Slashdot Mirror
White House Derails Attempts to End Illegal Wiretapping
P. Rivacy writes "If you recall, last month we discussed Congress's attempts to outlaw the already illegal NSA wiretaps authorized by the President. The White House is now using delaying tactics to derail the passage of that bill. Their tactic is to stall on providing documents related to the President's warrantless wiretapping program, despite requests from the Senate Intelligence Committee that is currently reviewing the proposed legislation. '"Another critical priority for congressional oversight is government wiretapping of Americans, conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and, illegally, under the President's warrantless wiretapping program," Senator Russ Feingold said. "When the program was finally placed within the FISA process, an opportunity arose for the Administration and the Congress to move forward, under the law. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to demonstrate a real interest in doing so."'"
And yet we STILL haven't impeached him? WTF?
I mean, think about it, all Nixon did was send some spooks into the Watergate Hotel to snoop on the Democratic Convention. Suddenly he was Satan incarnate, and the whole country was on him like a cheap suit.
Dubya and his cronies spy on EVERYBODY, brag about it, torture people to death, invade other countries for personal gain, "out" CIA agents, fire U.S. attorneys, get cozy with the commies in China, kidnap people (extraordinary rendition)...
And nothing! Not a whimper! And the Red States think he's a Good Ole' Boy!
Seriously, people -- WTF???
NO CARRIER
I made another post talking about this at greater length, but the fact is that you're right that without a court ruling we can't say with certainty that this program was illegal. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Bush has not claimed that he has complied with the law, and rather has argued that he does not need to comply with the law because the Constitution grants him the power to ignore the 4th Ammendment when he wants to, is all I need to know to form an educated layman's opinion that the NSA program was not in compliance with the law, i.e. illegal.
The only real question is whether the court will agree with Bush's interpretation of the Constitution. The question of whether he complied with FISA has already been answered. And somehow I doubt the Judicial branch will agree that the Judicial power of granting warrants is irrelevent to the Executive branch.
The enemies of Democracy are
As the Cypherpunk Tim May used to say, these people need killing . While I don't advocate such extreme measures myself, all these people do need to be replaced on November 10, 2008. If the ballot box is not effective (if the election is stolen again) there's always the ammo box.
For now, let's put the soap box to good use.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Come, come. 6 years? Ever heard the official term Contempt of Congress? This administration is yet to have an official to be so condemned (in six years!), but the list is long, and even the previous administration is on it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
While blasting the current administration as the enemy of privacy, it is useful to remember the attempts of the previous one — whom most illiberals want back — to saddle us with those two nice little thingies called Carnivore (currently known as "DCS1000"), and Clipper...
No government is a friend of privacy of its citizens. They think, their job is more important, and they are sure, they will not abuse the possibilities. And there is little reason to doubt their sincerety — they are just wrong, and we must defend ourselves, but we should not single anyone out — they all want our privacy, for it often makes their job easier.
This is not unlike a geek wanting to, for example, break out of their employer's firewall. The geek knows, they will not abuse the freedom nor expose the employer's network to viruses, etc., but the employer is justly concerned...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A clean sweep would likely remove a large portion of neutral-to-favorable attorneys in place; it accomplishes nothing to favor the President. It simply levels the playing field by removing all of the LAST President's cronies. That's why most Presidents do it. You're entirely right about the purge, however. You're simply wrong about "Their boss directed" means. You assume that the attorneys were fired for incompetence or insubordination; they were fired because they didn't support Bush enough.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
While I don't know enough of domestic US politics to be any kind of final judge, the following word seems interesting in this context (emphasis is mine).
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Tyrant (...)
1. An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty. [1913 Webster]
2. Specifically, a monarch, or other ruler or master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by taxation, injustice, or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government do not require; a cruel master; an oppressor. "This false tyrant, this Nero." --Chaucer. [1913 Webster]
sigs are hazardous to your health
I agree with the first part, and as much as I think that sending indictment to some very high places would feel oh-so-good, I tend to think that it would do some long term harm.
This is quite parallel to Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon - probably lost him the next election, and considered a horrible move at the time - but it is now (generally) considered to be a good thing. It allowed the nation to heal, and it allowed the government to move on, rather than dwelling, and dwelling on a scandal.
What we don't need post 2008 is to keep thinking about Bush. I'd rather forget about it and try to fix our tarnished image, and try to have some logical foreign policy objectives than get bogged down in a domestic quibble over the wrong-doings of the previous president..
While there is certainly some wisdom to the idea of moving on, I hesitate in this case to espouse it. Nixon, while he didn't face charges, lost his position and faced universal condemnation. Bush, on the other hand, does not seem likely to face any real consequences from his flagrant abuses of power. If we as a nation do not call him out on his abuses in some manner, I predict more and more abuses of this nature cropping up in future administrations. Plus, as the GP indicated, a little bit of wrist-slapping might go a long way towards improving our public image abroad.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Oddly enough the same could be said for Lincoln and FDR, who history has looked upon kindly
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I agree with the sentiment, I just feel that Washington doing what it does, will turn inward for a Bush bashing circle, and ignore more important matters. I don't think the resulting circus would improve our image abroad.
From Pelosi's page:
Pelosi's trip was know ahead of time. No one in the administration is considering invoking the Logan Act. Republicans had done the same thing previously.
Just out of curiosity, you must be some sort of lawyer, or an expert on constitutional law, yes? I mean, you wouldn't just repeat something like a parrot without looking into it or thinking about it, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If the Congress is attempting to pass legislation related to the wiretapping program and the White House is delaying by withholding documents related to the program, why can't the Senate committee then simply state that they are erring on the side of liberty, passing the legislation and explicitly outlawing the program until the documents are provided?
Or whatever. How retarded are the Whores of Babylon (or is that how retarded do they think the citizenry is), passing another law to outlaw what is already illegal? In the first place, why do so many people seem to assume that passing laws against bad behavior somehow will make that behavior stop?
It's quite clear to anyone paying any attention that Congress is Bush's bitches. And he'll continue doing whatever the hell he wants because Congress hasn't got the balls of a baby field mouse. They're really only there to steal our money (tax) and buy another term in office (spend) anyway.
The proper course would be to impeach, then convict Bush & Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors. Then ship them to the Hague for their war crimes trials.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
This guy is wiretapping the entire country, already found guilty in Federal court of dozens if not thousands of felony violations of the FISA. Nixon had tapped only a few, and he was staring straight at impeachment.
What the hell does it take to impeach a criminal tyrant as awful as Bush, anyway?
--
make install -not war
Which is not the issue. The issue is that countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are implicitely treated like combatants instead of like civilians as they should be. That it is hard to tell the difference, especially for foreigners unaware of local customs and inable to speak the local language is no excuse. That the terrorists/insurgents are war criminals for hiding amongst civilians is no excuse either.
Apart from being criminal, it is also stupid - if there is no protection in being a civilian, then you might as well join the insurgency. The U.S. military has shed so much civilian blood in Iraq that by now, most Iraqis think attacking U.S. troops is morally justified - which was not the case in post-invasion 2003.