Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
scubamage writes "By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"
I was searching for a suitable dubya quote to make a witty reply - in particular I was searching for a quote containing a reference to both the words "freedom" and "truth". Imaginge my surprise to find most pages of dubya quotes I found, such as this one, contain numerous references to "freedom" but few or in this case no references to "truth". Not one. Does this tell us something about the man?
Oh no... it's the future.
National security must be protected at all costs now that WWIII has kicked off and apparently everybody except the US leadership and those with real WMD are the enemy.
Christ on a stick how much more hysterical bullshit, civilian deaths and money grubbing do we have to put up with from these maniacs.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
I decided to reply to this one because I think it's important for those of us who actually care about our country and the Constitution to realize that there are a lot of people who believe the parent's logic. It's basically a "think of the children" argument balanced against a "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" mindset. It's a very, very scary argument for our country but I think a lot of Fox viewers believe this and no amount of parroting the Franklin quote or modding down anonymous postings will get them to change their mind.
So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
From Wikipedia:
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
I hate my sig.
It's funny how Bush loves to pontificate about the spreading of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' around the world, yet he is so good at suppressing it at home.
Apparently, he can do whatever he wants and not even the US Justice Department can overrule him.
Now I have to ask, do we really live in a 'Democracy?'
For futher reading, see: '1984' and 'V for Vendetta'
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
As a native...
I am pretty sure we (the majority) didn't vote for him.
Through a series of tricks and covert maneuvers this administration effectively stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. (see Robert Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone).
Now, since these same people now control all 3 branches of our government there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion.
I believe we (again, the majority) are angry at what is being done, but the only tool available to change the situation is in the hands of those in charge.
What would you suggest we do?
I hate my sig.
I'm a pretty strong social and fiscal conservative. As you may guess, this also means I believe in the rule of law.
:/
It's painful to consider, but I'm actually considering voting Democrat in the upcoming elections to help put the Democrats in the majority of at least one, but ideally two, houses of Congress. I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment. Apparently the Republican Congress/Senate that I voted for last time is unwilling to perform their duties in this area. I'm going to want to take a shower after I leave the voting booths this time.
If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war
Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war.
I agree, if we -constitutionally- declare war, then the president has exceptional powers to prosecute that war.
But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
While I agree that the administration is not attempting to hold on to its power like a despotic european facist, I don't recall congress ever declaring war (point out where I'm wrong). And, while the CinC does have sweeping lattitude concerning the activities of the military and the the executive branch, he does not have the authority under the Constitution of the United States, to declare war on anything. That is the job of Congress. The president has overstepped his bounds, cost us billions of dollars and not turned up one lead with the NSA domestic spying program. Let alone the moral issues that make this just plain wrong (4th ammendment, anyone?), and the arguement that by the government treating all its citizens as if they are terrorists, the terrorists have gotten what they wanted, the complete disruption of our lives.
So please, save your "He's the president, he is above the law" line for the RNC. No man or entity in this country is supposed to be above the law. And in answer to your "illegal activity" question. If I am a buck private in the military, and a 5 star general tells me to shoot an unarmed civilian, and I do so, guess what, it's an illegal order and I get tried along with said 5 star general. If the govenor of any state in this union orders one of his state police officers to shoot an unarmed citizen who is walking down the street, unarmed and not molesting anyone, it's illegal. More to your point, if a police officer plants a wiretap on anybody's order that isn't a duly appointed and sworn in judge, it is illegal, and you bet your ass he's going to get in a world of shit.
I got nuthin
If Al Capone would have had enough pull at the IRS, I suppose he could have simply cancelled his audit.
Not much different with Bush is it really? He's doing illegal things, and our screwed up executive system allows him to simply cancel any investigations into his behavior. I don't like to say people are guilty by denying their guilt as that is a very slippery slope, but in this case he is VERY actively blocking investigations into his actions, justifying it with laughable invokations of "national security", and that raises one giant red flag that we need someone he cannot override (grand jury?) to haul his can into court and expose whatever it is he is hiding.
He did not do this for "reasons of national security", and the whole world knows it. He did it to keep himself IN office and OUT of jail.
As long as he's there he can play, but that only lasts a little longer. I will find great entertainment seeing him locked up in a few years.
It would be intersting to see them impeach him, but he's doing a good job of stalling for time so far so I don't know if that'll actually happen or not. There is certainly pleanty of talk about it tho.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Impeachment is the LEAST this asshole deserves.
Waiting for the revolution... harry
Hence the reason I don't support my political party, the Libertarians, more publicly. With all the spying and neo-McCarthyism I feel like a criminal just for wanting to regain some basic civil liberties. If I were to wear my political ideals on my sleeve, who knows what Big Brother might do?
one question, on a tangential note.. if you believe in the fallibility of man what do you think of pro-labor and pro-union legislation?
existing relgulations and government authority establish limited liability for corporate owners. as fallible men they obtain tremendous power which corrupts them, and unlike the government, which has limited accountability at best, they have none, and are able to hire behavioralists to determine exactly how to rob consumers and labor in a way which will divide and stymie any backlash.
please tell me you support at least some regulation to support the common man against unaccountable corporate beheamoths as much as you do checks on an ever more invasive government.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
To be very clear, "he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians" for the simple reason that each of these issues has been carefully selected to act as a wedge issue, dividing the population into polarised for-and-against camps that are incapable of compromise, because such a divided country is unable to get enough unity to act on the real issues.
It's quite remarkable how so many issues trumpted by the administration actually have nothing to do with Christian beliefs at all. Immigrant rights, for instance. It's a classic case of a situation that can be tolerated without too much discussion, but by forcing the discussion on the nation, the administration splits the American people into, what was it, FOUR? camps of opinion.
The US is not a Christian-run state. It is not a theocracy but a kleptocracy. It is a state run by gangsters. They are well-dressed, well-educated, well-connected, modern, slick, and very powerful gangsters, but they are gangsters nonetheless, and they use the instruments of the state for personal and collective profit just like any tin-pot dictator.
Congress will never impeach Bush because Congress was corrupted and castrated a long time ago. Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power that removes competition and the need to deliver value to the citizen.
My blog
Wow what a wuss. In the past Americans have died for our beliefs. But you won't support a political party because (contrary to any actual evidence) you believe you may be spied upon and some "great unknown" may happen? Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Not even the DOJ disputes that the program engaged in domestic surveillance.
I quote, you jackass:
That's the whole damn controversy, here-- domestic surveillance without FISA warrants. Nobody except wingnut wackjobs are arguing that this has not occurred. The administration itself has taken the tack of inventing fatuous legal "justifications" involving the AUMF (which anyone with half a brain can see were conclusively kicked to the curb by the Supreme Court in Hamdan).
Furthermore, by all accounts this surveillance is performed by 'tapping' everything in sight and sorting it out later, so it's even worse than the DOJ admits it is.
If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.
Something like the concepts behind the US government that are currently falling apart
Maybe the reason this is falling apart is because this type of system doesn't work. And by that I mean, it fails to protect our basic natural rights of property and freedom from tyranny.
I don't understand why people will continue to advocate a system that has failed, as you so readily admit. They say "oh, if we could just pass these few extra laws it will fix the system". But then those few laws don't work, so we are back to square one. Rinse and repeat. People have been tweaking this system for 300 years, yet have never been quite satisfied. The inevitable result is that there is injustice done to some at the expense of others. The only solution I can see is to have everyone be the watchers. Let us learn how to set up systems that will protect freedom without having to be watched by a Police State.
"I support congress impeaching a president for lying. whether or not he should have had to testify about receiving a blow job is an entirely different subject."
But there within lies the problem.
If forced to testify about doing something that is not illegal, serves no purpose but to embarass, and the two individuals that have a legal right to know (i.e., the wife and the object of the adultury) have stated they want nothing to do with it...would you answer truthfully?
I know I wouldn't. I also wouldn't put myself into a situation that required me to lie, but that is beyond the scope on this rebuttal.
In this, I too support the congress's right to impeach a lying president. But where does the line start and stop? Fat Clinton claiming on television that he was exercising in the White House weight room, when you know he was stuffing his face in the kitchen? Is that impeachable? Bushes statement about finding all life sacred and thus vetoing the stemcell bill, while killing over 30,000 Iraqis and leaving 10 times that disabled? Is that impeachable?
What is the scope for a president being impeached for lying?
Personally, I find it inexcusable that Clinton cheated on his wife, and I find lying about it a tragic thing for a president to have done under oath, but even the worst critics admit that the line of questioning had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case (i.e., he inappropriately hit on a woman that came to his hotel room in the middle of the night knowing full well that he was a notorious horndog -- and yes, I lived in Arkansas in that time -- and that he didn't want anything other than a roll in the hay...if you know that, you tell the guy you aren't interested and move on...God knows I pulled out the willy at in appropriate times, and no one ever had to take that to the supreme court -- a nice smack across the face was enough to let me know to put it away). In the end, it wasn't something that should have been asked as it went to no relevance, the case should have been thrown out and woud have had it been any other public figure, and it should be expected that if anyone asked this question, no matter what the truth is, the answer would be "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" -- regardless. I don't hold it against him for lying about this -- I hold it against him for adultury, but that should be between him, his wife, the adulturer and his God.
Lot of comments going around about impeachment and possibly having the other retake congress in the midterms. Unfortunately nothing will change for a number of reasons:
1) Bush doesn't care he is the decider.
2) Congress will not act because they are his rubber stamp.
3) The voters can't do anything since redistricting has given the Republican congress a comfortable majority in the house.
4) The courts, now packed with right wing activist judges (esp. the supremes), will do nothing to restore democracy.
5) The constant state of war can be used to manipulate information and therefore the public.
6) The Senate is not subject to redistricting and could be taken back but that would take 6 years. Also the Senate cannot begin impeachment, only the House can.
The only it is going to change is if the Dems take over more state legislatures, redistrict, then retake the House. This will be difficult due to pork barrel politics (by voting in a Rep. a district will get more money) and campaign contributions. And if the Reps. get into trouble again, they just trot out the terrorists and homos again.
Get used to it. It will probably be 'One Nation, One Party, One Deceider' type rule for the next 20 years.
Enjoy!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Please do mot judge those of us that are by the actions of Bush. I beg of you.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?
more centrist republicans are turning against bush in droves while he and his far-right buddies have their little anti-gay anti-science circle jerk the republican party is splitting away from the fundies. the stem cell fight and the HPV vaccination fight have become a wedge issue on the right,
more specifically, more bush supporters are becoming former bush supporters as he proves himself to be a total fecking moron. at least the WMD thing we had numerous intelligence agencies going along with the claim that iraq had WMD's. now we have bush claiming he knows better than climatologists, medical researchers, and doctors (not to mention his own Generals)
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:
- Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.
- A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.
- Spending cuts on health care & social services - most effecting poor single parents.
- Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.
So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.
The best vote that you can make when you don't care for either the Democrat or Republican candidate is to vote in a way that will cause the government to become divided. In other words, you want to try to elect people in a way that the different branches of government are controlled by different parties. That way the checks and balances will keep the government from doing too much damage, as it keeps the branches fighting eachother as opposed to fighting its citizens. Right now the Republicans control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.
Hence the best option in this upcoming election, if you don't care for either party, is to give the Democrats a very small majority of the House and Senate. That way the executive branch would be 100% Republican, the legislative branch would be %40 Republican, and the Supreme Court would be 50% Republican. While voting this way is not ideal, it is better than not voting at all. Furthermore, our country was founded on the idea of a government consisting of checks and balances. If you believe in that ideal, then VOTE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES!
In 2008, if you still don't like what is going on, then continue to vote in a way that keeps control of the government split between parties.
The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".
The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.
"Right" and "Left", "Conservative" and "Liberal" do not define complete political philosophies. You can be a conservative without loving the wealthy elite. You can be a liberal without supporting invasive egalitarianism.
For a good example, look at a country like Norway. They have a pretty flat social hierarchy, and could be considered liberal or socialist. Yet they don't seem to be making everyone "equally poor".