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."'"
Because it wasn't a CRIMINAL case, it was a CIVIL case. He was being asked about behaviour that was consistent with the claim of sexual harassment. That is SPOT ON a correct question to ask in a CIVIL case.
He wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached because a sitting President willfully lied under oath and derailed the legal system. Had he not been caught, he would have successfully circumvented the rights of the woman who claimed she was sexually harassed.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? It wasn't about the leude behavior -- it was about lying about relevant facts of a CIVIL case.
There is so much wrong with your post that I can't find anything accurate in it at all. That it got marked insightful is amazing to me.
They are not spying on "everybody". Have you heard of anyone who has been spied on? Do you think the government could enforce secrecy perfectly on anything like "everybody"? But perhaps that's not persuasive. They could be monitoring "everybody" and not telling.
Why would they do that? What possible good would it do them, compared to the harm?
The FISA court is overseeing the spying program now. Feingold knows this, and is just trying to score cheap points.
Who have they "tortured to death"?
"Invade other countries for personal gain"? What, Haliburton? That's so stupid. They invaded Iraq because Iraq was run by a thug, a sociopath with expansionist tendencies. It looked to everyone that he was trying to resurrect his nuclear/biochem program. And he was training, and rewarding, terrorists. He isn't any more.
The only "outing" of a CIA agent was done by Joe Wilson, non-Bushie Dick Armitage, or both. All Scooter Libby did was get caught telling conflicting versions. If there had been more than that, Fitzgerald would still be digging.
The US Attorneys are low-level political appointees. If a cabinet secretary (a high-level political appointee) doesn't do what the President says, he gets fired. Per force, US Attorneys get fired for the same reasons.
Cozy with the Commies in China? How, by not starting a war with them?
"Extraordinary rendition" - Oh, you mean the terrorists. Good point. We should just let them blow up a city or two.
sigs, as if you care.