SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron who wrote (94479)1/5/2007 8:08:42 AM
From: Rock_nj  Respond to of 361334
 
W pushes envelope on U.S. spying
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, January 4th, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.

"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.

Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.

Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.

Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

nydailynews.com

------------------

Any lingering doubts that Bush aspires to be a dictator? What kind of anti-American crap is this, government opening mail?!?



To: Ron who wrote (94479)1/5/2007 8:11:17 AM
From: see clearly now  Respond to of 361334
 
Maybe it is not too late?

"Nearly four years ago, he (Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, March 2003) came up with a clever way of phrasing what he meant, saying that the Bush team needed an "attitude lobotomy," that it needed to "get off its high horse" and "start engaging people on the World Street, listening to what's bothering them, and also telling them what's bothering us." He also said that we needed something like the Marshall Plan, something that was "both a handout and a hand up." This was "D-Day for our generation," he said."



To: Ron who wrote (94479)1/5/2007 9:49:07 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 361334
 
Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq.

forward.com

Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein’s death last week, a small but growing chorus — including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés — is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling.

“If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought,” said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel’s leading Iraq experts.

Saddam was feared and reviled in Israel, both as a tyrant and as an enemy of the Jewish state. He demonstratively supported Palestinian terrorists, and few have forgiven his bombarding of Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

“Retrospectively, justice has been done,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio this week. Still, he cautioned, Israel must now be concerned “about what is liable to happen in the future.”

Saddam’s death, Sneh warned, could lead to “a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq.” He said that Iraq had turned into a “volcano of terror” following the war, with “destructive energies” that could spill over into Jordan and Israel.

Such misgivings, though rarely aired publicly for fear of offending Washington, reach high into Israel’s security establishment. Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet security service, told a group of students in a military preparatory program last May that Israel might come to regret its support for the American-led invasion in March 2003.

“When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos,” Diskin said, unaware that the meeting was secretly recorded. “I’m not sure we won’t miss Saddam.” The tape was later broadcast on Israeli television.

Although Iraq was long feared as a formidable enemy of the Jewish state, on the eve of the invasion it was poor and powerless. Palaces across the country were made of cheap plaster. Nuclear and biological weapons seen as threats by the Bush administration were nonexistent.

Baram, the Iraq expert, said that before the war started, he advised American officials of problems they might face afterward. What he did not anticipate, he said, was the scale of terrorism that would spread across the country, calling it “much, much more than I expected.”

Since the invasion, chaos has swept Iraq. Terrorist bombs in public places, sectarian attacks between Shi’ites and Sunnis, and ordinary criminal violence kill tens of people daily. One study estimates that some 650,000 Iraqis have died violently since the war, killed either by American and allied forces, terrorists or criminals.

Even some of those who suffered directly from Saddam’s brutality told the Forward that in retrospect, Israel was better off with him than without.

Baghdad-born Avraham Eini was a teenager when his father was arrested and tortured by Saddam’s security agents in the 1970s. “He later died of his wounds,” said 54-year-old Eini, who had escaped with his family and settled in Ramat Gan. Two decades later, in 1991, Iraqi Scud missiles fell 200 yards from his house.

Eini said he felt a sense of “revenge and relief” when Saddam was executed last week. Yet, he said, “Israel would be safer today if Saddam stayed in power.”

Saddam and his Ba’athist revolutionary colleagues came to power in 1968, a year after the crushing defeat of Arab armies by Israel in the Six-Day War. Vice president and strongman of the regime, Saddam had an attitude that was decidedly anti-Israel, following Ba’athist ideology and postwar Arab sentiment. One of his first notorious moves was to hang 17 alleged spies, nine of them Jewish.

Throughout the 1970s Saddam’s anti-Israel rhetoric continued, along with his hounding of Iraqi Jews and his support for the Arab Liberation Front, a militant Palestinian group that shelled Israel from southern Lebanon. He took full control as president in 1979, escalating his rhetoric and brutality. Shortly afterward, Iraq was invaded by neighboring Iran, touching off a bloody, eight-year war that inflicted huge hardship on Iraqis and Iranians alike. Saddam further tightened his regime and launched a furious arms race.

In 1981, alarmed at Iraq’s nuclear weapons project, Israel sent warplanes to destroy the nuclear plant at Osirak, fueling the dictator’s hostility.

A few years into the Iran-Iraq war, however, Saddam moderated his anti-Israel stance. Some observers believe he merely hoped to curry favor with Washington. Others say that even so, it might have led to a thaw. Jews in Iraq were now protected by a special unit and had a phone number to call if harassed. “Nobody could touch us,” said Emad Levy, who lived in Iraq at the time.

In 1982 Saddam told a visiting congressman that he supported the “existence of an independent Palestinian state accepted by the Palestinians.” He added, “It is also necessary to have a state of security for the Israelis.” Israeli officials publicly dismissed the feelers as a smokescreen.

Soon after, Saddam moved closer to Egypt, which he had previously snubbed for making peace with Israel. Iraq’s government-controlled newspapers began using the word “Israel” in place of “the Zionist enemy.”

In early 1986, Israel’s then-prime minister, Shimon Peres, a supporter of secret American-Iran arms deals, stopped supplying Iran and sent aides to meet secretly with Iraqi officials. The contacts were reported in the Israeli press but firmly denied by both sides. “Nothing came of the meetings,” Baram said, “but they showed that something was moving.”

Later in 1986, when the hawkish Yitzhak Shamir became prime minister, the meetings were shut down.

Today such talks are inconceivable. There is no one to talk to in a nation collapsing into warring factions.

Following the invasion, Israel no longer faces a military threat from Iraq. But terrorist threats have moved closer. Last year, Iraq-based terrorists staged a deadly triple bombing attack on Amman hotels, and Al Qaeda attacked an American naval target in the Jordanian port of Aqaba, next door to Eilat.

The Iraqi threat was once quite serious. Iraq sent troops to fight in three wars against Israel, beginning in 1948. After the Iraq-Iran cease-fire in 1988, Iraq started rebuilding its arsenal — including its nuclear project.

But after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, America led an attack in 1991, forcing it to withdraw and to accept intrusive arms inspections, and punishing economic sanctions.

Even at their peak, Saddam’s nuclear ambitions were not necessarily aimed at Israel, experts say. “I never believed that Iraq stood to attack Israel,” said Yoram Meital, a professor of Middle East studies at Ben-Gurion University. Even when it lobbed 39 Scuds at Tel Aviv, “Iraq attacked Israel in the first Gulf War in order to cause Israel to attack Iraq and bring the disintegration of the international coalition against Iraq” by prompting Arab states to withdraw.

“He could have shot chemical weapons at Israel, but he didn’t,” said political scientist Eitan Barak, a security specialist at Hebrew University.

Exaggeration of such threats and grievances, Barak and other say, led American policy-makers, with Israel’s blessing, to replace a bad situation with a much worse one.

“Saddam’s regime was preferable — not only for us but for all the states in the region, except for maybe the Iranians,” Barak said. “Saddam held together a divided, tribal, hostile state of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. He was a single man who made all decisions, and he was a rational leader. The moment he was gone, everything fell apart.”



To: Ron who wrote (94479)1/5/2007 2:14:41 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361334
 
The Press briefing has been delayed until soon from now. It looks like something big is happening.