imaginary converstation

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."

That's good enough for me.

Why bother reporting this?

[koreth]

Anyone who still likes Bush will do one of (a) not believe the report, (b) blame the situation on a liberal something-or-other (or focus on some bad thing a left-wing person did in the past, on the theory that two wrongs make a right), or (c) say "we're at war, so whatever he does is okay, even stuff we would have gone apoplectic about had a Democrat done them." Hmm, or (d) say "if this turns out to be true, I will be first in line to call Bush to account for it," then when it does turn out to be true, claim they never meant it. Those seem to be the four things a Bush loyalist does at the first sign that something might be rotten in Crawford.

I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.

• Moral behavior: Photographic evidence of torture by US troops. (With the Vice President lobbying strongly to stop torture from being banned by Congress, it takes a special kind of thinking to truly believe there was no official sanction.)
• Isolationism: Nation-building exercises. (Remember the term "nation-building" from the Bush vs. Gore debates? Yeah, it was that thing Bush promised never to do, but shh!)
• Frugality: The biggest, most expensive new social program in decades (the Medicare prescription drug plan) not to mention massive budget deficits.
• Privacy: Surveillance with no court orders or oversight by other branches of the government, see current story.
• Piety: Here's a fun quote for you. "But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I defy any Bush supporter to name one instance in which Bush's foreign policy has followed this rather central tenet of the religion he claims is so important to him. I sure haven't seen it. Yet somehow he manages to hoodwink the religious right into thinking he's a born-again, devout believer.

I could go on, but as I said, why bother? Anyone who doesn't already see the darkness is never going to be swayed by words.

And before you say it: No, I'm not particularly left-leaning. I think conservatism has a lot of good things to offer. If only it were actually being practiced.

Gain is nice but not the issue

[jscotta44]

Whether or not the Iraqis gained anything from the US prosecuting the consequence for the Iraqi government's violation of the Cease Fire is not the point of our involvement in the country. We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire. A Cease Fire that was brought about by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq-a pure invasion of conquest. They, the Iraqi government was told that "dire consequences" would result from violating the Cease Fire. Every government involved in the liberation of Kuwait signed off on it. Since everyone knows that the UN is a toothless old corruption dog, everyone knew that the US or another nation with the will to act would be required to put teeth into the agreement. Teeth that bite, as Saddam Hussein found out. That said. I truly hope that the Iraqi people can directly benefit from the current involvement of the US. And perhaps they will. However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US. The US would have pulled out long ago had the terrorists not fired up their machine of violence. I think it would have been a mistake to pull out, but that is what they would have done.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[Arandir]

That post was a rant, a sarcasm, a fiction, a collection of invented quotes. It was made up. It's obvious that it was made up. *YOU* know it was made up. Yet you present it as factual quotes.

People wonder why Bush and Co. can get away with the stuff they do. But it's easy to get away with stuff when your opponents are habitual and compulsive liars. If you don't want Bush to get away with this crap, THEN STOP LYING ABOUT IT!