Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/18/2005 9:12:08 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

No way! What you wrote either betrays your utter igorance/bias/naivete or is simply pure and unadulterated BULLCRAP! Bush had an agenda to make big profits for himself and his cronies long before he took office. He was in a great hurry to ensure no one else or entity beat him to the punch. He saw in Iraq the opportunity not only for riches but also for self-aggrandizement and even "immortality". That's why from Day 1, using his power as president, he urged his aides to find him an excuse, in fact any effing excuse, to invade Iraq. That is a well-known fact confirmed by O'Neill and which Orca reminded us of. No doubt, Bush thought the conquest would be a piece of cake. But he was utterly wrong, as with most other things, with disastrous consequences for all concerned. He must have thought his plans including 9/11 (his "Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the nation and the world for support) were so compelling, so well-hidden or subtle that they would not arouse any public suspicion and scrutiny. Ah, but as ever so often happens, "The best laid plans of mice and men go awry!" Exactly true for Bush and his necon henchmen and their con-job in Iraq! .

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/18/2005 10:32:20 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

That's right. Bush thinks he is on a mission from God.

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/18/2005 4:36:57 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bushies reward donors with huge pork barrel payoffs at the expense of taxpayers and the public wealth. post-gazette.com Corruption Inc. folks.

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/18/2005 7:12:31 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

'78 Law Sought to Close Spy Loophole By David G. Savage The Los Angeles Times Saturday 17 December 2005 Civil libertarians say the latest revelations add to their frustration with the Bush administration. "If we are a nation of laws, then the president must be bound by the rule of law," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU in Washington. "This is clearly in violation of FISA and a violation of the Constitution. The president, no matter who he is, does not have the power to decide which laws he will follow." Washington - In 1978, Congress thought it had closed a loophole in the law when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The loophole concerned secret spying authorized by the president on grounds of national security. On Friday, many in Washington were surprised to learn that despite the 1978 law, President Bush and his advisors had claimed the power to authorize secret spying within the United States. The New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on the phone calls of thousands of people in this country without getting permission from a court. Bush's lawyers maintained that the president had the inherent authority as commander in chief to protect national security through secret spying. The account was confirmed by the Los Angeles Times. "This sounds like an extraordinarily broad exemption to FISA," said Washington lawyer Kenneth C. Bass III, who worked on the 1978 law as an aide to President Carter. "This is well beyond the pale of what was anticipated back then." Other lawyers who helped write the law thought it prohibited what Bush apparently authorized. "FISA was the sole authority for wiretapping" on national security grounds, said Jerry Berman, who worked on the 1978 law as a counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "The statute would be a futile exercise if the president retained the authority to conduct these wiretaps on his own." As a general matter, the Constitution forbids the government from spying on Americans - including by listening in on their phone calls - without a court's permission. The 4th Amendment says police or federal agents must show a magistrate some evidence of wrongdoing before they can obtain a warrant that authorizes them to listen in on phone calls. However, through most of the 20th century, presidents maintained they had the power to protect the nation's security by, for example, spying on foreign agents who were operating in the United States. No one questioned that US intelligence agencies could tap the phones of Soviet agents. In the mid-1970s, Congress learned the White House had abused this power: Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, had authorized the FBI to tap the phones of hundreds of political activists and celebrities, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Vietnam War protesters. Those revelations led to the 1978 law. One provision says it is a crime for anyone to "intentionally engage in electronic surveillance" except as authorized by law or a court order. However, "the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance ... to acquire foreign intelligence information" if officials obtain a warrant from a special court that operates inside the Justice Department. The judges of what is known as the FISA court may issue warrants for wiretaps when the government has evidence that a person is working for a "foreign power" or is involved in terrorism. This is not a high standard, legal experts say. The judges issue warrants virtually whenever the government applies for one, the Justice Department has said in the past. However, the law requires evidence that the wiretap target has links to a foreign government or a terrorist group. It would not permit, for example, the wiretaps of hundreds of Muslim men in the United States simply because they telephoned the Middle East. Top intelligence officials have in the past assured Congress that they follow the law and do not engage in secret spying. "There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we - the CIA, the NSA and the FBI - scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of US persons are involved. We do not collect [information] against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power," then-CIA Director George J. Tenet told a House committee five years ago. After Sept. 11, Bush said he would use all the powers of the presidency to prevent another terrorist attack in the United States. His advisors feared then that secret Al Qaeda cells existed within the country and that further attacks were planned. Administration officials refused Friday to discuss the National Security Agency spying program or even to confirm its existence. Some former officials say it is important to put the program into the context of the time. "I wasn't aware of this when I was at the White House, but there was a tremendous sense of urgency to take whatever steps were necessary to detect and disrupt any cells that were out there," said Bradford A. Berenson, a White House lawyer during Bush's first term. "The president was not going to let it be said that he had not used all the powers at his disposal to protect the American people." This would not be the first time Bush has claimed that his power as commander in chief can override the law. The Constitution forbids the government from arresting and holding people in the United States without "due process of law." Nonetheless, Bush has claimed the power as commander in chief to designate people as "enemy combatants" and imprison them indefinitely without filing charges. In 2002, US citizen Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held in military brigs for nearly three years. Civil libertarians said that was unconstitutional. His case had been heading toward the Supreme Court; the administration recently brought criminal charges against him, thereby thwarting a clear ruling on the issue. In the past, Congress has ratified treaties pledging that the United States and its agents will not use torture or inhumane treatment against captives. Once ratified, treaties become part of American law, according to the Constitution. But before this week, the White House maintained that the laws and treaties did not bind the president in handling terrorist leaders. White House lawyers wrote memos that appeared to justify the use of extreme measures - which critics called torture - in interrogating suspected terrorists. Civil libertarians say the latest revelations add to their frustration with the Bush administration. "If we are a nation of laws, then the president must be bound by the rule of law," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU in Washington. "This is clearly in violation of FISA and a violation of the Constitution. The president, no matter who he is, does not have the power to decide which laws he will follow.

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/20/2005 2:14:55 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I think you just revealed your predisposition for war with Iraq...before 9-11. You can join the other Neocons at the PNAC. Bush has now admitted to illegal spying on Americans. Is this part of your just fight too? The law says you need a court order to do that. The law says that you can proceed with surveillance 72 hours before getting the warrant. It's not a road block to preventing action. Bush thumbs his nose at Judicial oversight...after all he's the dictator...who needs checks and balances when you are fighting for democracy? Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (71779)	12/20/2005 2:25:32 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush Must Be Held Accountable George Bush Cannot Protect Democracy by Destroying It. Editorial Every American should be outraged by the president's attempt to justify domestic spying. It's wrong, and the president should acknowledge that fact. He must be held accountable. Congress should immediately launch a truly bipartisan investigation into the administration's spying campaign. If the Constitution and laws of the United States were broken, Congress should censure the president. And if the lies, the deceit and lawbreaking continue, Congress should take even more drastic action. Either we are a nation of laws and moral values or we are not. We cannot pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to ignore for the sake of convenience or expediency. George Bush is not above the law. This is a military community, with thousands of active duty and retired members of the armed forces among our friends and neighbors. The presidents' actions undermine their service to this nation. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for true democracy, not a democracy that condones domestic spying, or secret prisons or subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has played right into the hands of ter-rorists and diminished the reputation of the fine men and women who wear this nation's uniforms. President Bush is the one sending the wrong message to our soldiers and our enemies. Under his leadership, we are becoming known as a nation of hypocrites. Lies and exaggerations President Bush has built an administration founded on lies and exaggerations and fear. And he has gotten away with it. It's unconscionable. President Bush promised to take action against any White House official leaking classified information. Yet Karl Rove remains. When CIA director George Tenet said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a “slam dunk,” he was dead wrong. How was he punished? He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. George Bush says the United States does not torture, yet his administration fought tooth and nail against an ex-plicit ban on torture. Abu Ghraib was an exception, we were told. But then we learned there were secret prisons abroad where who knows what goes on. The president excoriated congressmen Monday for not blindly passing the overbroad USA Patriot Act because they didn't trust that there were adequate safeguards against abuses. Ironically, that happened at the same time as President Bush promised to continue the illegal wiretaps. He seemed to be saying, “Trust me.” Well, Mr. President, we are sorry to say that we don't trust you or your administration because you have abused that trust so often in the past. Big Brother His effort this week to turn around his abysmal poll numbers should fall on deaf ears. The American public knows that domestic spying is something out of George Orwell's “1984.” Yet George Bush has made that “Big Brother” fantasy a reality. Attempting to justify the indefensible, the president on Monday said he would continue the program of moni-toring phone calls and e-mails “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens” and added that it included safeguards to protect civil liberties. Baloney! The president could have gone to Congress and asked for permission to spy on citizens in the United States. The Republican-controlled Congress would have given the president permission in a heartbeat. Or he could use exist-ing wiretap laws that allow a court order 72 hours after the taping has begun. That way, our vital system of checks and balances would have been preserved. In his arrogance, President Bush did not go to Congress or to the courts for permission (although he claims that he did tell select members of Congress what he was doing — as if that is enough). He sees himself above the law. As commander in chief, he believes he is not bound by the Constitution and its guarantees of civil liberties. In his view, the warrantless spying conducted by the National Security Agency under his direction is an essential ele-ment in the war against terrorists. In that belief he has lowered himself to their level. And there is a disturbing pattern to his behavior. It's OK to lie about the reasons to go to war. It's OK to hold hundreds, maybe thousands of prisoners without charges, without legal representation and for an indefinite period of time, It's OK to have secret prisons. It's OK to say the provisions of the Geneva Convention don't apply in a war on terror. It's OK to treat detainees inhumanely, because we can define them as we see fit. It's OK to use the Patriot Act to pry into library records and lord knows what else. It's OK, as NBC News reported, for the Pentagon to spy on peace activists. It's OK to trample on the rights of citizens. Unchecked powers At Monday's news conference, President Bush angrily denied that he is using unchecked or dictatorial pow-ers. But how else can you characterize his behavior? What tyrant hasn't claimed the need to use extra legal pow-ers to protect the motherland or fatherland from some threat? How much Orwellian doublespeak can this coun-try tolerate? Congress impeached former President Clinton for lying about consensual sex with a White House intern. No one died. No prisoners were tortured. Clinton simply tarnished his own reputation and sullied the stature of the Oval Office. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a Democrat or Republican issue. It's an issue of fundamental civil rights. We repeat: Congress must muster the courage to hold this president accountable. A bipartisan commission investigation is warranted. And if the lies and deceit continue, Congress should consider the ultimate step and impeach President George Bush. It's all about accountability and protecting, not destroying, democracy. ©2005 Knight Ridder ###