Author Topic: Bush, PNAC, Sen Blunt and McConnell: Make George Bush a Dictator or DIE!!!  (Read 7510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Original Title: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!

Letter: GOP Whip Roy Blunt assails House Democrats over FISA
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Letter_GOP_Whip_Roy_Blunt_slams_0216.html
RAW STORY Published: Saturday February 16, 2008




Today, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) has released the following letter in regards to the sunset of the Protect America Act:

####

At midnight tonight, a critical national security law will expire. It is set to expire, because House Democratic leaders blatantly refused to take up bipartisan, Senate legislation that would have closed a dangerous terrorist loophole. The consequence is that our intelligence community will lose its ability to affectively and quickly listen to terrorist communications.

This is no exaggeration. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General of the United States, in a letter to the Senate Majority Leader earlier this year, wrote that if the Congress failed to act our ability to obtain intelligence information would be weakened. This same message was sent by the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who said on the Senate floor Thursday 'that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.'

The issue at hand is over legal protection for telecommunications companies that helped our government in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks intercept foreign terrorist communications. This lack of protection has already hurt our ability to gather intelligence – and it will only get worse. As companies fear being dragged into the court room, they will stop their activities in support of tracking terrorists.

I am angry that the House did not consider this bill. And House Democrats should be angry as well. The Democratic leadership allowed our intelligence gathering to be compromised, because they failed to pass a bill by a deadline that they themselves set.

Some allege that there is no urgency. I wholeheartedly disagree. With each passing day, our intelligence capacity grows dimmer and dimmer and the less able we are to track a call or intercept an email into the United States from someone like Osama Bin Laden.

Our nation should not be in this situation. The House’s failure to act is a gross dereliction of our constitutional duty to stand for the nation’s defense.
#
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2008, 12:12:32 am »
"The House’s failure to act is a gross dereliction of our constitutional duty to stand for the nation’s defense."

I do not believe this total asshole has ever read the constitution.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2008, 01:08:01 am »
In Radio Address, Bush Hypes Consequences of Wiretapping Law Expiration
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/16/bush-paa-deadline/



In his weekly radio address, President Bush not only blames Congress for tonight’s expiration of the Protect America Act, he says that his government will have a harder time keeping you safe:

Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

Nothing about the measure’s expiration prevents either law enforcement or intelligence officials from carrying out new surveillance against suspected terrorists. They will simply need to get a warrant. Nor is exigency a factor, as warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun.

Furthermore, Bush’s hype over tonight’s midnight expiration is undermined by the words of his own top aides. Just 24 hours ago, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told NPR:

Some of the [surveillance] authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.

McConnell let slip that the real goal in the debate over the Protect America Act is not to protect America, but to protect the telecommunication companies being sued for assisting in Bush’s illegal wiretapping. The president claims he wants to protect these companies to ensure their future cooperation. However, legal warrants compel cooperation.

The only reason to insist on telecom immunity is that the telecom lawsuits are the only remaining avenue for bringing to light the administration’s illegal activities. And that is what Bush and his conservative allies will not permit, regardless of how real the cost is to America’s intelligence-gathering apparatus.

– Tom

This post was submitted through our Blog Fellows program. Make your own contribution — and get paid for it — by clicking here.

UPDATE: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released this joint statement:

The Protect America Act will expire only because the President and congressional Republicans refused to approve an extension of that law. Their true concern here is not national security. Rather, they want to protect the financial interests of telecommunications companies and avoid judicial scrutiny of their warrantless wiretapping program.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 08:58:58 am »
OMG - CATO leaks some truth....

Congress Ignores Fear-Mongering. World Doesn’t End
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/14/congress-ignores-fear-mongering-world-doesnt-end/

The Democratic leadership in the House has called the president’s bluff and stood up for the rule of law. Ryan Singel has the details:

The Protect America Act, a temporary but expansive warrantless spying bill passed by Congress last summer, will likely expire Saturday at midnight, a casualty of a battle between President Bush and House Democrats over amnesty for phone companies that aided his secret, warrantless spying program and how much of that program should be legalized. The House leadership announced there will be no more votes before the long President’s Day legislative break.

The bill’s expiration is largely symbolic, but demonstrates that House Democrats are willing to fight Bush on anti-terrorism policies, where fear-mongering rhetoric had previously cowed their opposition.

One of the most interesting things about the last 24 hours is the subtle shift in rhetoric. The New York Times wrote today that “The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering” — an accurate statement, but one that most people were missing a few days ago. Even conservative pundits such as David Freddoso started hedging their previously sweeping claims about the dire consequences of letting the PAA expire:

If the president does not sign the bill before Saturday, then we revert to the previous FISA law. The feds will be able to continue certain ongoing terrorist monitoring activities, but they cannot initiate new ones. (It becomes easier to start up a terror cell on Saturday.)

Freddoso is not insinuating, as his colleague did, that all surveillance everywhere in the world will grind to a halt after the PAA expires. But Freddoso’s version is still misleading. The Bush administration can initiate new terrorist monitoring activities after the PAA expires. It just has to get a FISA warrant, the same way it did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Indeed, Bush himself praised the changes Congress made to FISA in the wake of the September 11 attacks, noting that they “will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones” and makes the intelligences community “able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.” If we were able to get by with those provisions for nearly six years, surely we’ll be OK living under them again for a couple of weeks.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 09:54:55 am »
Now Bush and his cronies will think up a terrorist plot and murder another 3,000-5,000 innocent people to make a point that if the bill had been passed they could have stopped it from happening.

I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 10:19:16 am »
The Powerful and Obnoxious Odor of Mendacity:
FISA and the Bill of Rights

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080213_the_powerful_and_obn.htm
February 15, 2008 at 11:32:48 by Blaine Kinsey (Posted by Blaine Kinsey)


In his appearance at an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30, 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey allowed himself to be used as a stooge while Senator John Cornyn demonstrated how to suborn perjury.  Mukasey kept a straight face while Senator Cornyn attempted to blame deficiencies in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for a 10-hour delay (it was actually 12 hours) by U.S. intelligence personnel seeking to monitor enemy combatants in Iraq after some U.S. soldiers were kidnapped in May 2007. In response to Senator Cornyn's dissembling, Mukasey pretended that the discredited tale told by Senator Cornyn was a good example of the reason that FISA needs to be revised. The lies that were interwoven into the story about this unfortunate incident were disseminated by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who dropped this stink bomb on the House Judiciary Committee on September 20, 2007. Within a few days, responsible journalists uncovered the true story that was the basis for the fictional account given by McConnell. Government officials and documents revealed that the delay in surveilling the enemy combatants was caused by gross incompetence and ineptitude among officials in the Department of Justice (now administered by Mukasey), and this delay was not caused by any deficiency in FISA, but as Winston Churchill said: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Congress passed FISA in 1978 to curb abuses which had occurred under prior Democratic and Republican Presidents, but primarily because the Nixon Administration went medieval on the rule of law. The 110th Congress is the latest battleground in the war against our Constitution, and the concerted drive to disembowel FISA is on track. Via an op-ed in the New York Times by Mike McConnell (published Dec. 10, 2007) and a follow-up op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by tag-team member Michael Mukasey (published Dec. 12, 2007), the President trotted out two loyal soldiers to sound the clarion call. It is obvious that McConnell and Mukasey have a right to advance their opinions about FISA to a large and influential audience, and it is understandable that their opinions would be considered newsworthy by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. However, it is repugnant that officials in the Bush Administration and their enablers in Congress are so bereft of compelling arguments that they repeatedly must promulgate information about FISA that is demonstrably false.

Let us chronicle some of the most imprortant information omitted by McConnell and Mukasey, and let us examine some of the most misleading arguments presented by them. Congress did not mention FISA in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (the AUMF) in our so-called war on terror, and it is clear from the debate in Congress prior to passage of the AUMF on September 18, 2001 that Congress did not intend to alter FISA within the context of the AUMF. However, President Bush used the AUMF as a pretext for implementing the Terrorist Surveillance Program involving some indiscriminate use of electronic surveillance without a judicial warrant, which was contrary to FISA and contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. When Michael Mukasey referred to the AUMF as justification for the Terrorist Surveillance Program during his Attorney General Nomination Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was apparent from the skepticism in his remark that Mukasey did not find this argument convincing. Mike McConnell only began lobbying Congress for significant changes to FISA after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) determined early last year that the Terrorist Surveillance Program did not comply with FISA, which is the law with respect to electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence sources.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Mukasey alleges in his op-ed that "(t)he increased volume of applications for judicial orders under FISA impaired our ability to collect critical intelligence, with little if any corresponding benefit to the privacy of people in the U.S." On November 8, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee received direct testimony from Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. This disclosure has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit against AT&T, yet this information had received little media attention prior to the scheduling of Mr. Klein's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Monitoring an electronic communication is a search. As specified by the Fourth Amendment, the Government must have some reasonable basis for directing a search at a particular target. Although a reasonable search does not necessarily require a warrant, probable cause is a prerequisite for any reasonable search. Contrary to what both McConnell and Mukasey posit, a search is not reasonable merely because the underlying motivation (e.g., the possibility that a search may uncover dangerous illegal activity) for the search is reasonable. It is possible to understand why McConnell might not understand this legal distinction, but such equivocation is inexcusable from the Attorney General of the United States.

Perhaps because he was intent on proving that "government intelligence" is an oxymoron, McConnell babbled in his barely coherent op-ed about the inconvenience imposed by the law:

"Before the Protect America Act was enacted, to monitor the communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States, in some cases we had to operate under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, a law that had not kept pace with changes in technology. In a significant number of these cases, FISA required us to obtain a court order. This requirement slowed — and sometimes prevented — our ability to collect timely foreign intelligence."

In his op-ed, Mukasey parrots the claim that,

"Until recently, our surveillance efforts were hampered by the unintended consequences of an outdated law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 1978 to establish a system of judicial approval for certain intelligence surveillance activities in the United States."

Both Mukasey and McConnell know that FISA has been updated many times since 1978 to accommodate several Presidents (including on several different occasions during the tenure of President Bush the Younger). Both also know that FISA was not bypassed because FISA was outdated; FISA was bypassed because the Bush Administration decided to use unconstitutional methods to acquire intelligence via the Terrorist Surveillance Program. What is most irksome to Mukasey and McConnell is our outdated Constitution, which retains "quaint" prohibitions that have not kept pace with the ability of our technology to create an efficient national security state.

Just before Congress went on vacation in August 2007, the President, Mr. McConnell and their minions in Congress used a fake threat of an imminent terrorist attack to frighten the Senate and the House of Representatives into passing (with very little scrutiny and brief whimpering) a six-month revision of FISA called the PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 (PAA of 2007).  McConnell declares in his op-ed that the PAA of 2007 made "the country safer while protecting the civil liberties of Americans", but the reality is that the PAA of 2007 effectively nullified significant protections of U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents with respect to unreasonable searches and searches without warrants. The PAA of 2007 temporarily codified much of the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program. The PAA of 2007 did not provide for any meaningful Congressional oversight, and although the PAA of 2007 provided for FISC review, this was limited to FISC review of the surveillance procedures, and it did not provide any substantive oversight of the actual surveillance. Furthermore, the language in the PAA of 2007 was extremely deferential to the judgment of the Executive, as stated in Section 105C: "The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous."

Recently, writing in response to columnist Joe Klein (whose self-professed ignorance about FISA did not prevent him from offering his own criticism of the timid Democrats), House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers explained the negotiations between Congressional Democrats and Mr. McConnell prior to passage of the PAA of 2007:

We addressed every one of the concerns Mr. McConnell raised. He said he needed to clarify that a court order was not required for foreign-to-foreign communications -- our bill did just that. McConnell said he needed an assurance that telecommunications companies would be compelled to assist in gathering of national security information – our bill did that. The DNI said he needed provisions to extend FISA to foreign intelligence in addition to terrorism – the bill did that. He asked us to eliminate the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how recurring communications to the United States from foreign targets would be handled – the bill did that. McConnell insisted that basket warrants be structured to allow additional targets to be added after the warrant was initially approved – again, the bill did that.

When this legislation was described to DNI McConnell, he acknowledged that "it significantly enhances America's security." Yet, suddenly, on the eve of the vote, Director McConnell withdrew his support after consultation with the White House. If the media wanted to identify over-the-top partisanship, they could begin by citing the declaration of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, that "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious FISA Court," and DNI McConnell's assertion that by merely having an open debate on surveillance, "some Americans are going to die."


In a interview with a a reporter from the El Paso Times newspaper on August 14, 2007 (after passage of the PAA of 2007), Mr. McConnell made exaggerated and unsupported allegations about the length of time and the amount of effort required to comply with FISA. Specifically, Mr. McConnell alleged in this newspaper interview that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant request on a single telephone number. What Mr. McConnell failed to acknowledge is that his allegation referred to the length of time it takes to assemble a warrant request by writing in charcoal on the back of a wooden shovel, using only the light of a fireplace, and then transporting such warrant request by tramp steamer from Afghanistan to Guam for transcription. After this newspaper interview, an aide to McConnell explained to him the miracle of word processing and global communication systems.

Mr. McConnell has whined that, prior to passage of the PAA of 2007, FISA hindered the ability to collect information from foreign intelligence targets because "foreign-to-foreign" communications might be routed through a location in the United States, and the acquisition of such communications therefore was considered to be "in the United States" under the FISA statute. This defect in FISA was also cited by Mr. Mukasey in his op-ed.  McConnell states that "the intelligence community should spend its time protecting our nation, not providing privacy protections to foreign terrorists and other diffuse international threats.", but both McConnell and Mukasey know that the contested issue is not foreign terrorists. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2007, Mr. McConnell stated that he would oppose any language that would amend FISA only to exclude "foreign-to-foreign" communications from the scope of FISA because the intelligence-gathering agencies cannot demonstrate with certainty that those people with whom their targets will communicate would be exclusively outside the United States and because such language would not enable intelligence-gathering agencies to monitor communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States who may communicate with a “sleeper” or co-conspirator who is inside the United States. These are specious arguments because FISA, as it existed prior to the PAA of 2007, did not require intelligence-gathering agencies to predetermine whom their foreign intelligence targets would contact, and also did not require intelligence-gathering agencies to guarantee that communications from foreign intelligence targets would be exclusively between persons located outside the United States.

It has long been taken for granted that U.S. citizens do not lose our Constitutional rights with respect to our own government when we travel outside the country, but Section 105A of the PAA of 2007 states:

"Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

One could argue that this change in FISA does not alter the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and technically that is true, but from a practical standpoint, the Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens with respect to our own government are no longer protected while we are outside the country. Although Mr. Mukasey and Mr. McConnell repeatedly emphasize the problems associated with foreign intelligence targets located outside the United States, electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located outside the United States usually did not require a warrant prior to passage of the PAA of 2007 because electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located outside the United States was not included in the definition of electronic surveillance under FISA [Title 50 U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801(f)].

In September 2007, Mr. McConnell testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the PAA of 2007 does not need to be rewritten to protect the rights of United States citizens who may be outside the United States because it is alleged that such rights are protected by Section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his successor, Mr. Mukasey, have both testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that they do not think that the President is subject to laws which restrict the extremely vague inherent powers of the President under their convoluted interpretation of the Constitution. We are supposed to trust the Executive to adhere to an Executive Order when it has already been established that the Executive will not abide by a law (FISA) passed by Congress. On January 24, 2008, Senator Jay Rockefeller and Senator Kit Bond offered an amendment to pending FISA legislation to protect the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens during periods of absence from the United States, but this addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee revision of FISA appears to be an attempt to decorate a turd.

In his op-ed, McConnelll states that "the intelligence community needs a law that does not require a court order for surveillance directed at a foreign intelligence target reasonably believed to be outside the United States, regardless of where the communications are found", but the real problem as it is viewed by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence concerns limitations imposed by FISA with respect to electronic surveillance without warrants of U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents, and the surveillance powers sought by the President and his subordinates via the PAA of 2007 far exceed the authority necessary to circumvent the alleged impediments imposed by FISA relative to foreign intelligence targets. Despite their obfuscations, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence want to be able to conduct electronic surveillance without warrants and without probable cause in a wide variety of circumstances involving U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents, which would have required warrants under FISA prior to passage of the PAA of 2007.

Although legitimate national security concerns certainly exist, it is far too easy for the Federal Government to obstruct litigation through the process of withholding information from plaintiffs by alleging that release of such information would endanger the national security. It should be obvious, but obviously it is not obvious, that the Federal Government often alleges that revelation of certain information will endanger the national security in situations where revelation of such information would cause only embarrassment. Officially, the Supreme Court did not recognize the "state secrets" privilege until the landmark 1953 decision in UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS, and it should not surprise anyone that (despite the tortured logic in a Federal Appeals Court decision in 2005 concerning this case) the Federal Government had invoked the "state secrets" privilege fraudulently because there was no justifiable national security issue involved in this case. Also, it should not surprise anyone that the Bush Administration has asserted the "state secrets" privilege improperly and with regularity to obstruct justice. A good example is the use of the "state secrets" privilege to suppress evidence in the case of Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the F.B.I. for reporting security breaches and other official misconduct in the Bureau's translator services division. Similar suppression of justice by a foreign government would be called by it's rightful name.

For most practical purposes, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has been relegated to the dustbin of history by the Supreme Court, but the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A naive person might reason that a common-law rule of evidence (which is neither mentioned in, nor implied by, the language in our Constitution) could not be used as a basis for obstructing those rights which are delineated in our Constitution. However, the "state secrets" privilege is an extra-constitutional construct that can be used and has been used to nullify the Bill of Rights. Contrary to procedures outlined by the Supreme Court related to evaluation of the "state secrets" privilege, many judges (including the judge who presided over the case of Sibel Edmonds) do not thoroughly examine the evidence in question to determine whether the assertion of the "state secrets" privilege by the Government is valid, and many judges (including the judge who presided over the case of Sibel Edmonds) do not rigorously analyze whether a lawsuit might succeed in the absence of the evidence which is subject to suppression.

Despite the fact that court decisions have made it almost impossible for plaintiffs to contest the legality of the assistance obtained by the Federal Government from the telecommunications providers, Mr. Mukasey does not have faith in using the "state secrets" privilege as a method of avoiding the embarrassment which would result if illegal activities of the Bush Administration are disclosed to the public via court proceedings. In his op-ed, Mr. Mukasey addressed the retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers included in the version of FISA legislation approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"(I)t would provide protections from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that have been sued simply because they are believed to have assisted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The bill does not, as some have suggested, provide blanket immunity for those companies. Instead, a lawsuit would be dismissed only in cases in which the attorney general certified to the court either that a company did not provide assistance to the government or that a company had received a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful. It is unfair to force such companies to face the possibility of massive judgments and litigation costs, and allowing these lawsuits to proceed also risks disclosure of our country's intelligence capabilities to our enemies."

If (as is expected) Congress were to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications providers, and if the Federal Government were to withhold information (which currently is being done) from the courts on the basis that such information would endanger the national security, the provision limiting the scope of the immunity would operate as a sham.

Mr. McConnell emphasizes in his op-ed that "it is critical for the intelligence community to have liability protection for private parties that are sued only because they are believed to have assisted us after Sept. 11, 2001." The arguments by Mukasey and McConnell with respect to immunity for telecommunication providers are very misleading because both know that the Bush Administration consistently circumvented FISA through the implementation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Both also know that current court cases involving the allegedly defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program have foundered due to the inability of plaintiffs to obtain information necessary to establish their right to sue the Federal Government and/or the owners of the information technology through which the Federal Government obtains intelligence. Resolution of this prominent defect in FISA is not addressed by pending FISA legislation, but it is a defect that will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Federal Government's surveillance powers. On January 22, 2008, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Arlen Specter introduced separate legislation that would give more direction to courts to allow litigation to proceed and simultaneously protect "state secrets", but in the meantime, due to excessively restrictive interpretations of the "state secrets" privilege by various courts, lawsuits against telecommunication providers are the only realistic avenue for plaintiffs to discover if their electronic communications have been monitored illegally by our protectors.

Because the Federal Government can shield itself effectively from judicial review, the Federal Government has no meaningful restraint on the abuse of surveillance powers. Mr. McConnell laments that "those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits", but the myth of telecommunication providers as victims in this soap opera is a falsehood wrapped in sentimental twaddle, and this is evident to anyone who thinks for a moment about the vast array of legal resources employed by corporations when they are litigating against Federal and State agencies or when they are lobbying Congress to reduce taxes and eliminate regulations. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30, 2008, Mr. Mukasey used the "state secrets" privilege as the basis for his argument that litigation involving the telecommunication providers should not be allowed to proceed regardless of whether the telecommunication providers may have violated FISA, and Mr. Mukasey simultaneously dismissed any possibility that that the telecommunication providers may have violated the law. It would seem that courts are unnecessary for as long as we have Mr. Mukasey available to make summary judgments about all allegations of illegal activity.

The Senate and House have been struggling against themselves during the past few months to craft a more permanent revision of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that corrects some of the damage they inflicted on FISA via the Protect America Act of 2007 (which would have expired effective February 1, 2008 if Congress had not approved a 15-day extension). The FISA revision which was approved by the Senate is an attempt by weak-willed Senate Democrats to demonstrate that the Republicans do not have a monopoly on contempt for the Constitution. In 2006, in response to widespread use of electronic surveillance without warrants (involving U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents in addition to foreign targets) under the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program, Congress passed legislation stipulating that FISA was the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance could be conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. Now, the Senate legislation to amend FISA does not state that FISA is the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted even though 57 Senators voted in favor of this amendment.
 
The Senate revision of FISA does little to improve on the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program and also grants retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers that knowingly violated the law by assisting the Federal Government with the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program, but the FISA revision approved by the House of Representatives does not grant retroactive legal immunity for these telecommunication providers. The version of FISA revision passed by the House of Representatives establishes more oversight by Congress and by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and states explicitly that FISA is the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted. However, the Senate, which has been incorporated into the legal departments of the telecommunications industry, has now voted to legalize the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and the "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House of Representatives are also anxious to capitulate to the Republicans.

The President has threatened to veto the FISA rewrite if FISA does not provide retroactive legal immunity for telecommunication providers, and if the final version of FISA does not resemble more closely the evisceration of FISA he temporarily achieved in August 2007. The fallback position for the President's legal advisors is their assertion that the allegedly defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program was legal because the President's inherent power (i.e., power which is alleged to be implied but which is not mentioned in the Constitution) as commander-in-chief (which is stated but not defined in Article II of the Constitution) authorized him to bypass the powers of Congress which are detailed in Section 1 and Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. In the Report prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee in October 2007 to accompany the Senate version of a more permanent revision of FISA, four Republican Senators (including the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee) added a statement reiterating their belief that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was legal because the unwritten inherent powers of the President under Article II of the Constitution superseded the legislative power of Congress as expressed through FISA.

Damning information about this issue was revealed in an August 2007 New York Times article, with reference to the PAA of 2007, by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, who wrote: 

At a tense meeting last week with lawyers from a range of private groups active in the wiretapping issue, senior Justice Department officials refused to commit the administration to adhering to the limits laid out in the new legislation and left open the possibility that the president could once again use what they have said in other instances is his constitutional authority to act outside the regulations set by Congress. At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, "is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence."

Brian Walsh, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who attended the same private meeting with Justice Department officials, acknowledged that the meeting — intended by the administration to solicit recommendations on the wiretapping legislation — became quite heated at times. But he said he thought the administration’s stance on the president’s commander-in-chief powers was "a wise course."

"They were careful not to concede any authority that they believe they have under Article II," Mr. Walsh said. "If they think they have the constitutional authority, it wouldn’t make sense to commit to not using it.”


As Henny Youngman would have said: "This is a strict construction of the Constitution!?!?!?"

The rebuttal to an excess of Banana Republic Dictator Theater can be found in the Supreme Court decision written by Justice Robert Jackson in the 1952 case of YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE CO. v. SAWYER:

"When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system."

From a practical standpoint, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, but an assertion by the President that he is entitled to engage in massive electronic surveillance without warrants and without probable cause, involving citizens and other legal residents of the United States, is contrary to the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even if FISA is rewritten to authorize such surveillance and even if the Supreme Court were to uphold such a revision of FISA.

We used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but now we are the land of "nine-eleven changed everything". There are few transgressions of the President which are not excused by fear-mongering with respect to our so-called "war on terror", and this is a major impediment to a rational discussion of the limits on the President's authority and our professed adherence to the rule of law. The President's profligate use of signing statements to distort the meaning of various pieces of legislation is ample evidence that the President cannot be entrusted with poorly-defined powers which are prone to abuse. On May 17, 2002, the FISA Court released an opinion which stated that FBI and Justice Department officials had supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. In March 2007, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice released a report confirming extensive misuse of National Security Letters in a sample of four FBI field offices, and an internal audit by the FBI confirmed that the problem was far more extensive than it previously had been thought to be. The discovery several months ago that the CIA Director is investigating the CIA Inspector General is a good example of why a weasel cannot be left alone to guard the chicken coop.

Protecting the lives of our fellow citizens is not a goal which should be dismissed casually, but the threat of a terrorist attack is relatively insignificant when compared to some other threats in which we actually participate willingly or threats that we take for granted:

Cigarette smoking causes over 400,000 deaths each year, and alcohol-related deaths exceed 75,000 each year, but the two most destructive drugs in the United States are legal, and Prohibition was a dismal failure due to non-compliance by the public. We know that reducing the speed limit on our highways would save many thousands of lives every year, but the driving public would oppose such a policy because it would cause too much inconvenience. Obesity-related illnesses have become a major cause of premature deaths in the United States, but people are not afraid of food.

Approximately 30,000 people are killed each year in the United States by citizens and other legal residents using guns, but most people accept that disarming the populace is unconstitutional and unrealistic (at least while Charlton Heston is still living).

Al-Qaida in Iraq is less dangerous to us than the amorphous army of drunk drivers in the United States. It is likely that terrorists will occasionally succeed in killing some people in the United States, and we should do everything practical that is allowed within our Constitution to prevent such deaths, but we should not bargain away our inalienable rights due to fears which are disproportionate to the actual threat.

The right of "habeas corpus" which protects people against unlawful and arbitrary detention has been one of the most fundamental principles of any free society since King John was forced by his nobles to sign the Magna Carta. Section 9 of Article I of the United States Constitution states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Despite the fact that various aspects related to the right of "habeas corpus" are delineated in the Fourth, Fifth and (most specifically) Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 17, 2007 that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of "habeas corpus" to every United States citizen or resident. Although President Lincoln suspended the right of "habeas corpus" selectively during the Civil War (as did Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy), this course of action was quite limited in scope with respect to the existing danger, and the suspension of these rights was very limited in duration. However, our so-called "war on terror" is an endless war, and therefore we would be wise not to jettison essential elements of our Constitution because the thought of Islamic terrorists induces us to wet our pants. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who are betting that they will not pay any political price by trading away parts of our Constitution in return for votes from a cowering public.

(1) Bend over; (2) Put your head between your legs; (3) Kiss your right to privacy goodbye. This was the new order of things as outlined in a speech by Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of the Office of National Intelligence, on October 23, 2007 at the fourth annual Geospatial Intelligence Symposium in San Antonio, Texas. With reference to Internet sites like Myspace and Facebook, Mr. Kerr said that Americans essentially are giving up privacy anyway by posting personal information on such social networking sites. Mr. Kerr, age 68, stated that the two most recent generations have very different ideas about what is essential privacy and about what they would wish to protect concerning their lives and affairs. Therefore, Mr. Kerr concluded, anyone who has typed his/her name on "Google" understands that protecting privacy from our own government is not a fight which can be won, and (he really said this) "it's not for us to inflict one size fits all".

The "greatest generation" and the baby boomers must now apologize for inflicting the Bill of Rights on our younger generations. If I understand Mr. Kerr's spurious argument correctly (and I do), he thinks it is a waste of time and energy to try to save the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution because Generation X and Generation Y have chosen to post their lives on the Internet. This is a timely reminder that a fool and his Constitution are soon parted.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline 37

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,362
  • "The President of what?"
Original Title: Botox Mishap Victim Roy Blunt: Make Geoge Bush Dictator or you will DIE!!




"Whatever it is, I am against it."  -Groucho Marx

Channel 37
http://www.youtube.com/user/jmortimer37

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."
-Mitch McConnell
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832

Hi Nailer.
Now Bush and his cronies will think up a terrorist plot and murder another 3,000-5,000 innocent people to make a point that if the bill had been passed they could have stopped it from happening.

You took the words out of my mouth. Bushies speach, if we can call it that was a subliminal threat. I hope we are wrong.

I'd give a few pints of blood to see Bushies shadow men, caught in the act. Surrounded by some dedicated FEDs. (as they plant a bomb or whatever) if there are any left, and filmedd. Red handed, hands in the cooke jar stuff. Breaking news, unescapeable truth.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
George Bush Threatens 9/11 Attack if we do not make him Dictator!!!
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 01:48:59 pm »

[A Rothschild Controlled Psyops Tool]

Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8UR1C781
By PAMELA HESS – 1 day ago


WASHINGTON (AP) — With a government eavesdropping law about to expire, Washington is awash in accusations over who's to blame. President Bush said Friday that...

"our country is in more danger of an attack"


because of Congress' failure to adopt a Senate bill that would have renewed a law that made it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

That bill also would have shielded from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap U.S. computer and phone lines after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without clearance from a secret court that was established specifically to oversee such activities. In its competing version of the legislation, the House intentionally left out that feature.

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," he said.




Democrats, in turn, accused Bush of fear-mongering and misrepresenting the facts.

"This is not about protecting Americans. The president just wants to protect American telephone companies," Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, head of the House Democratic Caucus, said Friday.

Beyond the rhetoric, the central issue is what the government can and can't do come midnight Saturday, when a temporary eavesdropping law adopted by Congress last August expires. [thank god that these illegal bills are expiring, we need them all to expire including the illegal 16th amendment.]

That law let the government initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets. It also explicitly compelled telecommunications companies to comply with the orders, and protected them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so. [they never had absolute retroactive immunity, this is just flat out lying.]

But while the wiretaps can go on after the law expires, the compliance orders and the liability protections disappear. [there never was liability protection and what is wrong with compliance?  Is Rothschild promoting anarchy?  how can you have a program monitoring billions of calls from every corner of the globe and not have compliance?]

That's because of a quirk in the way the law was written, says Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.  [OMFG-Rothschild, we are finished with the "quirk in the legaleze" false flag excuse for why Bush is giving himself Dictatorial Powers.  All quirks are planned to create more chaos.  the quirks will not fix anything while a tyrant is in the white house.]

"There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," he said in an Associated Press interview. [LIE, there is not a way for Bush to be a Dictator, if he was being a Dictator before without our knowledge, he should not immune himself from this treason.  He should face up to it so that we can win all the wars instead of trying to support a false leader.]

Democrats dispute that assertion. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that even when the law expires, existing wiretapping orders would continue to protect telecom companies.

Regardless of who's right about that point, the government can eavesdrop after the law expires. It would simply have to go back to its old procedures, getting orders approved by the super-secret  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. [Now Rothschild reporting is just getting silly.  WTF is "super secret"?  If it was so "super-secret," how come we know everything about it but nothing about what the telecoms have done.  Is FISA super-secret, but ATT is allowed to be super-duper-secret? Come on Rothschild, it is like you are not even trying anymore.]

McConnell rejects that option. He says the process of getting court orders is cumbersome and ties intelligence agents up in red tape.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the court to approve wiretaps inside the United States, a process meant to protect U.S. citizens from potential government abuses of authority. But changes in technology since then mean most of the world's computer and phone traffic passes through the United States, much of it on fiber-optic cable. Successive court cases say court orders are needed to listen in on any of them, McConnell said.

To get a court order, intelligence agents have to prove they have "probable cause" to believe a target is a foreign agent or terrorist before being allowed to tap a line inside the United States, even if the communication originates and ends in a foreign country. [this is an outright lie used to support the idea that a Bush smack attack on US was caused by the non-existent terrorists]

It is difficult for intelligence agents piecing together shreds of information to get enough to merit probable cause, McConnell said. By the time they can amass enough information to do that, the phone number they wanted to track might already be obsolete, he said.

"More than likely we would miss the very information we need to prevent some horrendous act from taking place in the United States," he said.

The FISA law does make provisions for emergencies — instances where there is no time to fill out the paperwork. Within a few days, though, the paperwork must be completed and probable cause must be proved to get an order approved. House Democrats had sought to extend the current law temporarily to buy time to work out a longer-term compromise. The White House objected, and the attempt failed as Republicans were joined by conservative Democrats to defeat the move. McConnell acknowledged that the administration's opposition was intended to pressure Congress to do what Bush wants. McConnell says an extension would fail to address a central problem: delaying legal immunity for companies that help in the warrantless wiretapping program could lead phone companies to challenge wiretapping orders in court as a way to insulate themselves from future lawsuits.

Already, he says the roughly 40 lawsuits filed against telecom companies nationwide have chilled the private sector's willingness to help the intelligence agencies in ways unrelated to electronic surveillance. Exactly how is classified, and he won't elaborate. "I'm talking about the things they've done to help us track terrorists," said McConnell. "They did lawful things at the request of the government under the conditions they've done it for 50 years." But that help has waned over the last two years, he said. "Your country is at risk if we can't get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time," he said. Lawmakers left town Thursday for a 12-day recess but both sides are working behind the scenes. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met with Republican congressional leaders in the Oval Office to discuss the impasse with the Democratic-led House. House and Senate Democratic leaders met in Hoyer's office to hammer out plans for a conference in which Republicans will be asked to join, Hoyer said. Republicans say they won't participate.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Founder of PNAC: There will be another NEW PEARL HARBOR if Bush not Dictator!!!
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 01:58:25 pm »
Kristol: It’s ‘Unbelievable’ That Congress Won’t Give Bush
‘The Benefit Of The Doubt’
On Spying

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/17/kristol-spying/





Today on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol mourned that an “emboldened” Congress refused to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping.

Kristol said it was “unbelievable” for lawmakers to question the judgment of administration officials. Instead, he argued, Congress should just give them the “benefit of the doubt”:

I think it’s kind of unbelievable, frankly. It’s a judgment call. We don’t know. Not to give the administration the benefit of the doubt when they have career people, military people, intelligence people like Mike McConnell and Mike Hayden, and the attorney general, Mike Mukasey — I mean, these are not political hacks. These are not ideological people.

When they say this is important for our national security, the Congress — to block this legislation I find pretty amazing.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLVKLvp1dgM



The Bush administration secretly conducted spying in violation of the Constitution and the law for four years before The New York Times disclosed it in 2005. For years, the White House lied about these activities to the American public. For example, in 2004, Bush claimed that “a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.” At least one telco refused to comply with the Bush administration’s request because it knew the actions were illegal.

Even now, the administration continues to lie about the consequences of the Protect America Act expiration. Just yesterday, Bush stated that it will now “be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack.” But as an expert from the Cato Institute admits, this statement isn’t true: “There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.”

Transcript:

WALLACE: Well, let’s talk about the politics of this fight, because it seems to me it represents the strongest challenge so far by the congressional Democrats since they have gotten the majority in Congress to President Bush’s national security policy.

In the past, they’ve huffed and puffed and generally caved in to what the president wanted. This time they didn’t. They allowed the law to expire and went home.

Bill Kristol, what’s different this time?

KRISTOL: Well, they’re emboldened, I guess, and they seem to believe that the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, a career military man, career intelligence guy, director of the National Security Agency under Bill Clinton for the first half of the 1990s — that he is not telling the truth.

That’s what Ted Kennedy said, that the DNI’s statements, the director of national intelligence’s statements, are shameless on the part of the administration.

President Bush says he’s following his recommendations. They need this liability protection for the telecommunications companies to make sure they have robust private sector cooperation across the board, not just on eavesdropping or, I think, for our spying efforts, our eavesdropping efforts.

They say this has stopped threats. McConnell says that the Al Qaida is reconstituting itself in safe havens, unfortunately, in the northwest side of Pakistan.

I think it’s kind of unbelievable, frankly. It’s a judgment call. We don’t know. Not to give the administration the benefit of the doubt when they have career people, military people, intelligence people like Mike McConnell and Mike Hayden, and the attorney general, Mike Mukasey — I mean, these are not political hacks. These are not ideological people.

When they say this is important for our national security, the Congress — to block this legislation I find pretty amazing.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Bush, PNAC, Sen Blunt and McConnell: Make George Bush a Dictator or DIE!!!
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 02:04:22 pm »
Are You Dead Yet?
http://uruknet.info/?p=m41222&s1=h1
Arthur Silber February 16, 2008

This is absurd. As the Democrats themselves have helpfully pointed out (and a state of affairs which is fully agreeable to them, for they have worked toward this end over many decades), the U.S. government has been empowered for years to spy on whomever it wants, whenever it wants. A great deal of the time, no warrant is required at all; on many occasions, a warrant will automatically be granted after surveillance has begun. In almost all cases, with only a handful of exceptions, a warrant is guaranteed. (Check out these numbers, if you haven't already.)

But because Congress hasn't given Bush exactly the new bill that he demands, certain interested parties are having hysterics. Unsurprisingly, The Corner is, once again, Vapors Central. Lopez offers Bush's radio address on the subject today: "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America." Even though Bush already has the power to spy on anyone, anywhere, because he doesn't have the new bill he insists upon, no one will be able to stop it -- and you're going to die!

Andy McCarthy notes Mitch McConnell's remarks:"What we do — or in this case, don’t do — has consequences for our national security. At midnight, the country will be more at risk than it is today. And that risk will increase each day we don't have a solution to this problem."

As I have noted before, McCarthy is enamored of rotten, fourth-rate melodrama parading as foreign policy. From "Unreasoning Hysteria as the Default Position: Joan Crawford Does Foreign Policy," this is the essence of the McCarthy-Crawford position paper on national security:
You're all trying to destroy me! You're all against me, you bastards! You broke my heart, and now you want to kill me! But I won't let you, do you hear me? I won't let you! I'm going to live, damn you, I'm going to LIVE!
As one of my high school teachers used to say, when confronted with a hopelessly out of control class: "People. Please. Please, people."

You're embarrassing yourselves. Stop it.

On a related note, and a point I had wanted to include in "No One Is Safe: The Ruling Class Unleashed": Don't you assume that all your emails, telephone calls, etc. are monitored in various ways? I have for at least four years. During conversations with close friends, we'll sometimes say, only half-jokingly: "Hi, Alberto (then), Mikey (now)! How are you? Whatcha been up to?" I'll sometimes include similar notes in emails.

It's not that I think the government is keeping tabs on me in particular. I'm not that arrogant. I'm sure I'm of no importance to the government whatsoever, being a minor blogger with a small readership and all. That's not the point. As I explained in "No One Is Safe," and as I'll be discussing further in upcoming articles, it's not that the government is actually spying on me, or you, or anyone else; it's that the government can spy on any of us, if it wants to -- if it decides to cause us trouble for any reason, or for no reason, or if it decides to make an example of us.

As I wrote in "No One Is Safe":
Even with the destruction of liberty in the United States, the great majority of us may manage to live out our lives without being pursued by the government. But many of us will severely limit our choices; we will seek to avoid trouble, we will keep our heads lowered. We won't do anything to draw attention to ourselves. We know that it is unlikely that the government will target us -- but we know that it can and that, if it does, we may have no chance at all. We don't have to be tasered ourselves: we see the government tasering a few people, every now and then, and we know that if we aren't careful, it could happen to us. I can't recall where I read it, but several weeks ago, I saw a mention of the fact that the East German Stasi actually spied on "only" about one in ten people. But it was impossible to know who that one person was. If it wasn't you today, it might be you next week, or next month, or next year. When an authoritarian government accumulates sufficient power, it need only deploy it occasionally and strategically: fear does the rest.
Confronted with this reality -- and make no mistake, in principle this is our reality today, even if it has yet to manifest itself fully -- each of us will make a very personal decision as to how to deal with it.

I recognize that the government may be listening to and reading anything and everything I say or write. My reaction is, very simply, to change nothing in my behavior, except perhaps occasionally to be more provocative than I would be otherwise. In brief, I am happy to give the government my extended middle finger -- all the time, every day.

It's most enjoyable. I recommend it to you.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Bush, PNAC, Sen Blunt and McConnell: Make George Bush a Dictator or DIE!!!
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2008, 09:36:48 am »
on tv now


MAKE ME DICTATOR OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Amd304912

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,576
  • Ietsism (Dutch “ietsisme” - "Somethingism")
    • Israel-centered-neoconservative-death-cult-of-evangelican-born-again-Xtians-Are-you-one?                                      Im Not.
Re: Bush, PNAC, Sen Blunt and McConnell: Make George Bush a Dictator or DIE!!!
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2008, 09:46:12 am »
see we have (R) GWBush= Marthas Vinyard. lowly blueblood
                  (D) Kerry Gore= Nantucket Island. sniveler blueblood

theres no difference whatsoever in the offices. they are carbon copies but just like cults they idol duality.
faith basers make me as sick as free basers Surah 75 سورة القيامة - محمد [ http://powerofthadolla.freeforums.org/ ] An Almond for a Parrot
€∀§M_ ³ حتى الآلهة الحمار الاحتفاظ زنجي الخراء تمشيا   أنت كافر نكاح تفرز من الشيطان الاكبر يا  ح