READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - NSA Whistleblower Alleges Widespread Domestic Spying"
(42 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 11:03 am PT...
Has anybody noticed that, despite an atmosphere tremendously hostile to whistleblowers, they're climing out of the woodwork? Imagine if the whistleblower laws were being enforced!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 11:55 am PT...
I thought Curt Weldon was having able danger hearings, but I haven't seen anything about it on c-span or anywhere else. Anyone know whats going on?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 12:13 pm PT...
The 'Able Danger' hearings were held yesterday. The media was focused on covering Cheney and the Katrina hearings. C-SPAN didn't carry the hearings live.
We have the first 3 or 4 hours of video from the hearings as well as Rep. Weldon's press briefing. But haven't had time to go through all of it. Lou Dobbs is scheduled to have Rep. Weldon on tonight.
At least one of the 'Able Danger' whistleblowers testified at the whistleblower hearings on Tuesday. It was remarkable to hear the many types of retaliations and obstructions that DOD used to keep him from speaking out.
At one point, DIA claimed that all 'Able Danger' data had been destroyed. Weldon says that he has found data that was not destroyed which mentions Atta by name more than a dozen times. At the hearing, there were heated exchanges between DIA officials and Weldon over the existance of this data.
If time allows, we will try to post some of the relevant video clips from the hearing.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 2:35 pm PT...
Thank you for this video, Mr. Edwards.
Kucinich hit the nail on the head when he said that in investigating the person who leaked about the spying program, the government is going after people who are trying to PROTECT the Constitution.
Not that this surprises anybody at this point.
I really hope somebody is protecting Mr. Tice, by the way.
And is it me, or does it strike anyone else as a little ODD that our 'Intelligence Committee' doesn't have clearance high enough to hear Mr. Tice's information??
Kind of like FEMA waiting for authorization---or whatever the FUCK it was they were waiting for---before stepping in between people in trouble and DEATH.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 3:05 pm PT...
ok, let me get this straight.
these guys are charged with keeping stuff secret, given authority to information they are supposed to keep secret, publicly dont keep said secrets, and are now crying because they dont have the security clearance anymore?
why are we interested in this again?
if his job was to pump gas and he doesnt pump gas he would get fired. nuff said.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 3:35 pm PT...
I saw that yesterday. So that's the extent of the hearings? Seemed more like an introduction and overview. Looks like we've got a looong way to go.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 5:36 pm PT...
re: #5 "nuff said."
If his job was to pump gas unless the car moved and if he kept pumping gas it would go onto a fire, then he would get fired if he didn't stop pumping gas when a car moved and if he had kept pumping gas it would have gone on a fire.
If a guard's job is to be quiet unless he sees someone reaching into the cash register, he should keep quiet, unless he sees someone reaching into the cash register.
nuff said? probably not
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2006 @ 8:12 pm PT...
Well.. Poopybrain.. we meet again..
First, you need to learn the language if you want to use it to criticize. You don't "get authority to information you are supposed to keep secret", you "get access to information you are supposed to keep secret". If you can't be bothered to write simple ideas as proper sentences, why shoud we be troubled to try and comprehend you? That's not to say that people don't make mistakes, but this is the second (forgiving the response to another post being the 3rd) post where you make virtually NO sense.
Now that I've muddled through your blathering, let me try to explain it (not that I think you are hear to learn.. trolls rarely are). Their FIRST obligation is the Constitution of the United States. They take an OATH when going into the job to "uphold the Constitution". Their SECOND obligation is to the "rules" they are given to work under. That is, they are told "we will give you access to information that you need to keep secret [if we're to do our job at protecting America and upholding the Constitution]". They then AGREE to keep those "secrets" in their secondary obiligation. See, here's the bit you either don't get, or are trying to steer people away from. When in the course of doing their jobs.. of keeping secrets because there's a bigger purpose of "upholding the Constitution" and "protecting Americans".. they come across something ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. that "secondary" obligation takes a BACK SEAT to the PRIMARY OBLIGATION.. that being, protecting and upholding the Constitution.
What this means, for you kids on the short yellow bus, is that when the "agency" engages in "illegal activities that violate our Constitution", the guys keeping the secrets have an OBLIGATION to violate their oath of keeping secrets so they can keep their oath of upholding/protecting the Constitution. These agencies with all these secrets have RULES and LAWS they have to abide by, just like we do. When they VIOLATE THOSE LAWS, someone needs to let the public know.
And where did you get some crap about people losing their clearances? I think the bit that eluded you was that the "secrets having agency that is responsible to the Senate decided the Senate wasn't cleard to hear the secrets".. translated.. means "we don't want to tell you, our BOSSES, what we're doing... even though YOU give US money and rules.. you'll have to trust us when we say 'we are not doing anything wrong' ".. riiight.. that makes sense. Well, to you it probably does.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/16/2006 @ 10:10 pm PT...
Is this what Sibel Edmonds is up against? Sounds like it.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 4:22 am PT...
Jesus, are some of you TRYING to be incomprehensible?!
Get a grip! Take an English course...read a book...study some basic grammar, for Pete's sake!!!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:08 am PT...
I'm a prime example of that sometimes, I try to make things as short as possible because the key board is not my friend
When I was in high school, typing was on them old, maybe 1930s typewriters, with no boys in the class
I guess they figured we didn't need to type, going into the construction field and all
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:11 am PT...
Well, there's good news (a teeny, tiny, barely discernible speck) and there's bad news (the usual neo-con truckload-of-horseshit-sized pile):
Judge Orders Spying Documents Released
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press
"A federal judge ordered the Bush administration on Thursday to release documents about its warrantless surveillance program or spell out what it is withholding, a setback to efforts to keep the program under wraps...."
Got that? WooHoo! That was the good news.
But then it goes on to say various things that resulted in my head exploding, so I'll just give you a few highlights:
"...West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's top Democrat....said the Senate cannot consider legislation because lawmakers don't have enough information.
"No member of the Senate can cast an informed vote on legislation authorizing or conversely restricting the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, when they fundamentally do not know what they are authorizing or restricting," he said...
....Roberts indicated it may be possible "to fix" the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize the president's program....
...DeWine's proposal would exempt Bush's program from FISA...."
Read the whole thing. Enjoy.
Jeez, I am so relieved that Congress is on top of this! Whew! For a minute there I was afraid they were just going to let the president get away with breaking the law & pissing on the Constitution!
Hahaha! Of course not! They're gonna "fix" it! Thank God we have the Congress to stand up for us, huh?!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:35 am PT...
I think it's pretty obvious reading these posts who I'm referring to! It's one thing to mis-spell a word now & then or make some other common mistake...like the one I just made! (for you fellow-sticklers out there)...it's another to not know or care how to put together a readable sentence!
And the keyboard is not my friend, either. My kids keep telling me to download a typing course. Eh! One of these days.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:44 am PT...
I'm getting good keyboard practice here, as long as Brad doesn't get mad at me for filling up his blog with drivel
I would guess he wouldn't as long as I throw him a couple of bucks every now and then
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 6:07 am PT...
Anyway back to the subject
I like Dennis, he tries so hard to run up against these hard-headed basterts, I voted for him in the primary.
He's a good patriot
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 6:30 am PT...
It's simple republican talking point blame shifting. A republican spies on millions of Americans illegally, and a democrat tells congress about it.
The democrat is then blamed for not stopping the spying.
The republican MSM gets all over it and starts a campaign against the democrat traitor who leaked the info and showed it to others to let them know what is going on in their name.
Then the republicans start a campaign against the traitors who "support terrorists who do bad things to people" by not allowing the government to spy on millions of Americans.
Hey, get in on it, it's an MSM trigger happiness thang ... gotta get more info so some more triggers can be pulled to spread happiness throughout the mideast and even the world.
.... or ....
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 7:39 am PT...
Joan, only in America does a person immediately assume anyone who doesn't speak (or write) in perfectly constructed sentences using immaculate grammar must be an IDIOT.
A rational human being would consider that maybe the person is not a native english speaker. Maybe they learned english in school, in which case, do you think that they are speaking english better than you can speak spanish or french or whatever you "learned" in high school?
Geez. Provincial americans.
If you can figure out what they are trying to say, then I'd say they did an outstanding job. If you cannot understand, I'm going to guess the problem is with you, not them. You're presumably a native english speaker, what's your excuse for not being able to comprehend what they are trying to say?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 7:56 am PT...
Scavis sounds like a German or possibly scandinavian language speaker. I give him a B- on his effort to get his point across. I got it pretty much on the first read, but I did have to stop and let it sink in a bit at first.
Good job Scavis. and I see your point, too. If we have people breaking all the "general" laws, why would we assume that any "voluntary" laws people abide by for work, or to obtain a driver's license, or whatever other oath or swearing scenarios, are going to be abided by any more frequently.
Sure, one would assume most people will not take an oath they do not intend to keep, but often people don't INTEND to do something until they are in the situation at that moment and the choice is made.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 8:37 am PT...
MaybeNotanEnglishSpeaker.. first, I'm the one that started this with a cretique of Popeye, not Joan.. The -reason- I did that was because I'm 99% sure he's American and an idiot.. If he's not American, he's -still- an idiot... not because he can't formulate a proper english sentence, but because he can't properly reason. Here's an example of what I mean, keeping in mind we're talking about "whislteblowers" here..
"if his job was to pump gas and he doesnt pump gas he would get fired. nuff said"
That on the heals of saying people should keep secrets, even if those secrets are about government officials/offices BREAKING THE LAW..
As to some of the others, when their comments don't make sense to me, but they don't appear to be jackasses, I don't bother responding.. no harm, no foul, kind of thing. Popeye on the the other hand, was in another thread shitting on an article simply because, as he implied, "it didn't apply to him, so the thought was obviously stupid".
TrickRoller.. get a grip.. I wasn't picking on spelling, in this day and age and given the nature of blogs, typos and misspellings are gonna happen. But when you can't be bothered to compose a REASONABLE (not even asking for people to be 'grammatically correct' here, just UNDERSTANDABLE) sentence, why should those of us who KNOW how to communicate give a shit about what someone who can't "think" (seemingly) has to say? As pointed out above, the complete lack of reasoning comes into play as well. Now, if you think it was simply "my dad is tougher than your dad" kind of stuff, you probably aren't paying attention, or aren't being 'reasonable'. Though, your response is typical right-wing drivle that we see here, so I'm guessing you're a troll.. I also see you didn't even bother to comment on the topic of the thread.. or respond to my points.. or support Poopybrain's points.. Typical troll..
PhilLesh.. you asked "I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but are you saying that since someone took an oath, this therefore means they are then acting in full and good faith of that oath" ..
nonono.. that's not what I'm saying at all.. what I was saying is pretty much what you said in the next paragraph.. in that, if someone takes an oath to "do no harm", if they do harm, they are breaking their oath.. In the instant case, they took an oath to protect the Constitution.. that's the "most important" oath they can take. Whistleblowers (by definition) are upholding -that- oath over the one to "keep secrets"..
A good analogy might be, someone asks you to "promise something" sight unseen... that is, they might say "promise me you won't get mad when I tell you this".. typically, people say "ok, I promise", then when they find out someone slept with their wife, they get mad.. well, you broke your promise, technically.. yet, it was a promise made in good faith, but without the details. Same applies to whistleblowers.. they are charged with protecting this country (in this case), then promise to keep secrets. When they find out those "secrets" are violating the law, they have an OBLIGATION to speak out, protect this country, despite them having to "reveal some secrets" to do it. It doesn't mean they get to blab all their secrets, just the ones pertaning to the illegal activitiy, and likely only to "proper channels".. the problem in this case is, the "criminals" are telling the "cops" that they don't have authority to hear those secrets.. duh? but in this case, the "cops" should be able to trump the "criminals".. if they can't, our government becomes a sham and joke.. when we lose our checks and balances, we lose everything.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 9:55 am PT...
Did I ask for "perfectly constructed sentences using immaculate grammar"? No, I didn't. Jeez Louise!
Forgive me for possibly over-reacting, darlin', but 5, 7 and 12 are a little maddening to read, is all. So shoot me!
"these guys are charged with keeping stuff secret, given authority to information they are supposed to keep secret, publicly dont keep said secrets, and are now crying because they dont have the security clearance anymore?"
Re the above,
Are you saying there are facts in here somewhere? Are you saying that somewhere within these twisted knots of stupidness there is an accurate reading of the issues of secrecy & security & legality?
My excuse for not being able to comprehend what they're trying to say is that they're saying it in an incomprehensible way.
And even though I know a little French & a little Spanish, I'd probably suck at trying to discuss complex issues such as these in either of those languages, so I wouldn't attempt it.
Which leads me to suspect that 5, 7 & 12 were written by native English-speakers who are lazy or stupid and who don't have a very good grasp of the issues.
Could I possibly be wrong? Yes. Am I being a snob & a bitch? Possibly.
Apologies if I've hurt anyone's tender feelings.
My nerves are probably a BIT on edge because for the last few years I've been watching my country being turned into a brutal, lawless freaking lunatic asylum, not that I'm the only one, God knows, and not that my country's history BEFORE these last few years has been perfectly flawless & bloodless & pure!
So Christ on a bike, I don't think it's too much to freaking expect that if you post a freaking comment on this MOST EXCELLENT of blogs, you should at least try to be freaking comprehensible in the bloody freaking English language!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 12:00 pm PT...
heh, i love how many people here critique my spelling and grammar. especially those like trickster, capitalize much buddy? i am not on an english teachers blog, i am dumbing down to the level of liberals. mispellings, puncuation lapses and a lack of capitalization is the norm here with most of you. when in rome..........
joan, that last post was full of run on sentences too.
hmm, this is fun. i can see why you do it. make a whole post about grammer intead of the point of the string. great idea.
savanster, you can lecture about the role of these guys entrusted with our nations secrets. my father was one once. it was made clear to him those secrets were to be held, period. dont like it, there is the door. these guys get the job and for their own reasons blow the whistle on this stuff they dont like. dont act like there is no political motive or the possibility of a book deal here. their goals are not always so lofty.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 12:00 pm PT...
Savanster, I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but are you saying that since someone took an oath, this therefore means they are then acting in full and good faith of that oath?
Forgive me if I missed your point. It seems like this country, as a whole, has lost it's reasoning ability, and logic like this is becoming very common. The oath is the end. If there's a question of legality, just check to see if the person took an oath not to do anything illegal. Case closed.
The only function of taking an oath is so that you have legally agreed to be criminally or in some other way liable if you violate the oath. It doesn't serve as the answer to whether you've violated a law.
Security Clearances serve ego, power, shadowy behavior and governance by obscure rules. "National Security" is more an excuse than a model of protecting citizens. Actually, National Security has nothing to do with citizens, other than keeping them away from the elite. National Security is the complex built to protect those who have built up their agency fiefdoms.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 12:09 pm PT...
Wow! Who ever poopybrain is, hey man, not only did you write "authority" instead of "access", but I think you misspelled some stuff too. So dude, your whole point is invalid, man.
and I guess since you are a poopybrain, well that just makes you silly, so nobody is going to listen to you, so nyah nyah nyah.
and if that doesn't work, I bet my daddy can kick your daddys butt. or I'll tell the teacher.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 12:16 pm PT...
Yeh. when you take an oath you are voluntarily applying additional laws to you. basicaly.
people already violate the other laws. so why dont people violate the laws they volunteered to be subjected to? of course some do!
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 12:44 pm PT...
"i am dumbing down to the level of liberals"
So, you think there's no good reason to call you a moronic right-wing troll? with comments like that? Though, your complete lack of concerne for even -trying- to use proper grammer/puncuation, etc shows your level of maturity.. and your ignorance.
As for "it was made clear to him those secrets were to be held, period.".. are you saying, if someone was raping and killing children but told your dad it was "a secret", he'd not have said anything? If that's your stance, no wonder you're such a prick.. sucks to be you and have no morals.
"dont act like there is no political motive or the possibility of a book deal here"
so, you're saying the only reason someone ever does what -looks- to be the right thing is for political or financial gain? Wow, and I thought I was cynical.
"these guys get the job and for their own reasons blow the whistle on this stuff they dont like"
right.. exactly.. and if those "reasons" are because what they don't like is people BREAKING THE LAW, and UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION.. well, those aren't "valid" reasons to you? Oh.. wait.. we already know YOUR position.. when you see someone raping a kid and they are your boss and say "keep this secret", you're good with that.
"their goals are not always so lofty"
no one said that "all whistleblowers had lofty goals".. The point here is, the agency under the control of the Senate is telling the Senate that they don't have purview into the agency. That's like you telling your boss to fuck off, you don't have to tell him what you do at work every day.
Sounds more and more like you're -exactly- the kind of person being talked about here, despite your protest in that thread.. me thinks thou doth protest too much.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/17/2006 @ 1:06 pm PT...
Mr. Popeye, your father might have learned under the wrong mentor.
The guiding criterion for a whistle-blower isn't whether he or she "likes" what happened. It's whether or not it was LEGAL. As in, an illegal order need not be followed. Ever hear of that? A military commander orders a subordinate to torture somebody, for example. Guess what? The subordinate may refuse the order, not because he "dislikes" torture...but because torture is against the law! And if he reports the illegality to a higher authority or even calls a newspaper, that's fine.
Repeat it to yourself several times. Whistle-blowers may report illegal activities, even a secret illegal activities (in fact, especially secret ones). But a whistle-blower may not reveal a secret simply because he dislikes what was done. Get it now?
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 2:15 pm PT...
yeah, i am dumbing down to your level. i can stand by that statement, as obviously trickster was agreeing with you that i have "not so much brains as earwax" (shakespeare). and you called him a right wing troll!! now, he may be a troll (assuming this is a he we are discussing) but not necissarily right wing by that comment. you may have some insight otherwise into that person that i dont, i admit.
now you mention raping and killing. these are not national security secrets, and as such would not be something protected by our government unless the government in question is bill clinton's, but i digress. the nsa wiretaps are a good example of our discussion. congress gave authority to the president, the courts will likely side with them. so, the whistleblowers will have screwed themselves out of a good job for no reason if what i said comes to pass. except for the book deals, and if those come through for them, their pension will likely be better than a government job can provide. this assuming there are enough liberals around who care to read about it by then. who knows.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 2:35 pm PT...
So I did misunderstand you Savantster. My bad. We appear to be in general agreement there. I like the analogy, it makes the point fairly clearly.
In fact, it also clarifies the sort of surreptitiousness that a "security clearance" carries with it ---
"we can throw you in jail or even execute you for divulging the secrets we are about to tell you." and then of course when they tell you a secret that you know violates every principal, moral, law or ethic, it's you who's in the wrong, not them --- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 3:35 pm PT...
Poopy blathered "yeah, i am dumbing down to your level. i can stand by that statement, as obviously trickster was agreeing with you that i have "not so much brains as earwax" (shakespeare). and you called him a right wing troll!!"
Erm.. TrickRoller, not trickster.. and, he wasn't agreeing with me, he was being facetious. The fact that you didn't get that shows that perhaps you DO have more earwax than brians.
The fact that you're spitting out right-wing propaganda talking points (and the President's bullshit position) shows your loyalties. The fact that you keep on with the liberal/lefty comments supports your hard-core right-wing underpinnings.. and bringing up Clinton is a dead giveaway to your lack of open mindedness.. Thanks for playing, come again.
Bush does not have "authority" from Congress to violate the Constitution. That's a bullshit statement Shrubby provided that has been rebuked by some members of Congress already. Secondly, the President doesn't have the power to suspend the Constitution at will, not even during a time of war... not to mention, much to his chagrin, we're not at war. He can call his personal crusade and illegal invasion of Iraq a war all he wants, but legally, we're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they didn't. The defered the authority to engage in hostilities IN IRAQ to Shrubby, nothing more. The fact that you can't get that, or think it's ok for one person to be a ruler in America shows both your ignorance and lack of respect for the Constitution and this country.
What's more amazing is, the Repukes running all the comittees refuse to run investigations into this stuff. They wait till some of the heat has gone down, then just dismiss it hoping the public will forget.
What's failing to penetrate your thick skull and slip into your shallow mind is, it's very likely the wiretapping is illegal. The people that brought their concerns to Congress about it aren't even breaking their oath to keep the secrets, they are asking Congress to listen to the facts and decide if there's a problem. What you quaintly dodged (suprise) is that the employees are telling the bosses "you can't know what we're doing". How you can't see that as a serious problem is beyond me.. oh, no.. it isn't.. you're an employee and an arrogant prick.. I can see how you think it's none of your boss' business what you do at work, right?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/17/2006 @ 3:38 pm PT...
Congress absolutely did not give Bush permission to spy on American citizens. It gave him authority to use the military to hunt down enemies of the United States.
The military is not involved in domestic spying. Nor does it want to be. Bush is involved in this, not the military. The notion that his role as commander in chief of the military extends to spying on private communications between American is looney tunes.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 3:41 pm PT...
"yeah, i am dumbing down to your level"
This still cracks me up.. That's just hilarous on so many levels..
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 4:28 pm PT...
hmm savansters last comment seems trollish. does it not? no content, no commentary on the post at hand. nothing. just hey, whatup.
roberts comments is much more to the point. take notes savy (i had to laugh at that one in spite of myself).
robert, the pres has stated that authority was given in that capacity. dont believe him, fine, but congress was informed. dont care? great, it is going to court and along with the rest of us you will have to wait to see what happens. if guilty of crimes, i hope they throw the book at all of them. if not, eat your shorts.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/17/2006 @ 4:37 pm PT...
Well, Popeye, we agree on one thing. Whether I believe Bush or not is irrelevant.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2006 @ 5:04 pm PT...
"the pres has stated that authority was given in that capacity"
and he stated Iraq had WMDs (despite the intel reports to the contrary), and he said Saddam was involved with Sept. 11, 2001 (despite documentation and information to the contrary). He said he's been "misunderstimated", and said disemble was disassemble, and said a LOT of things that are crap.. like "freedom here at home", yet he violates our Constitution.. he said the survailence he's doing requires warrents, and that hasn't changed.. but then says he's doing it without warrents..
"but congress was informed."
so when he tells Congress "I'm institutionaling marital law, my troops will now patrol the streets of Ameruca to protect us from terrorists.. I no longer need a Congress", does that mean because he's informing them that it's legal? ok? reasonable? acceptabe? I think the answer is 'NO'.. that is, Shrubby doesn't have the authority to "inform" Congress that he's going to (or doing) something illegal and that act of "informing" absolve him of his acts. That is, he doesn't get to make the rules just because he "informs Congress" of what he wants the rules to be.
and for your 32, go read 29.. 31 was an after thought, and your calling it trollish is as laughable as the rest of your posts.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 2/18/2006 @ 6:23 am PT...
The republicans killed the NSA spy on America investigation.
"It's the democrats fault" according to republican talking points.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 2/18/2006 @ 12:16 pm PT...
This shows how the Repugs like to change the rules AFTER the fact, when they want things changed.
What I get from this is that Roberts want's to make ANOTHER "secret court", but one that gets warrents out "faster"? That can only be read ONE WAY.. They want to make a RUBBER STAMP COURT for the President, so that they can PRETEND to have used "due process".. this, of course, after FULLY realizing they are in unquestionable violation of the Constitution. Talk about the most disgusting types of human beings on the planet. Fuck us over time and time again, then try to prop up faux systems to make it look like they aren't fucking us over.. "Don't look behind that curtain"..
I still can't immagine the total psychosis that must be going on in the minds of every Bush supporter out there. I get flack for being "harsh", but for cryin out loud!! The TRUTH is, these people are NUTS.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 2/18/2006 @ 2:08 pm PT...
We've already been going the "rubber stamp" route via the USA"PATRIOT" Act.
From an ACLU page
The statute authorizing the use of ďnational security lettersĒ as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, and telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. The letters can be issued simply on the FBIís own assertion that they are needed for an investigation, and also contain an automatic and permanent nondisclosure requirement. In the most controversial portions of the Patriot Act that require judicial oversight, the judge wields a rubber-stamp. For example, Section 215 requires the FBI to apply to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain an order for the production of business records. The FBI must only specify that the records pertain to a foreign intelligence investigation, a vague and broad concept. The judge is required to issue the order after the FBI makes this specification, making the judicial review a mere formality than actual oversight.
Every day the "PATRIOT" Act is on the books is a black day for America. It needs to be scrapped.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2006 @ 7:31 am PT...
With electronic tech background and black ops background I find the media,Congress and U.S.citizens to be unbelievably stupid concerning this matter.It is far worse than you can imagine.It goes into mind control via E.L.F./silent audio control of democracy itself. Research into spirit control and the DOD non-lethal weapons programs and NSA technology has faraday caged your Congress- at exclusive resorts they meet at- and soon your souls altogether with 6 global super computer satellite grids with artificial intelligence RFID chips attached .Welcome to the Bible's Revelation and Daniel and George Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's "Brave New World."This generation will surely burn in a nuclear hell.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 2/20/2006 @ 5:42 pm PT...
As long as the American public allows the government to spy on us we are no longer free. We really might just as well be living under martial law already. Go back to your history books and check out what Benjamin Franklin said about freedom and security all those years afo inthe founding days of our once great country. I whole heartedly agree every day the "Patriot Act" is on the books is truly a black day in our history.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2006 @ 12:06 pm PT...
I hope the rapture has taken me before all the right wingnut PHONY christians experience the pure hell on earth their evil heros are bringing about.
They think they will be our masters, but they will be Satans slaves.
Evil begats evil and they are pure evil
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 3/30/2006 @ 8:37 am PT...
A related event you may be interested in commenting on:
120 1/2 W. Liberty, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. 734-761-5922.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2006
Contact: Phillis Engelbert, Michigan Peaceworks, 734-761-5922
War protesters to "turn themselves in" to federal
agents, stand up for First Amendment.
Director of Thomas Merton Center - Pittsburgh peace group
subjected to FBI spying - to attend and make statement.
Friday March 31st, 4:45 pm, Ann Arbor Federal Building (5th Ave. & Liberty)
175 "mugshots" taken at March 19th peace rally to be delivered in pre-emptive strike against government spying. Several of those photographed to be on hand for interviews.
Free-speech advocates and war protesters will turn over to federal agents 175 "mugshots" taken during a March 19th protest in Ann Arbor, at which 1,200 people rallied for an end to the Iraq War. The mug shots can be viewed online at michiganpeaceworks.org. Through this action, participants will ease the workload of federal spies, freeing them up to engage in legitimate law-enforcement activities that will make our country safer. Participants will also save taxpayer money, thereby demonstrating the patriotism of war opponents.
Through satire and humor, members of Michigan Peaceworks - with support from the ACLU of Michigan - are calling attention to the serious issue of domestic spying by the NSA and FBI. In particular, the group is highlighting the recently revealed FBI surveillance of Pittsburgh's pacifist Thomas Merton Center. Merton Center Director Jim Kleissler will attend and make a statement in support of Ann Arbor's "free speech outlaws." The Department of Homeland Security has been notified of this action and has been asked to have a representative on hand to accept the "mugshots." After the Federal Building action, Merton Center Director Kleissler and Ann Arbor activists will continue the discussion at The Circus, 210 S. First St. (2 blocks west of the Federal Building).
The purpose of the "turn yourself in" action is to counter the chilling effect caused by government surveillance and to maintain a safe space for dissent. By embracing the title of "dissenter," protesters will defuse the Bush administration's campaign to discredit its foreign policy critics and will show that opposition to the war will not be silenced. Protesters will also highlight the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration's policy of fighting for freedom abroad while squelching it at home - both through FBI spying on law-abiding peace groups and NSA eavesdropping on American citizens without obtaining warrants.
"The government's message has been 'trust us - we're only spying on terrorists and if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear,'" stated Michigan Peaceworks' program coordinator Joseph Kuilema. "But obviously, since they're also spying on law-abiding peace activists, that message is not true. The Bush Administration has betrayed our trust."
The FBI's investigation of Thomas Merton Center
Two weeks ago, the Thomas Merton Center and the ACLU unveiled documents obtained through a FOIA request indicating that an FBI counterterrorism unit had infiltrated and conducted surveillance on the Merton Center from late 2002 through 2005. The documents show that the FBI targeted the group for its anti-war activities, including distribution of leaflets in downtown Pittsburgh opposing the Iraq War. One FBI document characterized the Merton Center as "a left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacifism." The Pittsburgh case is significant because it represents the first time in recent history that the FBI's stated reason for spying includes beliefs and political activities protected by the First Amendment.
Shades of COINTELPRO?
The Merton Center case is the latest in a series of revelations of government surveillance of peaceful social change organizations, such as the American Friends Service Committee in Denver, Colorado; Patriots for Peace in Melbourne, Florida; and Food Not Bombs in Austin, Texas. It raises fears among free-speech advocates that the Bush Administration may be initiating a modern-day version of COINTELPRO (short for Counterintelligence Program) - the secret FBI operation in the 1960s and 1970s that gathered information on and attempted to destroy the anti-Vietnam War movement, the civil rights movement, and its leaders (most notably Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.).
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 4/26/2006 @ 8:04 pm PT...