|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian   SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 16:06 |
Specter was on TV over the weekend, in anticipation of upcoming hearings, and brought up the possibility of impeachment:
The 'I' Word Comes Out Of The Closet
But also said he doesn't see that happening:
Let Bush Violate the Law With Impunity
Hmm...is he hedging his bets or covering his ass?
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 19:10 |
Gore gave a great speech today, but be warned, he uses all sortsa high-fallutin words. Too bad he can't get over it.
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 20:11 |
vladtweano: Gore gave a great speech today, but be warned, he uses all sortsa high-fallutin words. Too bad he can't get over it.
Hmph - that page wouldn't render for me: here's another link.
As much as I dislike Gore, the speech is well done.
Also of interest is a letter written to congress by "scholars of constitutional law and former government officials," regarding the legality of the NSA wiretaps.
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 562 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 23:30 |
Kerry and Gore both have that great quality that as soon as they stop trying to run for office they become 20 times cooler, more honest and down to earth. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/17/2006 at 15:43 |
Well, he must have made an impression; the administration's apologists are all indignant like. The Gonzales reaction on Hannity & Colmes is typical of the administration's response to criticism - make fun of your opponent.
It is not surprising the Scott McClellan (windbag extrordinaire) is resorting to name calling. What makes this remarkable, though, is the Attorney General, with a slap in the face to the 4th amendment, is quoting precedent that the president has the right to order physical searches without a warrant. Effectively their defense is: (Our sworn enemy) Clinton did it so that makes it okay, and by the way Gore is a dickhead.
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'
On 2006-01-17 at 10:02:48, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/17/2006 at 20:34 |
In today's news, two civil liberties groups have filed lawsuits against Bush and the NSA, suing them to stop their domestic spying activities.
The White House called these "frivolous". And the windbag (McClellan) is quoted as saying: "If you're not talking to a known al Qaeda member or a member of an affiliated organization, you don't have to worry about this." Unbelievable.
If the administration doesn't start taking this seriously, they're gonna be in a heap o' trouble.
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
1/17/2006 at 21:56 |
Atrios makes a funny with whiny ass titty babies.
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/17/2006 at 22:20 |
What did the whiney-ass titty babies do when first confronted about this issue? Began an investigation, of course - not to determine the legality of the issue, but rather to find out who the whistleblower was.
On the same topic, I just found this little tidbit:
Also, with the Senate conducting its own investigation, there is White House pressure to move that inquiry from Arlen Specter's Judiciary Committee to the Intelligence Committee. But the latter's chairman, Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, is so indifferent to Fourth Amendment privacy protection that he supports giving the FBI the power, through administrative subpoenas, to seize extensive personal data from Americans not involved in any criminal acts. There is no judicial review of those subpoenas.
On 2006-01-17 at 16:38:09, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/18/2006 at 02:55 |
Has anyone seen the Zogby Poll?
Never heard of these guys before, but they have a nice looking web site.
EDIT: By way of comparison, here's a similar poll published by Rasmussen Reports on Dec. 15, 2005 (before the wiretapping story.)
EDIT: FOX has put in its $.02 with a poll of its own. According to FOX, 58% for and 36% against is the score for whether "president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants." Hmm..this seems to contradict the previous Zogby poll - I wonder which one is more accurate? One indication might be that the FOX questionaire had a lot of questions in it, and the specific questions relating to NSA wiretapping came right on the heels of a bunch of questions about the Patriot Act, like this one: Would you feel the United States would be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks if the Patriot Act expired? But, I couldn't seem to find a copy of the Zogby questionaire for comparison.
On 2006-01-19 at 17:58:54, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
EDIT: The Pew Research Center, from January 11, says: But there is not an outcry or even consensus opinion about the government's monitoring, without court permission, the phone and email communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties; 48% feel this is generally right while about the same number (47%) think it is generally wrong. Public attitudes on this issue are highly partisan, with 69% of Republicans saying the government actions are generally right and nearly as many Democrats (62%) saying they are generally wrong.
On 2006-01-22 at 03:54:14, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent SSHOLEPosts: 562 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
1/18/2006 at 04:59 |
Zogby is among the gold standard for pollers, at least in terms that poll analysts take their statistics very seriously.
Also: ACLU is taking the wiretapping to court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5551881,00.html |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/18/2006 at 06:49 |
Here's an interesting piece on Russ Tice, NSA whistelblower.
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/18/2006 at 17:59 |
A report by Human Rights Watch pointed a finger at the Bush administration for prisoner abuse, with a second report scolding both insurgent groups in Iraq and Alberto Gonzales.
“Other governments obviously subject detainees to such treatment or worse, but they do so clandestinely,” the report said. “The Bush administration is the only government in the world known to claim this power openly, as a matter of official policy, and to pretend that it is lawful.”
More of the same, after similar complaints by the Red Cross, and other humaniterian orgs.
EDIT: Here's a more comprehensive link, by Human Rights Watch. Can you imagine what people's reaction would have been to this story had it been published in 1999?
On 2006-01-18 at 15:49:48, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/19/2006 at 17:58 |
As a curious footnote to the proliferous NSA spying, it appears most of it frustrated the FBI with a deluge of false leads, in effect hampering intelligence rather than increasing it (as usual.)
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/20/2006 at 19:16 |
Today, the Justice Department, headed by Bush's buddy Gonzales, issued a legal defense for breaking the law. Nothing you haven't heard before: Justice Department lawyers argued this program was part of the government's need to gather foreign intelligence, which does not explicitly require agents to go through the process of getting a warrant, as is required under the FISA law.
I don't know - I mean the FI in FISA means Foreign Intelligence, right? I don't think they'll be able to run with that defense all the way to the endzone.
Gonzales is scheduled to appear before the Senate Juciciary Committee on February 6th.
Meanwhile, a new congressional report points to the administration not fully informing the senate intelligence committee as illegal also.
And there's a new lawsuit:Also yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said it would file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today demanding information about the NSA spying.
On 2006-01-20 at 13:35:05, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/23/2006 at 21:35 |
The administration is going around this week on a big PR campaign telling everybody that the NSA spying is okay. Apparently the idea is to "educate" the american people to "persuade" them to the let the issue go.
Former NSA deputy defends program
Bush talks to Univ of Kansas students
Bush visit to NSA
On top of his other problems, Bush is now defending himself about a story Time Mag scooped where photographs prove Bush and Abramoff had met previously, something he'd previously denied (or said he couldn't recall.) What are the chances Bush gets pulled into that one too?
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
1/23/2006 at 22:51 |
All these various crimes aside, what is really criminal is that every seemingly intelligent and articulate self-proclaimed defender of justce and the "American Way" from the Church of BushSux will promote a Democrat as the solution to all this.
William Jefferson Clinton:
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.”
Really, now. If your solution to Republicans is Democrats, why not just vote Republican?
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/24/2006 at 03:02 |
^^ What he said...and don't forget it.
(actual screen-shot)
On 2006-02-20 at 23:51:40, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/26/2006 at 04:19 |
This guy has it all planned out --> Impeachment: Let's Get Weird
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent SSHOLEPosts: 562 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
1/26/2006 at 04:24 |
Mass impeaches Bush! YESSS
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/26/2006 at 15:48 |
Gonzales authored this "white paper" last week, stating the administration's defense of warrentless wiretaps.
This article: The Power-Madness of King George is a commentary on that paper.
That power already sounds boundless, but according to Gonzales, this sole organ has garnered even more authority under the congressional authorization for the use of military force, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. This resolution is invariably referred to by the ungainly acronym AUMF—the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being exhaled by a democracy. In the language of the white paper, the potent formula of Article II plus AUMF "places the president at the zenith of his powers," giving him "all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."
This somewhat daffy monarchical undertone accompanies legal reasoning that recalls Alice's conversation with the March Hare. "AUMF" is understood by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither envisioned nor implied anything of the kind. The president's insistence that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece with his recently noticed practice of appending "signing statements" to bills—as in, "by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it to signify that it has no power over me." Similarly, in his white paper, Bush as much as declares: "I determine what my words mean and I alone determine what yours mean, too."
A few things that don't gell with the Gonzales defense:
The program was started before 9-11.
Article II and AUMF authorize military action, not domestic spying, and do not negate the 4th amendment.
The NSA was apparently spying on thousands of citizens, including peaceful anti-war groups. Unless they are all talking with "the bad guys", the program isn't as focused as they say.
In the legal world, if there are ambiguities then a more specific law supercedes a less specific one. FISA is that more specific law, intentionally designed to guard against illegal domestic spying.
There's no compelling argument for not going through the FISA court, since it has a retroactive exception built-in. And no attempt has been made to explain why FISA wasn't re-considered instead of just bypassing it.
Here's another piece of news vlad swarmed today: White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal.
Apparently the administration refused a proposal bill to ease the restrictions on getting a warrant for non-citizens, saying that the legality would be questionable, while at the same time secretly spying on citizens without warrants.
I read that the hearings, scheduled for Feb 6, will be open. I was thinking they'd be closed sessions because of the sensitiviy of the issue, but am glad we'll have a chance to see this as it goes down.
On 2006-01-26 at 15:15:00, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/29/2006 at 03:21 |
Since the president's PR campaign for emperor began (with special quest speakers Cheney, Rove, and Gonzales,) the big question everyone's asking is: "You gotta be kidding, right?"
But Bush has an answer for everything - if you don't like it, then change its name. The NSA's activities are now properly and correctly termed a "terrorist surveillance program".
Spies, Lies and Wiretaps gives a point-by-point which sees right through the web of deceit being spun:
Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.
Here's an article questioning the White House's defense:
"I just do not understand what they're saying, unless it's Orwellian doublespeak,'' said Kenneth Bass III, a former Justice Department official in the Carter administration who helped craft the 1978 law that set the parameters for domestic government surveillance. ...there should be enough time to seek retroactive court approval. "I know the government's slow, but they're slow in the intel business as well,'' he said. The explanation is "bizarre, to say the least,'' Bass said.
And Nancy Polosi (House Democratic leader and involved for the past 13 years in overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies) had this to say:
If the FISA court process is too laborious, "get more lawyers, add more people to it," Pelosi said. "We are only talking about the Constitution of the United States."
On 2006-01-28 at 22:35:19, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/31/2006 at 20:50 |
blubby swarmed this one today: Palace Revolt
It has a really good inside look at the backdoor dealings within the White House and Justice Department.
One week to February 6.
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
2/1/2006 at 05:24 |
Loki, people in this country have blinders on, they can't seem to see beyond the two-party system. They refuse to realize that its the same people wearing different hats.
Who was fooled when superman put on those birth-control-glasses and became Clark Kent? Why then can politicians pull it off so successfully. |
| |
tank
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 113 Registered: 4/4/2002 Offline
|
2/1/2006 at 17:18 |
dreymers:
You don't have to argue - just read the news.
Because we all know that everything on TV is REAL.
On 2006-02-01 at 11:32:25, vasudeva enjoyed furrysex
____________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/1/2006 at 21:17 |
tank: dreymers:
You don't have to argue - just read the news.
Because we all know that everything on TV is REAL.
Meanwhile, in the "real" world...
Another lawsuit: the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a class-action suit against AT&T for giving unfettered access to the NSA, and in doing so "breached longstanding communications privacy laws."
Sounds reasonable to me. If the senate hearings aren't tough enough, maybe one or more of these lawsuits will help keep the pressure on.
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
tank
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 113 Registered: 4/4/2002 Offline
|
2/1/2006 at 22:00 |
Has this "infringement of freedom" gone too far? Sure, I'll give you that, but it's not just Bush.
I stand firmly in LOki's corner politically. The federal government has been overstepping it's bounds for at least 50 to 60 years, and quite probably much longer.
The problem as I see it lies mainly in the concept that by and large, the American public is too stupid to do anything about it. We keep putting career politicians in office, and as was stated in here earlier, Republican or Democrat, they're pretty much the same person wearing a different hat.
I don't feel like taking the time to do the research, but I can pretty much guarantee that what my representatives feel is best for me is not what I think is best for me.
Here it is: I want Washington full of people who don't know for sure if their next check will cover all their expenses. I want people who don't hire someone to mow their lawn or plant their flowers or have nannies for their kids. I want people who know what it's like for millions of folks living from check to check, trying to figure out how they will ever afford retirement. What I don't want is someone like Al Gore or John Kerry making decisions about my well being. I can handle that myself just fine, thanks. What I fail to comprehend is, just why the fuck does the government give away so many handouts to people who won't work for them, while stickin' it in the rest of our collective asses? Quick answer?: Control.
Right now, there's no real good representation for the sector of America on whose back the economy rests.
What we do have is a bunch of politicians trying to regulate all aspects of our lives.
____________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/1/2006 at 23:02 |
tank: Has this "infringement of freedom" gone too far? Sure, I'll give you that, but it's not just Bush.I stand firmly in LOki's corner politically. The federal government has been overstepping it's bounds for at least 50 to 60 years, and quite probably much longer.The problem as I see it lies mainly in the concept that by and large, the American public is too stupid to do anything about it. We keep putting career politicians in office, and as was stated in here earlier, Republican or Democrat, they're pretty much the same person wearing a different hat.I don't feel like taking the time to do the research, but I can pretty much guarantee that what my representatives feel is best for me is not what I think is best for me.Here it is: I want Washington full of people who don't know for sure if their next check will cover all their expenses. I want people who don't hire someone to mow their lawn or plant their flowers or have nannies for their kids. I want people who know what it's like for millions of folks living from check to check, trying to figure out how they will ever afford retirement. What I don't want is someone like Al Gore or John Kerry making decisions about my well being. I can handle that myself just fine, thanks. What I fail to comprehend is, just why the fuck does the government give away so many handouts to people who won't work for them, while stickin' it in the rest of our collective asses? Quick answer?: Control.Right now, there's no real good representation for the sector of America on whose back the economy rests. What we do have is a bunch of politicians trying to regulate all aspects of our lives.
Why stop at the past 50/60 years? The history of the world is the history of governments oppressing people in their own self interest.
Your utopian vision is admirable - but don't hold your breath. It's going to take more than filling the White House with poor, uneducated morons (to replace the rich, educated ones) to make the American public less stupid.
Personally, I too am hoping that there is a point at which the current administration's crappiness outweighs the public's gullibility. But, that will probably be about the same time the next national elections are held, and the easy fix (as LOki predicts) is to put someone from the other camp into office.
For now, mere mortals watch from the sidelines and read the reports from the Bush Crimes Commission.
Wait - there's Bush Crimes Commission? cool - (preliminary findings announced tomorrow.)
On 2006-02-01 at 18:18:40, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
tank
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 113 Registered: 4/4/2002 Offline
|
2/2/2006 at 14:56 |
My point of saying 50-60 years was that the real corruption and big government started to steamroll under FDR. Thats all.
____________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/2/2006 at 15:55 |
tank: My point of saying 50-60 years was that the real corruption and big government started to steamroll under FDR. Thats all.
Okay, but what are you going to do about it?
These guys did something - they formed a committee and laid down five indictments against Bush and his administration. Here's the preliminary findings for each indictment:
Wars of Aggression
Torture, Rendition, Illegal Detention
Global Warming
Global Health including HIV/AIDS and Family Planning
Hurricane Katrina
Big surprise, right? Hey, they can't be all bad, what with Harry Belafonte on the panel. Daylight come and we wanna go home, motherfuckers.
I don't know about you, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. Oh well, Senate hearings begin on Monday. Hopefully they'll read this and this before starting their deliberations.
On 2006-02-03 at 04:03:56, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
tank
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 113 Registered: 4/4/2002 Offline
|
2/2/2006 at 16:40 |
Not gonna do anything about it. See, here's my deal:
1) Wars of aggression - don't really care - If this really twists up yer undies you have too much time on your hands.
2) Torture, Rendition, Illegal Detention - I don't necessarily have a problem with all these. If torture of terrorists is what it takes to keep my family safe, so be it.
3) Global warming? You are kidding, right?
4) Global Health? Not our problem to solve. Now don't get all high and mighty and preach that it is, we have plenty of domestic issues that should be solved before going abroad to solve the world's problems. i have no problem with us contributing to the solution, but it just isn't our bag of shit right now. Lets get the unchecked greed in the states fixed so health care is affordable here.
5 ) Hurricane Katrina? Hurricane Katrina? Wow. How about the next time California has and earthquake, or Oklahoma gets hit by a tornado you post some outrage about how the gubment is responsible for taking care of you when you choose to live in an area that is subject to dangerous variations of the natural world. I'm not saying they deserved it, but WTF? If you live in an area that gets hit by a bazillion hurricanes a year, and when you're told to get out and you ignore the warnings you are just plain ignorant (which, BTW, is probably the gubment's fault too, right?).
____________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. |
| |
|
i think i just had a seizure, thanks LK -- uart
|
