U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

51 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.

Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.

I cannot fathom how ANY Democrat in the House or Senate can FAIL to support this motion.

It's bad enough that Chimpy's Criminal Cabal isn't facing impeachment and criminal prosecution, but to see this 'wet noodle whipping' garner so little support in our spine-challenged "opposition" party is really disheartening....

Watch the guy behind Sen. Feingold appear to give the finger at least three times.
Coincidence?
Who is that guy, does anyone know??

Maryrose, I was wondering the same thing --- nice bunch of "adults" we have in the capitol, isn't it?

I was irritated when Bill Frist said he hopes Iran isn't watching, pertaining to Feingold's censure.

I have something to say to Bill Frist: I hope Iran isn't watching our president trample all over the constitution!!! Mr. Frist is the type of guy who says statements like "unAmerican", "unPatriotic", "hurting the troops"...to get idiots to be against something. When in fact HE is the unAmerican, unPatriotic creep.

I hope Iran isn't watching Bill Frist condoning breaking American law!

And of course this mornings headlines say that the democratic party's leadership isn't supporting Russ.

Not only do we need to oust the Repubtards from office, we also need to replace the cowardly Democrats.
Can we start calling them "Pussies For A Not Much Better Tomorrow?"

Dredd: I respect your opinions, but I think the Dems are not the party of dissent, like they are supposed to be.

- No fillibusters on the judges.
- Not backing Feingold.
- Voting for the unPatriotic (enabling) Act.

The Dems have it set up on a silver platter, and are dropping the ball, as usual as far as I'm concerned.

The republicans paved the way for Feingold to make the speech on the floor.

He could not have gotten out of committee if Frist and Roberts had not allowed it.

They think the national security issue is solid. The port deal was a plumbing of the depths. And they know Americans are concerned about security, however I do not think the republicans understand the issue the same as the public.

Just remember how wrong the republicans were about the Terri Schiavo circumstances.

They are wrong on this too ... the public is not like the congress.

Censure In The Wilderness

Scholars Question Cheney's Role In 9/11

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

.....And the democrats ran away from Russ at full speed.

Big Dan #7

What would the factors be? Would you consider the law of the congress relevant? I mean the rules of law that govern the congress (link here). These laws determine how power is used by the majority party.

In the concept of accountability I feel is more attuned, the majority party, since it has so much power under the rules of congress, gets the majority wrath of the public.

You vote out the majority party each time they screw up. Whether green, liberal, democratic, republican, or whatever.

It does no good to say they are all the same and so keep the status quo alive by voting out members of each party.

The way the system is set up the only way to punish the majority party is to vote them out each time they screw up.

It is easy for me to determine the real problem by identifying the real majority party. When I see them in lock-step working against the minority party in 98% of the cases, I can conclude without any doubt that the majority republican party functions as a rubber stamp of the fascist regime.

Once I find the main culprit, I am not going to flip out and say another party is the one doing it.

One should not major in the minors, or call the mole-hill the mountain.

If we replaced each and every democrat with an independent the republicans would have exactly the same amount of power.

See pRicky? it's not that "the majority supports you[r position]".. it's that the Dem leadership is so PATHETIC that they enable the [true] MINORITY party to continue screwing over the majority of the public.

Censure should be a no-brainer. EVERYONE in Congress should be willing to Censure this joke of an Administration. I realize the Pugs won't impeach (their egos are too big for that), but since the Shrub's numbers are falling faster than a 2-bit whore's panties, one would think they Pugs would want to "apease the people", at least a LITTLE..

Oh well.. another example of how the Dems in D.C. are NOT Dems.. just like the PSYCHO REPUGS in D.C. are not representing the "average Republican" or "conservative". Our entire political system is BROKE.. and as our Founding Fathers said, "there comes a time when a people must cast off their old form of government" (or whatever the exact quote is). That time is rapidly approaching. Dems in bed with Pugs in bed with Corporate America at the EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE.. No, our Government is way out of control. Once a few more million people wake up, we'll be having our OWN "sectarian violence" here.. watch..

" If we replaced each and every democrat with an independent the republicans would have exactly the same amount of power."

And if we replaced "every single Dem with an independant AND every single Repug with an independant", we'd have the problem fixed. ALL the problems, since the Indies should be working for their constituents, and not holding any "party line".

I say, -anyone- that votes against this censure resolution doesn't deserve to be in politics. Feingold is -exactly- correct in that Congress has an OBLIGATION to stand up to this Admin and draw a line. Personally, I think that line was crossed a LONG time ago, but openly admitting to breaking the law should draw at least SOME response from Congress. If they don't, we truely have lost our Constitutional system, and Shrubby and his Admin ARE dictators. Nevermind anything that "might happen later", if Congress has been castrated, we're done. They won't know if they are until they Censure, period.

I think they are afraid that if they censure and Shrubby laughs at them that they will -finally- realize they are obsolete.. just like that "god damn piece of paper" they shit on to put Shrubby in power, and let him engage in an illegal conflict in Iraq.

I have a friend, an economist, that says that Nixon got a law passed in 1974 that stopped the backing of our money with precious metals and backed it with all of the assets, public and private, of the US. The Chinese hold so much of our money backed by all of our assets that they own our country and can, pretty much throw us out of our houses on our asses. The system was set to implode in 40 years (2014) and leave only 5% of the US in our hands. I don't believe that the Dems can stop this and the Repugs are just getting us ready for Chinese rule.

I have a friend, an economist, that says that Nixon got a law passed in 1974 that stopped the backing of our money with precious metals and backed it with all of the assets, public and private, of the US. The Chinese hold so much of our money backed by all of our assets that they own our country and can, pretty much throw us out of our houses on our asses. The system was set to implode in 40 years (2014) and leave only 5% of the US in our hands. I don't believe that the Dems can stop this and the Repugs are just getting us ready for Chinese rule.

From here..

" "The majority of the American people agree with what the president’s doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that’s keeping Americans safe." "

So.. lemme get this straight.. not only do the masses not get decent info from the MSM, but our politicians can't follow simple polls? The numbers SHOW that people are PISSED at Shrubby, and these morons in D.C. seem to think "the majority of America approves"? WTF? I think it's time they got their heads out of their asses and stopped talking to "rich corporate types" who agree with Shrubby, and start reading their mail and listening to their voice mails!

Dredd, can you see that the "current Dems in office" are WAY OUT OF TOUCH? They are just as 'head-up-their-asses' as the Repukes. How the Dems can't figure out that Shrubby NEEDS to be CHALLENGED is beyond me. WE have all been sitting here for MONTHS (if not years) asking why no one is doing anything about these ILLEGAL acts.. Now we know.. for SOME reason, the Dems are as ignorant as Pugs on this, and seem to have the same deluded view as Shrubby (who doesn't care about polls.. seemingly the Dems don't either and believe what they want to believe, despite the 'facts'). how the hell can they say "needs investigation" when they KNOW the REPUBLICAN in CHARGE of INVESTIGATING THIS has ALREADY said NO..? Talk about stupid..

Feingold is trying to save this country by making sure we don't descend into Civil War.. and almost -every- other Politico in D.C. seems to want it to happen.

About that quote.. it seems the Dems think Feingold is trying to "dismantle FISA or the NSA".. he's NOT.. yet, the DEMS are talking REPUG TALKING POINTS...

morons.. anyone that wastes a vote on an incumbant Dem (other than Feingold and Conyers, and maybe a few more) is HELPING the neo-cons.. period.

WE NEED A NEW PARTY.. that or to get all the USELESS DEMS out and get in REAL DEMS..

amazing..

" “Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure,” one staffer quipped. “Hearings would’ve forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would’ve made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors.” "

OMFG! Yeah, let the REPUGS gain ground bashing on a President that the masses are starting to hate... let the REPUGS start to look "like a voice of reason" after 5 years of screwing us and rubber stamping shit-heads criminal acts..

and again, public hearings? THEY WERE DENIED.. duh? And the "public" doesn't give a SHIT and will never understand it. The PEOPLE WHO MATTER (the politicians, in this case) ALREADY KNOW he's GUILTY..

this burns my ass.. what a bunch of idiots.. and making $150,000/yr and pissing away tax dollars on perks, and being in on shady financing to boost their millions in assets.

I think Senator Feingold . . . . . GETS IT. . . . . Hats Off to Russ ! ! ! ! !

Lord bless ya. Don't let the undertaker dress ya.

But Dredd, I'm saying that I'm ashamed the way the Dems are not backing Senator Feingold.

Dems Fail To Back Feingold

That has nothing to do with the Dems being the minority party. It's just once again a case of the Dems not backing one of their own, or doing all they can as the minority party.

Are you saying the Dems not backing Feingold has something to do with them being the minority party? I don't understand your point.

I think Conyers and Feingold are acting like ALL the Dems SHOULD BE acting. Sadly, they are the only two. And it has nothing to do with them being the minority party.

And Dredd, I go out of my way to bring this up, because it is the only point I've ever disagreed with you on.

And the same goes for the Dems not fillibustering the judges, and not voting against the unPatriot act. I fail to see where they should act this way because they are the minority party.

Savantster #14

You said And if we replaced "every single Dem with an independant AND every single Repug with an independant", we'd have the problem fixed.

It sounds like you realize flights of fancy are easy to type in, but not so easy to bring about.

So when you want to get into reality, think about the following.

We will be extremely fortunate to even change the majority party in the House to Democrats. And that would be a breath of fresh air.

If we persist in the empty threats that do not reflect the reality, and think we can replace every democrat and every republican in the congress, well, all I can say is dream on.

Its like the doctor who takes out the wrong organ ...

But it is realistic to think we can take a few seats in the House and take back the House.

And if we work together as mature adults, instead of like misguided pie in the sky tin hats, perhaps even the Senate.

But if we dream on we will suffer on and on.

I agree that I wish the majority party switches to the Dems, but I still don't like the way they are conducting themselves. Of course, I'd rather see a Dem majority.

So here's my question to you, Dredd:

Should we back Feingold or the other Dems?

Well..this seperates the men from the bedwetters...doesn't it...
I see who is committed to the peoples business and who is just there, trying to get a piece of the pie..this will backfire on Republicans and Democrats alike....(did you like Specter's fumbling speech..first said he didn't think the spying was illegal, then said he nothing about it...what an idiot...said the Attorney Generals job was to protect his client, the President...what are these people doing in Congress when they don't know even know the basics of the Constitution, or Civics?) I see only one clear choice for the 2006 and the 2008 elections....Russ Feingold!!!

When Democrats don't DO anything, they're not going to WIN anything. Same argument I heard over and over in 2004. Be careful, don't buck the conventional wisdom, let's wait until after the election to make noise. Well, it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Big Dan #24

We can disagree as many times as necessary. That is good because it shows we are not lock-steppers!

I disagree with the Dems who are not backing Feingold. But I can also say that Feingold is weak because he does not advocate impeachment, only a slap on the wrist. What good does it do?

But that is for another political climate, for another day, and for another country. We have to stay real.

But if the dems back him the republicans are allowed to defeat it in a floor vote, and the Dems just look weak on terrorism. It is a set up.

They dems are laying low and letting the republicans do some damage to themselves. One can't say the dems have done all this damage to the republicans. And act as if they have.

The fact is that the republicans are and will bring themselves down and the dems will have their day after November.

Remember who the voters are, what they hear, what they think, and what the republicans want out of this. We must remember that the damage the MSM has done to the public is real.

Most folk do not realize the way congress works, and even a good amount of the folk here do not either.

So we work with the political situation we have, not the one we would rather have.

I think that Feingold knows that, for as ineffective as a censure resolution would be, an impeachment resolution would go NOWHERE. So censure is a good way of starting the process until Democratic majorities are won. It's also a good way of getting people to start talking, although Dems really screwed up on that one so far.

Still, I believe that things will only get worse and impeachment will, at some point, be the only option left on the table.

Democrats can't rely on shitty poll numbers to thrust them into power though. They're going to have a comprehensive platform and 50 state campaign. Already Republicans are trying to show that they can police themselves (ports deal), bring reform (lobby bill) and remain in fantasy land (good economy).

What could have possessed those Dems??? That's it, they ARE possessed!!

"But if the dems back him the republicans are allowed to defeat it in a floor vote, and the Dems just look weak on terrorism. It is a set up.

They dems are laying low and letting the republicans do some damage to themselves. One can't say the dems have done all this damage to the republicans. And act as if they have."

This is a Republican talking point... you realize that, right?

You only "look weak on terrorism" if you refuse to shout down the Pugs when they LIE and MISINFORM. That's another HUGE failing of the Dems.. they don't put the Pugs in their place. They don't get out there and shout down the lies, they just shake their heads and giggle.. guess what? The MASSES see that is admiting guilt.. Dems need to stop fucking around and start speaking up.. Like Dean does.

"So we work with the political situation we have, not the one we would rather have."

So, when Rummy says it about our troops dying in Iraq, we get pissed.. but we should accept the same false logic when it comes to our Democracy?

I agree that to a "degree" it's "pie in the sky" to hope that all the "bad Dems" get shoved out and all the "bad Pugs" get outed too, but it's foolish to think that for ONE SECOND, the "current Dems" will do a DAMN THING if they are left in power too. There should be NO incumbant Dem left in Congress (forgiving Conyers and Feingold, and maybe one or 2 more.. I don't know) after our voting. AND, like you say, where Pugs are today, either Dems or Indies/etc. That is, this is a time where REAL DEMS need to challenge the Establishment Dems that are sitting in office.

Personally, given the taint on Dems (the DLC and DNC and pussied out leaders), I'd like to see people wake the fuck up and have a NEW party start, and SWARM Congress. Will we get enough Indies to run to do that? likely not.. but not replacing these cowardly and useless Dems with "proper Dems" won't do us any good when we get a majority.. why? Because the "current useless Dems" will be the "majority" of all the "Dems" in office.. so we'll STILL be getting screwed..

*shrug*

Big Dan #27

You asked "Should we back Feingold or the other Dems".

To what end? I mean I think Bush should be impeached, not censored. But that is not the issue.

The issue is who will be the majority party after this quickly approaching November.

And these issues of democrats fighting democrats will be as damaging to democrats as republicans fighting republicans will be to republicans. But the good thing is that even republicans agreeing in lock-step with other republicans is going to hurt them because they are the dictatorial rubber stamp majority party.

What we need is a majority party that is not republican. No more no less ... at this juncture.

So we should back all democrats that are running against republicans in November at this juncture. They all have local constitutients and local battles. National battles and local battles are always contradictory. Nothing new.

But to force the issue of some national issues that will damage the local standings, is tactically a looser.

Step back and stop trying to take over with a filibuster, when the public is set and staged to switch majority party status in November. Step back and let the voting public do its thing.

They will, unless we convince them both parties are the same and it does not matter anyway.

Interesting debate here, I can see your points.

OT...nowhere to post this:

Now Here's The REAL News...

Guantanamo & Belgram prisoner Moazzam Begg speaks to Democracy NOW! in exclusive interview. I don't think you'll be seeing Moazzam Begg on ANBCBSNNX...

I am from Maine and emailed Sen. Snowe asking for an investigation into FISA violations. My bad I said I didn't expect her to after the Alito vote and she was useless. She has sent 3 letters. Today..her letter says "ultimately checks and balances make for good govt." Not today though ..not with the fascist takeover. Cannonfire has a great post. Disagrees with O'Conners fear that we are heading for a dictatorship. Thinks it is here. Nice peaceful take on it ...good to read if you are agitated.

One "not-so-small" problem with laying low --- the
Repubs and MSM told everyone LOUDLY for weeks before the Dem Convention in NYC: "The only way Dems can win is be perfectly mannerly. Don't raise your voice, nor cause any controversy!" Yeah, right! That made them look to be just exactly what they were in reality! wusses!

Now ... just now! The Republicans have "hoist their own pittards" on the port deals. They will not legally be able to extricate their butts. Gonzo! Abramoff sang just a small medley, and several are resigning. But, in their world black is white, and white is black! So the more foul the stink on them, the purer they are, and so happy and innocent (those who didn't resign).

The GOP and MSM WANT Hillary to run. Laura (Mrs. W) wants Condi to run. She says: "Time for a woman president." Frist says, "Me, me!" McCain says: "Beg me! Naw! OK. But, only once!" He's a horrible old man who loves war.

Feingold is a shining star. He's the only one who voted against the war to start with, and he was right on target. Now, GOP, MSM want to make him their target! I read today that the internet is on fire with support of Feingold.

Did the entire Democratic Senate "lay low" for too long. I think they did. 2006 should tell the story, folks. In the meantime, be loudly, rude, crude and socially unacceptable. GORE learned that lesson the hard way! But he's still young, and ANGRY!

DIDJA notice, too, both Feingold and Gore can say a whole sentence at once - impromptu and without snarling or hissing!

Sent an email to Sen. Snowe asking for an investigation into FISA violations. My bad, I said I didn't expect much after the Alito vote. Responded with 3 letters. Today, my letter says "ultimately we need to reaffirm the checks and balances that are essential to good government." Not today though . Cannonfire has a good post today on the takeover of our govt. He differs from O'Conner who fears of a dictatorship. Cannonfire thinks it is here. Nice peaceful take on it though....if you are agitated.

"What we need is a majority party that is not republican. No more no less ... at this juncture."

My point exactly.. and with Repugs being replaced with Dems, and incumbant Dems being replaced with Indies, we DO dump the Pug majority, AND replace the spineless incumbant Dems.. Hell, I don't care if incumbant Dems are replaced with other Dems, just get these useless jackasses OUT..

It'll be a real hoot when the "Dredd Democrats" get into power and decide it would be too politically damaging to redeploy the troops in Iraq, investigate the lies leading up to the Iraq war, the CIA leak, the NSA surveillance scandal, or impeach Bush/Cheney. But hey, without a majority they won't even have the chance to sit around and do nothing!

Why is no one talking about the elephant in the room, the blackmailing of journalist and politicians?

I think that may go a long way towards explaining why the MSM is all ass kissing Bush and why many of the Dems are shrinking violets every damned time an important issue surfaces.

I wish someone would crack that story because I think it is more than just suspicious thinking. Something is seriously wrong when Congress willingly gives up its checks and balances without batting an eyelash and rubberstamp everything Bush does including the majority of Democrats.

The corporations and their lobbyist have completely taken over our government and Congress (all of them) allowed it. There has to be blackmail at work somewhere in there too.

BushCo probably has a file on everyone and ready to use it the minute they don't march with his dictatorship.

If someone had mentioned the possibility of blackmail to me before the NSA/FISA spying deal I would have thought it was just some nutcase conspiracy theory. Now it seems obvious that something is going on behind the scenes when we have a president who admits he broke the law and states he plans to keep doing it no one except Feingold and Conyers so much as whimpers.

BVAC #40

Ok, so you fancy your self as a prophet, but you sound like you are advancing the notion that nothing matters so why try anyway.

The reason the thinking changes when the minority party becomes the majority party is that reality has changed. Changed big time.

If the republicans become the minority party and the dems become the majority party things will change for the better. Big time.

Congress lesson of the day:

"Committees:

Committees are panels of the House or Senate created to do the initial review of proposed legislation and to decide which measures are worthy of further consideration by the full House or Senate.

Members are expected to become specialists in the subject matter under their committee’s jurisdiction" (link here, emphasis added, another link).

Reality politics: based on fact not kool aid and tin hats.

K Ols:

There are alternatives to the corporate-controlled MSM. TV: LINK-TV/FSTV/Democracy NOW! Newspapers: American Free Press. Instead of newspapers: Internet/BradBlog/RawStory/Blackboxvoting.org (and many others). I am more worried about electronic voting machines than the MSM because of all these alternatives.

btw...On Jon Stewart last night, they had a sarcastic skit, in which our hero Hackett from Ohio fully played along with (he's great). Ed Helm's sarcastically told Hackett to fall in line with running as a Democrat, he had to NOT say what he thinks, etc...etc... It was hilarious, and Hackett was fully in on it. He's great. The Daily Show and Hackett were making fun of how inept the Dems are. Funny, my favorite Dems are all ostracized by their own party: Hackett, Feingold, Dean. Go, Dems!!!!

At one point, Hackett was making a commercial, and saying what he believed and that the Republicans are corrupt, and Ed Helms jumped in and said "CUT...you know what you just said? Well, say the opposite." It was sarcastically funny, but they were driving home the point on how the Dems attack their own when they speak the truth.

And Ed Helms was sitting with a Dem strategist, who was saying that they asked Hackett not to run, because he wasn't playing by the Dem's rules for running a campaign. It was quite unbelievable, actually. Leave it to the daily show to expose this, about the Dem strategists. Helms made a fool out of this guy.

Helms said, "I see your strategy. If I was being beaten with a bottle by a mugger, my strategy would be to sit back and take it, and hope he accidentally hit himself with the bottle, right???"

good

Dredd

Why won't anyone support Feingold's censure resolution?

"Because they're the minority. It won't go anywhere. It'll die in committee. Republicans control every committee blah blah blah..."

Think of how the average voter sees that.

"They won't unite as a party now, why should I believe they'll do anything if they are the majority?"

The problem is that Democrats have 49% of the vote and 4% of the power. They act like they're helpless. They don't show, by way of their actions in the minority, what they would do if given the chance to lead the country.

Yesterday on the TV I heard a Democratic strategist say the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've yet to hear.

"Why should the Democrats have a policy? They're in the minority. It's not their job to.. (cut off) They're not in control, they don't need a policy (cut off)"

And this reinforces every talking point that Democrats have no ideas, that they're no better than Republicans, that theres no difference between the parties, and that the system is broken.

If this is how the "Dredd Democrats" plan on sweeping into power, by hoping the Republicans hit themselves with the bottle too much, they might want to take a history refresher. Anybody But Bush didn't work in 04. Unless Democrats grow a spine and a loud and clear platform this won't be another '94 either.

BVAC #47

You have not framed the debate properly. You have not countered my description of the structure of congress. You ignore it instead. I think that is a mistake because how congress works is relevant.

You have only done the pontificating about the holiness or lack thereof of the politicians. I am not into religion mode or character judgment mode in my assertions. Just political power reality.

I would rather refer to the structural realities of the congress, since congress membership is what the upcoming election is about. And once they get there then what?

Secondly, you seem to take the position that the elections were lost because of something other than fraudulent elections.

Ok, assuming you are correct, what proof do you have that you have the correct reason people voted for republicans over democrats?

I mean of course you are correct if there was no election fraud that the democrats lost fair and square, however, that does not mean your reasoning for why they lost is correct.

Do you have any links to any studies? I am not aware of any and would like to read them.

Censuring the president
by kos
Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:46:06 AM PDT
The following Democratic senators have come out for censuring the president:

Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Jim Jeffords
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Jack Reed
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

Unfortunately, the president being censured was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. Because, you know, these senators had their priorities straight.

Savantster #33

You said "This is a Republican talking point ... you realize that right?". I could not discern what "this" is that you are in reference to. You quoted several lines of text and so I can't really put my finger on what you are saying is the republican talking point.

I would like you to quote what that talking point is, surrounding it with quotes, and provide a link to support your allegation.

Where do the republicans list their talking points so I can match up what I said to what they say, and to what you say about it.

Thanks.

Big Dan #49

I have been talking about the upcoming election. That is the one that can be utilized to do some political accountability. The one in 1902 is irrelevant.

Also, Bill Clinton will not be in it. And a censure for Clinton did (lying about sex) is better than impeachment ... more realistic, appropriate.

However a censure for Bush is not enough. It should be impeachment but that would bring on Cheney. How smart would that be?

Those who seek perfect solutions in a radically imperfect scenario are under the influence of too much kool aid.

Improvement is the way to go. Some improvement is better that grasping at tin foil hat straws.

It is better to be a realistic campaigner than a chronic complainer.

You have not framed the debate properly. You have not countered my description of the structure of congress. You ignore it instead. I think that is a mistake because how congress works is relevant.

Why would I counter your description of the structure of congress? There is no debate there, and it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

You have only done the pontificating about the holiness or lack thereof of the politicians. I am not into religion mode or character judgment mode in my assertions. Just political power reality.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

I would rather refer to the structural realities of the congress, since congress membership is what the upcoming election is about. And once they get there then what?

Committee chairmanship may be what the election is "about", but that is not in itself a strategy for victory. Not only does this reinforce the right wing talking point "Democrats only care about power. They crave power." but it's a poor perspective in its own right. So when Joe Sixpack asks why he should vote for a Democrat, the response should not be "Because Democrats need to chair every committee in the congressional power structure!!!!" Having a good track record of what the candidate would do while in office is crucial.

Secondly, you seem to take the position that the elections were lost because of something other than fraudulent elections.

So you're saying fraud is reason for the Democrats losing FOUR senate seats and THREE house seats?

Ok, assuming you are correct, what proof do you have that you have the correct reason people voted for republicans over democrats?

I can only give emperical evidence and common sense as my proof. I won't get into detail. 11% of Democrats voted for Bush in 2004, while only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry. When they don't draw bright lines, offer clear alternatives, and policy plans, they lose voters. When Republicans run far right candidates and the Democrats try to peg themselves to the mythical "center", the result is a more conservative, ineffective Democratic party. Use your noggin'.

I mean of course you are correct if there was no election fraud that the democrats lost fair and square, however, that does not mean your reasoning for why they lost is correct.

In many cases it's simply because they don't fight back. They let dirty attacks go unchallenged and stick, they try to remain "above the fray" while surrogates attack their patriotism etc.

Do you have any links to any studies? I am not aware of any and would like to read them.

I'll have to look into it. There's polls of course, and reading editorials during past elections helps give perspective. I have a few books dating back to the early 1900's that show the same exact shit happened back then just as it does today. Too much talk, not enough action, promises of change et c.

The simple fact is that the American people see that listening in to terrorists was done to protect them. Pushing this issue will make democrats look weak on terrorism.

Noesis, if we're going to consider facts here, the domestic surveillance programs far surpass listening to terrorists and involve data mining mounds of info on regular, innocent citizens. This is why the administration stumbles when it tries to explain why, despite having FISA amended to allow them to obtain warrants from a mostly rubberstamp court 72 hours AFTER wiretapping, they continue to violate the procedure. It's not for all cases, either. Only a couple dozen of the wiretaps were done without getting any warrant, but the fact also remains that much of the NSA surveillance program falls outside of the FISA law.

The facts also lend credibility to the position that without proper judicial and congressional oversight of spying programs, not only do we run the risk of having our civil liberties seriously violated, but it also results in a sloppy operation that acts more of a terrorist dragnet rather than an efficient and effective targeted program.

BVAC, speaking of facts, every Supreme Court case that has come up about wiretapping has sided with the President when it comes to listening in on foreign nationals. President Carter's and Clinton's administration has also stated that the FISA law wouldn't apply. Even the court above FISA stated that the FISA law would infringe on the President's Constitutional powers therefor be illegal.

Bush didn't do this for personal profit, political gain or to enrich Halliburton. He did this to protect the people. Do you really think the American people are going to punish him for trying to keep them safe? That is what the democrats in Washington realize and why they aren't signing on.

Noesis, do me a favor and give me links to those Supreme Court cases you are citing.

You're wrong about Carter and Clinton's administrations, however. What they defended was warrantless wiretaps and physical searches when approved by the Attorney General or by statute. In the case of the NSA domestic surveillance, neither Ashcroft nor Comey authorized the searches. The administration requested that they be able to ignore warrants, but Congress did not approve. The administration conceded, and amendments to FISA were made to extend the window to 72 hours to get a warrant. The administration then went ahead and wiretapped without warrants anyway, and failed to inform the full congress. The flimsy argument that FISA is unconstitutional has been floated by the administration, but no one is buying it. The non-partisan research arm of congress concluded that the programs rest on shaky legal arguments at best.

It doesn't matter if Bush did it for personal profit, political gain, or halliburton. I wouldn't accuse the president of knowing whats going on anyway. It doesn't matter if the American people feel fine about their civil liberties being eroded. This country does not operate by mob rule. It operates by the rule of law, the Constitution. The President, as much as he wants to be, is not above the law. Congress has the responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution, and act as a check to executive power.

As for why Democrats are reluctant to sign onto the censure resolution, Feingold caught them by surprise and I suspect they are measuring their political response carefully. It does show however that Feingold is acting out of principle, not by polls.

Here is the most recent FISA court case. This is the court that handles FISA reviews.

http://www.fas.org/irp/a...oj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

... Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces.

Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance (reread the prior words), we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.

Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion.

Whoops, they weren't Supreme court rulings, they were Circuit court rulings... sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ligence_Surveillance_Act

Before FISA
...In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a US citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.

Post FISA
... However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

So everybody here may say Bush broke the law but, the only court that has ruled on FISA appears to say that the President does have the constitutional power to order warntless searches. I say take it to the Supreme court and let them decide once and for all.

BVAC, Sorry, this issue just doesn't get my blood boiling. When FISA was written, were there even cell phones around? I believe back in those days, everyone had assigned phone numbers.

I could be a terrorist that slipped across the Mexican border and I can walk into K-mart and buy any number of pre-paid cell phones that I want. I now have an "American" phone number(s) that I can be reached at and to catch me, the government has to get a warrent to listen in on me. As long as I don't blow something up first, they have no "evidence" to get a warrent. Maybe I'll send some of these cell phones to the middle east and let my terrorist buddies use them. The NSA can't listen in to them because they are American numbers.

Supposedly, the NSA is listening in on telephone numbers captured from terrorists. How do you know if that phone number belongs to an American or a terrorist who has bought an American cell phone?

BVAC, Sorry, this issue just doesn't get my blood boiling. When FISA was written, were there even cell phones around? I believe back in those days, everyone had assigned phone numbers.

FISA has been amended repeatedly to keep up with changes in technology. Thanks for posting that court case, which shows that the courts found the FISA statutes constitutional, and that searches conducted by it are legal and do not encroach on the Fourth Amendment so long as the statutes are followed.

Searches conducted under the FISA Act, which is constitutional, are reasonable and legal. When the FISA Act is not followed, the search is illegal. Do you understand that?

I could be a terrorist that slipped across the Mexican border and I can walk into K-mart and buy any number of pre-paid cell phones that I want. I now have an "American" phone number(s) that I can be reached at and to catch me, the government has to get a warrent to listen in on me. As long as I don't blow something up first, they have no "evidence" to get a warrent. Maybe I'll send some of these cell phones to the middle east and let my terrorist buddies use them. The NSA can't listen in to them because they are American numbers.

If a terrorist slips by the Mexican border, guess what, they are not American citizens and the NSA can do whatever they want to that person. If these "American" phone numbers are being used in Afghanistan, guess what, they do not reside in the United States and the NSA can do whatever they want to them. The issue here is American citizens holding telephone conversations with people overseas. Anyone in that category is a target. This supposedly includes citizens with family in other countries, reporters who make international calls daily, exchange students... you get the idea. And when the NSA conducts surveillance, it knows a few things. It knows where the phone number originates, it knows if the parties are U.S. citizens or not, it might even know a lot more information from data mining. The point is, the NSA are not dumb. If all it took was for Osama Bin Laden to get his hands on a wal-mart cell phone to gain immunity from our intelligence gathering agencies, we would have been in deep shit a long time ago.

You do a good job at pasting hyperlinks, but overall your grasp of this issue is shaky. FISA was created to oversee intelligence programs that involve United States citizens. Under the Constitution, United States citizens are protected against unreasonable search and seizure, and are innocent until proven guilty. Congressional oversight and judicial review are the two things that put a check on this executive power, not just to protect it from abuse but to make sure it remains efficient, effective, and does not stray from its intended purpose: to gather intelligence on suspected terrorists.

We know that the NSA employs programs that sweep up a vast number of citizens in its data mining operations. Without hearings, we don't know how exactly these programs have been used. Ignoring the FISA court when it comes to domestic surveillance give only a hint of what else is happening without the American people knowing.

Supposedly, the NSA is listening in on telephone numbers captured from terrorists. How do you know if that phone number belongs to an American or a terrorist who has bought an American cell phone?

Your fallacious arguments aside, if the NSA has a hunch that a terrorist is dialing to someone inside the U.S., the NSA has the authority by statute to listen in on that conversation, and afterwards go to the FISA court and get rubberstamp approval for the wiretap. When they are ordered to circumvent the judicial process, which does not pose any obstacle to them and is designed to provide crucial oversight of intelligence use, they are breaking the law. As we've seen in the Moussaoui case, a sloppy prosecution could put an entire trial in jeopardy. If the NSA were to not follow the law in obtaining intelligence, that would compromise the effectiveness of prosecuting any would-be terrorists. Let me make this clear: every wiretapped conversation of a suspected terrorist without a warrant is a threat to our national security.

"Sen. Russ Feingold, who I believe is running for president, said over the weekend he's pushing the Senate to censure the president over spying. Bush, he isn't worried about it, he knew it was coming. He'd been listening to Feingold's conversations for the last three months." --Jay Leno

BVAC, I noticed that you totally sidestepped the courts ruling of:

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

Do you also understand that the Supreme court has overturned many laws that Congress has written as unconstitutional. Congress may not write laws that take away the constitutional powers of the President. That is why I say send it to the Supreme court to decide if he broke this law or not.

"Under the Constitution, United States citizens are protected against unreasonable search and seizure, and are innocent until proven guilty."

Unreasonable being the key word. If a terrorist is calling you, I don't think it is unreasonable that the government is listening in. The same goes if you go to the airport... guess what... you get searched without a warrent. Even if you are a 90 year old grandmother.

"We know that the NSA employs programs that sweep up a vast number of citizens in its data mining operations."

Yes, you're talking about the Echolon program. The one that was started during the Clinton administration. This program monitors every phone call, e-mail, fax and every other communication worldwide... including in the United States.

Noesis,

Thanks for bringing that up. That case is articulating, albeit poorly, exactly my point. The FISA act does not encroach on the President's inherent authority. Note, that "inherent" authority basically defaults to authority not delegated to congress. They are not saying the FISA Act DOES encroach on the President's constitutional authority, only that it "COULD NOT", which is not disputed by anybody.

If you look at the parts of that wikipedia page that you did not paste, you'll notice that the courts roundly rejected arguments that evidence gathered through FISA violates the Constitution. This highlights my point that by violating FISA, every conversation recorded becomes another missed opportunity to stop a would-be terrorist.

Of course the Supreme court overturns laws, but FISA is not unconstitutional, and it won't be overturned. It's been running fine since 1978, until the Bush administration decided not to abide by it. Handing the matter over to the Supreme Court is not the answer, either. Congress has the responsibility to oversee this matter. However, since the Intelligence committee investigation of the program was shot dead in the barrel by Sen. Roberts, other avenues have to be pursued - namely, censure.

"Unreasonable" search and seizure explicitly means search and seizure without a warrant. Stop trying to dress the issue in rhetoric. If a terrorist calls a U.S. citizen, the NSA can listen in. It can then go to the FISA court 72 hours after the phone call has ended, and get the approval of the court. That way, the evidence is legal, the program is checked and everyone is happy, except the terrorist.

We're not talking about "terrorists" and "If Al-Qaeda is callin ya up, we want ta know about it". These are electronic communications between a U.S. citizen in the U.S., and a party outside of the country. That is what this program targets. Do you think they have a list of proven terrorists and only their phone calls are listened to? You either give the NSA too much credit or not enough, depending on what suits your argument.

The Echelon program started long before Clinton, but as far as the public is concerned it was under his administration that it was used domestically. Not sure why you brought this up.

BVAC,
"If you look at the parts of that wikipedia page that you did not paste, you'll notice that the courts roundly rejected arguments that evidence gathered through FISA violates the Constitution."

Wow, what a otiose arguement! The issue of the President being limited on spying on our enemies during the time of war has not been an issue brought up before the court.

"We're not talking about "terrorists" and "If Al-Qaeda is callin ya up, we want ta know about it". These are electronic communications between a U.S. citizen in the U.S., and a party outside of the country. That is what this program targets. Do you think they have a list of proven terrorists and only their phone calls are listened to? You either give the NSA too much credit or not enough, depending on what suits your argument."

From what I have read... an Army patrol (or whoever) catches a terrorist/insurgent/bad guy, they go through his computer/cell phone/papers/pagers. They then call up a NSA number and give those phone numbers captured to the NSA and the NSA the starts listening in to those phone numbers within minutes. This isn't the sweeping "listening in to every overseas phone call" that you imply.

As far as the "72 hour" rule... I think there is a large misconception out there... To get a warrant... in any court, you need what???? Oh, that would be evidence. Sure, the courts in the past had granted over 2,000 warrants for wiretapping but what was the amount of evidence they had before hand??? The FBI wouldn't even go into Zacarias Moussaoui's compuer because they didn't think they had enough evidence for a warrant.

I brought up Echolon and airlport searches because I believe that they are more intrusive on my civil liberties than the NSA listening to terrorists making phone calls. But maybe that's because I don't have to worry about the NSA listening in since I'm not expecting any phone calls from terrorists.

Noesis,

If you're not going to respond to the substance of my arguement, I'll be moving on.

The FISA court is a rubberstamp, they've rejected very few warrants, and "evidence" as you call it is not required to get one. I'll leave it to you to figure out the specifics.

I also oneself something would want to find out on this theme. Very attentively I will read every post.