The Beat

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping

posted by John Nichols on 04/26/2006 @ 12:00am

Thirty years ago, on April 26, 1976, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, delivered its final report detailing the lawlessness of U.S. intelligence agencies and the need for Congress to reassert the Constitutional system of checks and balances to order to rein in the cloak-and-dagger excesses of the executive branch of the federal government.

The committee, mercifully referred to by the last name of its chair, U.S. Senator Frank Church, D-Idaho, produced fourteen reports on the formation of U.S. intelligence agencies, the manner in which they had and were continuing to operate, and the abuses of law and of power -- up to and including murder -- committed by these agencies in Chile, the Congo, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations that experienced the attention of U.S. authorities in the Cold War era.

The committee also made 96 recommendations for how to do that. Some of those recommendations, such as the committee's call for creation of a permanent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and for a ban on assassinations of foreign leaders, were implemented. But, as the current controversy over President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program illustrates, the potential abuses about which the Church Committee warned were not entirely -- nor even adequately -- thwarted.

It was not for lack of trying by Senator Church, one of the most courageous legislators in American history, and his colleagues on the committee. As Senator Church said when the committee completed its work: "The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened."

The fundamental charge of the Church Committee to the Congress and the American people was not found in the details of the reports specific allegations and recommendations. Rather, it was in the committee's bold reassertion of the founding principle of the Republic -- that only by checking and balancing the excesses of the executive branch can basic liberties be defended.

To renew the inner strength of the nation, the Church Committee first recalled the threats that arise when the executive branch is allowed to operate in secrecy and without constraint:

The natural tendency of Government is toward abuse of power. Men entrusted with power, even those aware of its dangers, tend, particularly when pressured, to slight liberty.

Our constitutional system guards against this tendency. It establishes many different checks upon power. It is those wise restraints which 'keep men free. In the field of intelligence those restraints have too often been ignored.

The three main departures in the intelligence field from the constitutional plan for controlling abuse of power have been:

(a) Excessive Executive Power.

In a sense the growth of domestic intelligence activities mirrored the growth of presidential power generally. But more than any other activity, more even than exercise of the war power, intelligence activities have been left to the control of the Executive.

For decades Congress and the courts as well as the press and the public have accepted the notion that the control of intelligence activities was the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Executive and his surrogates. The exercise of this power was not questioned or even inquired into by outsiders. Indeed, at times the power was seen as flowing not from the law, but as inherent, in the Presidency.

Whatever the theory, the fact was that intelligence activities were essentially exempted from the normal system of checks and balances. Such Executive power, not founded in law or checked by Congress or the courts, contained the seeds of abuse and its growth was to be expected.

(b) Excessive Secrecy.

Abuse thrives on secrecy. Obviously, public disclosure, of matters such as the names of intelligence agents or the technological details of collection methods is inappropriate. But in the field of intelligence, secrecy has been extended to inhibit review of the basic programs and practices themselves.

Those within the Executive branch and the Congress who would exercise their responsibilities wisely must be fully informed. The American public, as well, should know enough about intelligence activities to be able to apply its good sense to the underlying issues of policy and morality.

Knowledge is the key to control. Secrecy should no longer be allowed to shield the existence of constitutional, legal and moral problems from the scrutiny of all three branches of government or from the American people themselves.

(c) Avoidance of the Rule of Law.

Lawlessness by Government breeds corrosive cynicism among the people and erodes the trust upon which government depends.

Here, there is no sovereign who stands above the law. Each of us, from presidents to the most disadvantaged citizen, must obey the law. As intelligence operations developed, however, rationalizations were fashioned to immunize them from the restraints of the Bill of Rights and the specific prohibitions of the criminal code. The experience of our investigation leads us to conclude that such rationalizations are a dangerous delusion.

Senator Church was even blunter in his rejection of the "spin" that would have Americans believe their government is protecting them or spreading democracy when it employs secret electronic eavesdropping at home or "covert action" abroad. Covert action, explained the Idaho Democrat, is nothing more than "a semantic disguise for murder, coercion, blackmail, bribery, the spreading of lies, whatever is deemed useful to bending other countries to our will."

The Church Committee's plan to counter the abuses of the executive branch boiled down to a call for Congress to recognize anew that:

The Constitutional amendments protecting speech and assembly and individual privacy seek to preserve values at the core of our heritage, and vital to our future. The Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting it suggest three principles which we have followed:

(1) Governmental action which directly infringes the rights of free speech and association must be prohibited. The First Amendment recognizes that even if useful to a proper end, certain governmental actions are simply too dangerous to permit at all. It commands that "Congress shall make no law" abridging freedom of speech or assembly.

(2) The Supreme Court, in interpreting that command, has required that any governmental action which has a collateral (rather than direct) impact upon the rights of speech and assembly is permissible only if it meets two tests. First, the action must be undertaken only to fulfill a compelling governmental need, and second, the government must use the least restrictive means to meet that need. The effect upon protected interests must be minimized.

(3) Procedural safeguards -- "auxiliary precautions" as they were characterized in the Federalist Papers -- must be adopted along with substantive restraints. For example, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, it requires a procedural check for reasonableness-the obtaining of a judicial warrant upon probable cause from a neutral magistrate. Our proposed procedural checks range from judicial review of intelligence activity before or after the fact, to formal and high level Executive branch approval, to greater disclosure and more effective Congressional oversight.

It is notable that Senator Church was especially concerned about the threat posed by the National Security Agency if a future president were to abuse those powers.

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss," explained Church. "That is the abyss from which there is no return."

Three decades after the Church Committee submitted its final report, President Bush admits to ordering the NSA to spy on the telephone conversations of Americans on American soil without obtaining warrants.

Most of Congress stands idly by.

Not so the senator who has most aggressively challenged the Bush administration's reckless disregard for the Constitution that provides Americans with both a Bill of Rights and a system of checks and balances to protect them.

Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has asked the Senate to censure Bush for ordering the NSA to launch the warrantless wiretapping program, marked the anniversary of the issuance of the Church Committee's final report by describing the committee's work and the challenge to executive excess that it produced as "a watershed moment that spurred Congress to assume its critical role in overseeing the U.S. intelligence community." In particular, he noted, "The Church Committee's report also led to legislation requiring the executive branch to inform the congressional intelligence committees of all intelligence activities."

"Yet," Feingold added, "for over four years, the Bush Administration has ignored this law, hiding its illegal warrantless surveillance program from the full committees, and continuing to deny the committees critical information. At a time when Congress has failed to assert its constitutional and statutory role in conducting intelligence oversight, we should recall the groundbreaking efforts of the Church Committee, and the responsibilities that came with the establishment of the congressional intelligence committees. The American people have entrusted us to protect them from our enemies while ensuring that our government upholds the law and the Constitution. We must renew our commitment to that charge. As Senator Church said 30 years ago today, ‘Our experience as a nation has taught us that we must place our trust in laws, and not solely in men. The founding fathers foresaw excess as the inevitable consequence of granting any part of government unchecked power.'"

Comments (268)

  1. good posting, mr nichols.

    what is rather depressing is that such eloquent ideas as outlined by senator church seem to ring so hollow these days amongst so many of my fellow citizenry. his commentary on the corrosive influence of such governmental activities seem most prescient indeed...

    yet i believe that the abuses of this presidency are transcending even the "american idol trivialized lobotomy" mentality of so many of us, that even the corporate owned msm happy/scary propaganda factory is a) unable to keep a lid on this, and b) beginning to decide that the bush/necon ship is destined to sink, has gone too far in so many ways.

    regardless, november approaches and it shall be seen just how awakened the american public has become.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2006 @ 11:28pm

  2. Yeah LL, nothing more vital to our security and maintaining liberty than listening to all voice and digital traffic at once. After all, we don't really need those Amendment things if Dubya tells us we don't huh?

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin"

    Nuff said?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 01:13am

  3. ...and the amusing counterpoint to LLs rant is that even in light of varied intel, Dubya, et al, only listened to the parts that fit his war-mongering agenda. But of course, the apolgists in their "..and never is heard, a discouraging word...." mentality say "What other intel" as if repating BS makes it real...?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 01:23am

  4. oooops..."repEating", not repating"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 01:23am

  5. .

    The Barmy Abyss of Supercilious Bliss

    To this day the shortcomings and failures of our intelligence agencies are traced back to the improvements good Senator Church initiated. His moral indignatin destroyed a system, perhaps crafty and nasty, but vital and successful in winning WWII and the Cold War. Incidentally, the senator's sermonizing son, the Rev. Forrest Church, ended up caught in an extramarital affair with the secretary of the All Souls Unitarian Church on Lexington Ave. in NYC.

    Now Nichols wants that past foolishness , which deprived our intelligence apparatus of its covert punch, to destroy our electronic punch in a war against infiltrating terrorists.

    He is addled.

    Frank Church was a decent man, who didn't realize the harm he would cause.

    Nichols is a crumb who recklessly willing to debilitate the country's ability to defend itself against terror.

    He claims as his motives the liberties of this Republic. Baloney, This moral paragon opposed the ejection of a Saddam whom he knew to be a mass murderer who tore out tongues. He wants a quick withdrawal in Iraq which he knows will allow a fascist insurgency to prevail. He has not the least respect and appreciation of democracy, other than than the rights it gives him to undermind the country.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 04/26/2006 @ 02:59am

  6. NACL wrote: This moral paragon opposed the ejection of a Saddam whom he knew to be a mass murderer who tore out tongues.

    Let's never forget that NACL and his ilk over the past sixty years loudly supported regimes all over the world that raped nuns and murdered priests, that used American arms to massacre their own people in a variety of genocides, that traded drugs for arms to CIA contractors, and did EVERYTHING in their power to kill democracy in their countries. Let's never forget that Saddam was placed on the CIA payroll by Bush Sr. in the 70's and collected his blood money right up until the Gulf War. NACL and his ilk have had their noses so far up the shit canals of the worst, most murderous scum of this or any other age for so many decades that they think the reek is perfume.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/26/2006 @ 07:36am

  7. even more frightening than the mis-administrations unconstitutional power grabs, is the willingness of the citizenry to jettison their rights.

    It is very clear to me that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the first Bush mis-administration, who was desperately seeking an enemy after the end of the cold war. and guess what it worked.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 08:17am

  8. BOOKMANJB,

    You have your finger on the pulse of the situation.

    NaCl indulges in rhetorical whacking off over torture and tongues ripped out --- you can hear his stunted grunts, the heavy breathing as he types it out --- but human rights is all a verbal game to him and not a matter of principle. He gives not the least shit about human rights since it is simply a rhetorical device with which to mint accusations against opponents --- as he winks at its use by the side that he favours and its allies and clients.

    NaCl is an angry celibate nobody who makes a shit mess of an argument since he cannnot and will not criticize human rights abuses when committed by his side. He gets all indignant when official enemies commit abuses because, in his grim universe of right-wing relativism, it is not the principle of WHAT but a question of WHO.

    Any normal person can see human rights abuses are always wrong and that it's not to be judged excusable or wrong solely based on who committed the abuse. Any normal person can perform the moral calculus --- And where does that leave the right-wing fanatic NaCl?

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 04/26/2006 @ 08:58am

  9. Yeah LL, nothing more vital to our security and maintaining liberty than listening to all voice and digital traffic at once. After all, we don't really need those Amendment things if Dubya tells us we don't huh?

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin"

    Nuff said?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/26/2006 @ 01:13am

    Oh, didn't you know, LOC? LL thinks Ben Franklin was a communist.

    LL, after reading your post about Church, I am inclined to refer to you as "Big Brother." Doesn't "live free or die" mean anything to you? If your idea of "democracy" is a country where right-wing christian presidents spy on everything we do, I say "no thank you."

    You like to refer to the ammending process as the appropriate way for legalizing things such as abortion. Well, why don't you apply that reasoning to your own viewpoint? Until you repeal the 4th ammendment, you are out of line.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/26/2006 @ 09:23am

  10. It is very clear to me that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the first Bush mis-administration, who was desperately seeking an enemy after the end of the cold war. and guess what it worked.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 08:17am

    Nice post, JR. NACL conveniently forgets that the Bush I administration green-lighted the invasion, or appeared to. And even though the Army War College concluded that the gassing of Kurds at Hallabjah was done by the Iranians (apparently thinking they were gassing Iraqis), the Reagan-Bush I cabal got that tail pinned on their new donkey, Saddam, in order to incite emotion against him.

    I am sure NACL will characterize my previous statement as "support of Saddam" even though such a charge is ludicrous. His ilk prefer to suppress objectivity by means of slander.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/26/2006 @ 09:30am

  11. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 08:17am

    It is very clear to me that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the first Bush mis-administration, who was desperately seeking an enemy after the end of the cold war. and guess what it worked.

    Johannes, is there anything evil in the world that you do not in some way, no matter how circuitous, attribute to George Bush? Moer broadly, is there any evil in the world, other than George Bush? And if so, how much energy have you devoted to addressing such evil?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 09:40am

  12. Pont

    Perhaps the germane aspect of your point to Johann is that GWB is OUR evil...and as such is our problem to deal with....unlike Iraq/Saddam who was only a military threat to his neighbors or perhaps a threat to gas prices (which hasn't turned out so well regardless)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 09:57am

  13. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/25/2006 @ 3:57pm

    My response to you from a previous thread.

    Wow. Such a willingness to distort and misread and, well, hate those who find fault with Bush. You cannot find anyone silly enough to blame Bush for Katrina, but you can look in the mirror and find someone silly enough to believe that his president faces such attacks.

    TJ, you seem like an earnest fellow. Earnestly wrong, in many cases, but earnest nevertheless. In this sense you contrast favorably with ORWELL, the intensity of whose hatred for George Bush distorts his view of reality severely, to the point of misstating my opinions so wildly that having a coherent conversation with him is no more sensible than speaking physics to a chimp.

    Surely you know that in the pathology of the extreme left, there is no negative event in the world that is not somehow connected to the existence of George Bush, and conversely, no positive development for which he can be given even a scintilla of credit. Thus, every natural disaster like Katrina is attributed to Bush (because he refuses to submit Kyoto to Congress, where it would be voted down). As we have seen above, even Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is all George Bush's fault as well. These are quite powerful folks, apparently, nothing escapes their grasp and power, despite their monunmental stupidity (quite the conundrum, that).

    You rely on Osama to make Bush look good by comparison.

    Huh?

    You and those whose quotes you rely on set up folks like Zarqawi as poster boys for the left from the sad logical standpoint that the enemy of my enemy is my friend rather than because of any argument made on behalf of Zarqawi by the left.

    Actually, my point is that all you folks seem to worry about is Bush, but you have nothing to offer in terms of dealing with Zarqawi. Don't you think your priorities are a tad askew? Which do you think is worse, after all, blowing women children to smithereens, or failing to raise taxes high enough?

    You simplemindedly assume that it is not possible to want to thwart both terrorists and Bush's hamhanded attempts to control portions of the Middle East. Both are wrong.

    Perhaps, but since the left offers basically nothing in terms of an alternative way to fight the terrorists, my belief that you have none perhaps might be forgiven.

    You choose to assign irrationality to every argument made against Bush's decisions rather than acknowledge his mistakes.

    That's because the arguments against Bush are a melange of rationality and irrationality, and it gets a little tough to distinguish after awhile. Kind of like the ravings of a lunatic; some of it might make perfectly good sense, but it all kind of gets lost in the noise.

    While we appreciate this subtle acknowledgment that these arguments are fact-based and undisputed, your stale refrain of "you're just_____" (fill in the blank with "childish", "emotional", "hate-filled", "delusional", etc.) makes your every post put you in deeper and deeper rhetorical shit. Your continual reliance on the opinions of others makes you sound like a shill, a boob.

    I rely on the arguments of others when I feel that they make their points better than I do. For example, I rely on Natan Scharansky to elucidate the Bush Doctrine because he states it very clearly. I'm not a professional writer, so I frequently rely on others to fleash out points for me. You see, we on the right have a coherent philosophy, so we frequently find ourselves on the same page with others.

    My day has been lovely and refreshing. I wish you a good day too, sir.

    Thanks.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 10:02am

  14. LL & NACL,

    I've told cowards like you before. If you can't take the danger that comes with freedom get the hell out of this country. Real American's are not willing to allow their country to be a police state just to keep us cozy and safe. Yes, there are dangers involved with an American level of freedom, but if you want the government to protect you from absolutely everything then you're in the wrong country.

    Kindly leave.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/26/2006 @ 10:05am

  15. LvLiberty1: [[Singlehandidly, they did more to allow 9/11 than anyone currently in national office.]]

    Well, yeah, because what the Church committee did allowed al-Qaeda to take us completely by surprise on 9/11, with no advance notice or warning of any type whatsoever.

    Right [thesmokinggun.com]?

    Posted by lexalexander at 04/26/2006 @ 10:13am

  16. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/26/2006 @ 09:57am

    Perhaps the germane aspect of your point to Johann is that GWB is OUR evil...and as such is our problem to deal with....

    Yes, I've heard that point before. I guess it's rational as far as it goes, but it presents a rather provincial viewpoint. This is the type of viewpoint that made monsters like Hitler possible, so I can't buy it, but I guess I can understand it, even if I do feel it's informed by an unreasoning hatred.

    unlike Iraq/Saddam who was only a military threat to his neighbors or perhaps a threat to gas prices (which hasn't turned out so well regardless)

    Whoa, there big fella. Surely the hundreds of thousands of victims of Saddam would dispute that slightly.

    And it's understating the point pretty fundamentally to say that Saddam was not a threat to anyone except his immediate neighbors.

    Surely you've heard of the Bush Doctrine:

    For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic perception of international stability prevailed in the policy-making debate. For a brief period during the Cold War, the realist policy of accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a policy that confronted that tyranny and made democracy and human rights inside the Soviet Union a litmus test for superpower relations.

    The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

    Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

    The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

    Yet with each passing day, new voices are added to the chorus of that doctrine's opponents, and the circle of its supporters grows ever smaller.

    Critics rail against every step on the new and difficult road on which the United States has embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls which have not been avoided and those which still can be, those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11.

    Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For should that spirit break, evil will indeed triumph, and the consequences for our world would be disastrous.

    http://tinyurl.com/fa4mv

    I think Mr. Orwell had many of the folks on the left in mind when he said the following:

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 10:14am

  17. i am not the only one who thinks that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait. Check Fujiyama on the fact that the neocons were desperately seeking a new enemy after collapse of the soviet union and the end of the cold war.

    for those whose knowledge of history comes straight from Fox, let me refresh. US ambassador April Gillespie assured Saddam that his "border dispute" with Kuwait was an internal matter. next week Saddam sent troops into that country, sheer coincidence, nicht wahr?

    Saddam actually had a pretty good argument that Kuwait was originally "part" of Iraq, as under the Ottomans it was administered by Iraq. the british had another idea and declared it an "independent" state, under their mandate.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 10:23am

  18. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 10:23am

    So, Johannes, to summarize, would it be fair to say that only those of us who get their news from Fox would dispute the idea that it is George Bush's fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait, because we 'needed an enemy'? And because other people agree with this idea, it is obviously not crazy?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 10:27am

  19. yes, the guys 30 years ago are to blame for 9/11, while the jerk who was on vacation and ignored intelligence briefings predicting an attack, well he had nothing to do with it. and why did Bush not catch B in Laden? must be Clinton's fault. you Tories are such a scream, always bitching that we find fault with your dear leader, while you rationalize and sanitize everything he botches, the bumbler. Enjoy your thousands of dead in Iraq and here at home you blood suckers.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 10:37am

  20. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 10:37am

    Enjoy your thousands of dead in Iraq and here at home you blood suckers.

    Easy, easy there big fella. Take big, deeep breaths.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 10:41am

  21. JR,

    They want Bushikins to keep them safey wafey from "evil". And if Bushikins needs to tuck them in bed every night (without a warrant) to keep them safey wafey their Ok with it.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/26/2006 @ 10:41am

  22. Pontificus quoted: Critics rail against every step on the new and difficult road on which the United States has embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls which have not been avoided and those which still can be, those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11.

    Ya gotta love this. Here it is decoded: Everything the lunatics in charge of the asylum want to do is okay because everything else leads to 9/11. It's just another variation on Rumsfeld's "Just because we didn't find anything doesn't mean it's not there." (He really said that as a justification for launching the war)

    Red Staters believe fervently in this sort of simple-minded blather. Sheer stupidity sounds profound to them because it relieves them of the responsibility of seeing the world in shades of gray. Good vs. Evil, etc. They are only comfortable with the word "freedom" after they've drained it of any meaning. As in: Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. Pontificus reads this sentence and feels invigorated, inspired; the comicbook profundity, the sense of heroically "pushing" the hordes of unfreedom back from the gates, Bush's "dissident spirit" (stop laughing!) all enable him to feel just a little less frightened in this world he doesn't comprehend. By reducing large problems to small bits of meaningless rhetoric Bush helps pathetic, ill-informed nincompoops like Pontificus get through their days. When the bell rings to finalize the conversion of America into a Christianized totalitarian state with concentration camps and death squads, Pontificus and NACL and their ilk will be among the first to vote for the suspension of the Bill of Rights and the proclamation of martial law. Neither Stalin nor Hitler could have perptrated their horrors without their Pontificuses (Pontifici?) This is the real danger of the Red State morons: they would gladly fill the pews in the church of totalitarianism, all the while thinking they're worshipping "freedom."

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/26/2006 @ 11:06am

  23. Well, as you know, BookmanJB, freedom is the sum total of the things one owns. That's really the perspective these jiveasses come from, however or whenever they say the word. And as you said earlier, they've had their noses up the poop channels of these warlords for so long, they'd not know freedom if it was candy coated. They think of themselves as dissidents, but real dissidents face off popular majorities who think they know everything. They remain two things, bullies, cowards, ever ready with the sneak attack, the death from above, etc. But look at them whine when they meet people who know how to fight back. And there will be more to come. "Yes, they deserve to die. And I hope they burn in hell."

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 04/26/2006 @ 11:26am

  24. Posted by BOOKMANJB 04/26/2006 @ 11:06am

    It's just another variation on Rumsfeld's "Just because we didn't find anything doesn't mean it's not there." (He really said that as a justification for launching the war)

    Well, he actually said:

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

    This is actually a fairly standard logical aphorism commonly attributed to Dr. Carl Sagan, the liberal scientist and philosopher. It is commonly used by scientists to remind each other and layman of a logical fallacy to be avoided, to wit, just because you fail to find something does not mean it is not or was not ever there.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 11:30am

  25. Red Staters believe fervently in this sort of simple-minded blather.

    So, you're saying that you believe that Carl Sagan is given to simple-minded blather?

    Sheer stupidity sounds profound to them because it relieves them of the responsibility of seeing the world in shades of gray. Good vs. Evil, etc. They are only comfortable with the word "freedom" after they've drained it of any meaning. As in: Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere.

    I think you forgot that it was Natan Scharansky who wrote that, not me.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 11:33am

  26. "the new and difficult road" to world domination. welcome to the soviet states of america

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 11:43am

  27. Posted by BOOKMANJB 04/26/2006 @ 11:06am

    Or come to think of it, perhaps you are attributing sheer stupidity to Natan Scharansky.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 11:48am

  28. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 11:43am

    "the new and difficult road" to world domination. welcome to the soviet states of america

    When logic fails, use slogans instead. They're much harder to refute, and they fit on a bumper sticker.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 11:51am

  29. Yeah, like "Mission Accomplished."

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/26/2006 @ 12:13pm

  30. That one fit on a Navy ship.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/26/2006 @ 12:14pm

  31. Posted by HMAN23 04/26/2006 @ 12:14am

    That one fit on a Navy ship.

    Oh well. Now if you folks would only confine yourselves to actual faults, like this, rather than imagined ones, maybe we'd get somewhere.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 12:20pm

  32. US ambassador April Gillespie assured Saddam that his "border dispute" with Kuwait was an internal matter. next week Saddam sent troops into that country, sheer coincidence, nicht wahr?

    Saddam actually had a pretty good argument that Kuwait was originally "part" of Iraq, as under the Ottomans it was administered by Iraq. the british had another idea and declared it an "independent" state, under their mandate.

    First, the fact that Glaspie was talking about a border dispute is a good sign that she wasn't envisioning a complete conquest and annexation of Kuwait, so to say that we gave Iraq a green light to do so is stretching it. I don't buy for a moment that we suckered Hussein, be probably thought he could get away with it.

    As to the Iraqi claim, the fact is that Kuwait has been a sovereign country since the early 60s, if you're going to argue that its borders are invalid because they were drawn by imperial powers, you are opening a huge Pandora's box.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 12:42pm

  33. PONT

    The only problem is that Iraq had nothing to do either with al-Qaida and its affiliates or with freedom. First, he touted al-Qaida and WMD. When those rationales fell, then he started talking about freedom. First, it's interesting that he doesn't seem to do much about it in friendly countries (what positive steps has he taken re Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc.). Second, the original US plan wasn't for elections but for appointed councils to set up a constitution. It was Sistani who forced the US into elections.

    America's safety has not been enhanced one bit by going into Iraq.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 12:45pm

  34. Pontificator

    Your post: "The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world".

    You seem like an intelligent albeit loquacious fellow so I'm sure you have seen through Bush's campaign to spread "democracy" and know, like anyone else with a modicum of intelligence, that it, like so much of the conservative rhetorique being developed into talking points for the consumption of idiots, is nothing more than an attempt to put a moral face on an amoral, and arguably even immoral action. The real motivation behind this apparently altruistic aspect of neocon foreign policy ( and yes Bush is not a neocon but he plays one on T.V. ) is not to spread Democracy but to make the world safe for Capitalism ( as in free unregulated markets made safe for the predatory practices of large corporations ). The fact that conditions condusive to these ends sometimes happen to prevail in democratic governments is coincidental and, from the neocon perspective, peripheral. But it does allow the neocons to pretend to a moral underpinning for their philosophy.

    I won't go into a long dissertation on how we've conveniently forgotten that the president of Iran ( a sovereign nation that we're talking seriously of bombing ) was democratically elected or how we're doing everything in our power to undermine the Palestinian free elections and how The CIA recently tried to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez and yet we have no problem with General Musharraf or Bush's buddies, the Saudi royal family.

    Okay that was a dissertation but at least I spared you the long one. The hypocricy of pretending that we're interested in fostering democracy abroad is so apparent to anyone who looks at what we do as opposed to what we say that I don't think anyone takes seriously the tired argument that tries to portray Bush's democratic crusade as some sort of moral crusade. Go peddle it elsewhere.

    Posted by msmuffet at 04/26/2006 @ 12:51pm

  35. Bruno, the thing with Gillespie is open to interpretation.Fukuyama, not the mangled name I posted before, agrees with me. but the facts must be reiterated.

    the brits carved Kuwait from Iraq in the 20s, independence obviously came much later. I was trying to illuminate that our adversaries have different interpretations, and Saddam was correct, Kuwait was administered from Baghdad during the ottoman empire. I am not one to open the pandoras box on the mideast, but to understand the enemy you must learn about who he is and why they are the enemy and how they think.

    I can recommend a book I just finished reading, really great:

    L. Carl Brown, International Politics and the Middle East, OLD RULES, DANGEROUS GAME,Princeton University Press

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 12:57pm

  36. Msmuffet, right you are. more fertile ground for "democratisation" might have been found among our "allies" such as Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan et al,

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:01pm

  37. "First, the fact that Glaspie was talking about a border dispute is a good sign that she wasn't envisioning a complete conquest and annexation of Kuwait, so to say that we gave Iraq a green light to do so is stretching it. I don't buy for a moment that we suckered Hussein, be probably thought he could get away with it."

    you're not connecting the dots here, Bruno. add to this the fact that Bush Sr. our KGB president, was shamed into standing up to Saddam. his first reaction was to do nothing.

    I know we bump into each other consistently, not a bad thing, but let me just say that I appreciate your thoughtful posts

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:04pm

  38. Yo, Ponty:

    It's just another variation on Rumsfeld's "Just because we didn't find anything doesn't mean it's not there." (He really said that as a justification for launching the war)

    Well, he actually said:

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

    The "Absence of evidence" phrase is a scientific research cliche which Rumsfeld's office employed in a press release (and which Rumsfeld subsequently used) in an attempt to lessen the embarrassment caused when he said the idiotic sentence pretty much as I quoted above on a Sunday morning talk show. Get your facts straight, asshole.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/26/2006 @ 1:05pm

  39. Johannes, Brunowe, et al., I can also recommend a book on the same subject titled STORM FROM THE EAST: The Struggle Between the Arab World and the Christian West, by Milton Viorst, which is a rather concise history of Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism and how they've responded to both Western intervention and internal political forces. It covers from the seventh century to today, and (from a wetern persepective) is generally apolitical until it hits the current war in Iraq. Excellent reading.

    Posted by breasonable at 04/26/2006 @ 1:19pm

  40. thanks B.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:26pm

  41. Thanks to B and JR

    JR, I appreciate your posts too. I fully understand why Iraq would feel they had a right to Kuwait, this sentiment predates the Republic having been expressed during the monarchy and I wish that Glaspie had been more precise--I suspect she was anticipating the Iraq would just grab the oilfield on the border where the slant drilling was taking place and some islands in the Shatt-al-Arab. I still tend to think of it as a diplomatic blunder rather then sucking in Hussein.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 1:31pm

  42. !!Ladies & Gentleman!!

    It is almost May 5th, and therefore time for some off topic historical triva!

    One little known fact regarding the Titanic disaster concerns the transportation of 10,000 cases of Premium Mayonnaise in the hold of the ship. The condiment was a novelty then and was to be presented to the Mexican people as a gift from the British consulate once the ship had debouched its passengers in New York.

    Of course, the Titanic never made it to New York, let alone on from there to Mexico, and the mayonnaise went to the bottom with the ship. Mexico, being a third world nation, rarely saw such delicacies, & they were devastated when they heard the news: So devastated in fact, that several weeks later declared a National Day of Mourning over it.

    Which we still know today as,

    El Sinko de Mayo.

    Have a good day,

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/26/2006 @ 1:34pm

  43. very laugh out loud funny, Chip, this one i'll circulate, with your permission

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:39pm

  44. Johannesrolf,

    Sure, go ahead.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/26/2006 @ 2:50pm

  45. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/26/2006 @ 12:34am: The Church committee and Frank Church did more to undermine national security than any other "sanctioned" group in recent history. Singlehandidly, they did more to allow 9/11 than anyone currently in national office.

    The degree of lunacy you exhibit with each and every post is breathtaking. Its as if you are calling out to the world, "Hey, look at me, I am a crazed, delusional lunatic".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:01pm

  46. Posted by NACL 04/26/2006 @ 02:59am

    To which the Saltman replies, "No! Look at me. I am an even crazier delusional lunatic!".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:03pm

  47. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 10:02am: I rely on the arguments of others when I feel that they make their points better than I do. For example, I rely on Natan Scharansky to elucidate the Bush Doctrine because he states it very clearly.

    You rely on the arguments of others because you are unable to construct arguments of your own. You were unable to answer the simple questions:

    * How did Iraq threaten the US prior to our invasion?

    * How is the US better off now that we are occupying Iraq?

    You first pointed to the Decider's speeches. Then you pointed to an article by Sharansky explaining the Bush Doctrine. Clearly, these are both non-responsive. The real answer is that YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:11pm

  48. Posted by MSMUFFET 04/26/2006 @ 12:51am

    You seem like an intelligent albeit loquacious fellow so I'm sure you have seen through Bush's campaign to spread "democracy" and know, like anyone else with a modicum of intelligence, that it, like so much of the conservative rhetorique being developed into talking points for the consumption of idiots, is nothing more than an attempt to put a moral face on an amoral, and arguably even immoral action. The real motivation behind this apparently altruistic aspect of neocon foreign policy ( and yes Bush is not a neocon but he plays one on T.V. ) is not to spread Democracy but to make the world safe for Capitalism ( as in free unregulated markets made safe for the predatory practices of large corporations ). The fact that conditions condusive to these ends sometimes happen to prevail in democratic governments is coincidental and, from the neocon perspective, peripheral. But it does allow the neocons to pretend to a moral underpinning for their philosophy.

    Ah, but history shows that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, my good man. Capitalism requires that the government protect the individual rights to life, liberty, and property and in return, provides the most successful econony in the history of the world (that of the US). Surely you can see that. It is no accident that the leftist countries of the 20th century were not only the greatest economic failures, but also the most murderous, tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind. I realize it's not fashionable to teach these truths in the universities, which seem to be the last refuge of scoundrels and flim-flam artists posing as intellectuals, but they are nevertheless true.

    I won't go into a long dissertation on how we've conveniently forgotten that the president of Iran ( a sovereign nation that we're talking seriously of bombing ) was democratically elected

    Well, yes, so was Hitler. So was Saddam, who received 100 percent of the vote. That does not confer any greater degree of moral standing on either of them.

    or how we're doing everything in our power to undermine the Palestinian free elections

    Are we? I didn't know that. Perhaps you mean we are trying to influence them such that those who advocate murder of civilians are not elected. Is that what you mean?

    and how The CIA recently tried to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez

    Well, that's another issue, but it's not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

    and yet we have no problem with General Musharraf or Bush's buddies, the Saudi royal family.

    Who says we have no problem with them?

    Okay that was a dissertation but at least I spared you the long one. The hypocricy of pretending that we're interested in fostering democracy abroad is so apparent to anyone who looks at what we do as opposed to what we say that I don't think anyone takes seriously the tired argument that tries to portray Bush's democratic crusade as some sort of moral crusade. Go peddle it elsewhere.

    It's not a moral crusade, as I though Scharansky made most clear. It's a crusade that happens to have our own self-interest at heart, but which is only coincidentally moral. To wit:

    For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic perception of international stability prevailed in the policy-making debate. For a brief period during the Cold War, the realist policy of accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a policy that confronted that tyranny and made democracy and human rights inside the Soviet Union a litmus test for superpower relations.

    The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

    Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

    The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

    Really, I can't continue to point out things to you which you refuse to read and digest on your own. That's ORWELL's specialty.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 3:31pm

  49. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/26/2006 @ 3:11pm

    You rely on the arguments of others because you are unable to construct arguments of your own.

    Meaningless blather.

    You were unable to answer the simple questions:

    * How did Iraq threaten the US prior to our invasion?

    * How is the US better off now that we are occupying Iraq?

    You first pointed to the Decider's speeches. Then you pointed to an article by Sharansky explaining the Bush Doctrine. Clearly, these are both non-responsive. The real answer is that YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

    The answer to both of these questions is contained in the citations I gave to you, twice. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 3:35pm

  50. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 3:31pm: Really, I can't continue to point out things to you which you refuse to read and digest on your own. That's ORWELL's specialty.

    Look M, no one is asking you to continually regurgitate Sharansky's regurgitation of the utterly regurgitable Bush Doctrine. Can you state specifically how Iraq was threatening the US prior to the Invasion?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:40pm

  51. Please note how the Bush chicken-hawks and poltroons attack bona fide American heroes like Frank Church.

    Frank Church Chronology

    by R. Gwenn Stearn

    1944-45

    Serves as 2nd lieutenant in military intelligence - China-Burma-India theatre. Decorated Bronze Star.

    Source: Boise State University; Frank Church Papers.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:42pm

  52. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/26/2006 @ 12:45am

    The only problem is that Iraq had nothing to do either with al-Qaida and its affiliates or with freedom. First, he touted al-Qaida and WMD. When those rationales fell, then he started talking about freedom. First, it's interesting that he doesn't seem to do much about it in friendly countries (what positive steps has he taken re Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc.). Second, the original US plan wasn't for elections but for appointed councils to set up a constitution. It was Sistani who forced the US into elections.

    I guess the first problem, Brunowe, is that you have to begin from the premise that George Bush may not actually be the focus of evil in the modern world, that everything he says may not actually be a lie, and that he may actually mean what he says. You'd be surprised how much is possible if you throw out these starting points; you don't even have to admit that they are true, just admit that they are not necessarily true. You'd be surprised exactly how much sense the world makes as well.

    America's safety has not been enhanced one bit by going into Iraq.

    Opinion posing as fact. It's okay to have that opinion, but recognize it as such, and have the facts at hand to back it up. Cite some examples which support your position, if you have any.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 3:44pm

  53. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 3:35pm: The answer to both of these questions is contained in the citations I gave to you, twice. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

    Your "citations" were "Read Bush's speeches". I assume the Chimpman has given thousands of speeches during his reign. Is there a particular speech that you want to point to?

    We all know that your real answer is "I don't know". So, let me explain. The real answer is "Iraq did not threaten the US prior to our invasion".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:46pm

  54. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 3:44pm: I guess the first problem, Brunowe, is that you have to begin from the premise that George Bush may not actually be the focus of evil in the modern world, that everything he says may not actually be a lie, and that he may actually mean what he says. You'd be surprised how much is possible if you throw out these starting points; you don't even have to admit that they are true, just admit that they are not necessarily true. You'd be surprised exactly how much sense the world makes as well.

    Yes, if only you could learn to Love Big Brother, then you would see that 2+2 does indeed equal 5.

    America's safety has not been enhanced one bit by going into Iraq.

    Opinion posing as fact. It's okay to have that opinion, but recognize it as such, and have the facts at hand to back it up. Cite some examples which support your position, if you have any.

    I know this one. The answer is "Read Bush's Speeches. I'm not going to spoon-feed you." Did I get it right, Moronificus?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:50pm

  55. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/26/2006 @ 3:40pm

    Look M, no one is asking you to continually regurgitate Sharansky's regurgitation of the utterly regurgitable Bush Doctrine. Can you state specifically how Iraq was threatening the US prior to the Invasion?

    Okay, ORWELL, you've browbeaten me into making another attempt to talk sense to you. See if you can make sense of the following passage, as well as its inmplications:

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

    Saddam was not the only source of terror in the mideast, his country was part of a seething cauldron of disparate societies, which taken collectively, act as the world's greatest single source of terrorism. We know that Saddam supported at least some terrorists, just like the Taliban did. Not all, but some. Collectively, the Islamofascist world represents a confederation of lawless, fanatical, authoritarian societies that use hatred of Western values as a glue to hold them togeither (similar to how a hatred of capitalism holds the left together). After 9/11, we must recognize that we can no longer live in our little shell here in America, we must proactively work to stamp out all of the little hellholes in the middle east that are breeding the terrorists that might bring their evil to America's shores.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 3:55pm

  56. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 3:55pm:Okay, ORWELL, you've browbeaten me into making another attempt to talk sense to you. See if you can make sense of the following passage, as well as its inmplications:

    Sorry, M, but I guess I am unable to make sense of the "inmplications". As best I can tell, you feel that Iraq was an Islamofascist state that threatened the US by giving money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers. Is that it?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 4:00pm

  57. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 3:55pm: We must proactively work to stamp out all of the little hellholes in the middle east that are breeding the terrorists that might bring their evil to America's shores.

    Utter madness, that is ponty.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 4:01pm

  58. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/26/2006 @ 4:00pm

    As best I can tell, you feel that Iraq was an Islamofascist state that threatened the US by giving money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers. Is that it?

    That's part of it, yes. I might also mention that by being one of the worst mass-murderers and one of the most oppressive dictators in the middle east, he was responsible for creating a lawless gangster society where people who valued peace and civilized behavior were like sheep to the slaughter. Where lawlessness was the norm, thus creating a society in which terrorists could breed and murderous fanaticism could thrive. The very fanaticism that reached our shores on 9/11.

    Most broadly, the idea is that people who are brought up in healthy democratic societies do not strap bombs to themselves so they can blow up the most innocent civilians in order to please Allah and reach heaven.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 4:09pm

  59. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/26/2006 @ 4:01pm

    Utter madness, that is ponty.

    So is doing nothing, apparently. You got a better plan?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 4:13pm

  60. I guess the US is the great exterminator rooting out the termites of terrorists. what a world view.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 4:14pm

  61. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 4:09pm:

    As best I can tell, you feel that Iraq was an Islamofascist state that threatened the US by giving money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers. Is that it?

    That's part of it, yes.

    Now, does the fact that Iraq was not an Islamic state matter in your analysis, or are they Islamofascists simply because the Decider has deemed it so?

    How about the fact that Palestinean suicide bombers did not threaten the US in any way? Or, is it a threat to the US simply because the Decider has deemed it so?

    Most broadly, the idea is that people who are brought up in healthy democratic societies do not strap bombs to themselves so they can blow up the most innocent civilians in order to please Allah and reach heaven.

    So, the more general claim is that any state that is not a healthy democratic society is a threat to the US. Is that right?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 4:16pm

  62. Ponti

    "even if I do feel it's informed by an unreasoning hatred."

    Well, no...actually it a well-reasoned dislike. Like for the installation of NSA spy equipment in AT&T switch rooms. Equipment that sniffs through telecomm and digital streams. Not JUST to OBL's calls....but millions of citizens (as far as we can tell from the limited info that trickles out.) Just Nosy?

    "the hundreds of thousands of victims of Saddam"

    Well, the internal problems were a given. I believe the *real* issue (with respect to war) was that he was a grave threat to the US. Can you make that claim with a straight face? (Again...refer to the recent 60 mins episode where the claim was made that Dubya, et al, ignored intel because it "didn't fit". CBS Intel from a reliable source...versus the unreliable crap. Or the military intel report discounting those so-called bioweapons trailers before he told the nation "We found the evidence" Big Lie)

    re: "The Bush Doctrine

    You'll pardon if I pass on the Kool-aid? I'd like to think that our chief exec doesn't believe himself above the law. That our rights STILL ARE our rights. Apparently Dubya et al do not think these liberties to be important any more - "post 9-11."

    BTW: hate to sound like a conspiracy freak, but it IS awfully odd that on the morning of Sept 11, they were running military simulations of planes running into bldgs. on the eastern seaboard that usurped control of most air traffic control. Not pointing a finger or anything....but damned odd, don't you think? Or does that sound reasonable to you? (Maybe take another sip of that sweet red jiuce first!) Co-inky -dink?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 4:20pm

  63. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/26/2006 @ 4:15pm: blah blah Clinton's fault blah blah Clinton blah

    Don't leave out my favorite. You remember how the Decider choose to ignore the August 2001 PDB about Al Queda's determination to strike within the US? The reason he decided to ignore it was that Clinton told him to do it. That's right. According to "www.iamabushlovingidiot.com", Clinton got the Decider drunk and convinced him to ignore the PDB. You see, Clinton and Kennedy had a side deal selling cocaine in Afghanistan and they thought that coke prices would rise if Al Queda was successful in attacking the US. So, all you Liberals should remember, 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton hadn't been a coke dealer.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 4:24pm

  64. the fact that these nutcases continue to call Iraq an islamofascist state speaks volumes about their ignorance. Iraq was the most secular of all middle east states. only after the US invasion and the smashing of that country, have the islamists gained any traction in Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 4:24pm

  65. selling coke in the home of opium and heroin? hahhahah

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 4:25pm

  66. ....and let's not forget that the mere term "Islamo-fascist" is coined hate-speak not unlike Uncle Adolph's characterization of the Jews, blacks, and anyone else not a member of the club.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 4:32pm

  67. Johann....maybe they needed a little "pick-me-up" after all those narcotics!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 4:33pm

  68. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/26/2006 @ 4:16pm

    Now, does the fact that Iraq was not an Islamic state matter in your analysis, or are they Islamofascists simply because the Decider has deemed it so?

    Well, perhaps they were more fascist than Islamic, but they certainly had the trappings of both. Certainly I could pull out plenty of old clippings where Saddam posed as an Islamist, but I will willing concede the point that he was secular in full confidence that it doesn't undermine the thrust of my argument at all. Whether you decide to ignore that thrust is up to you.

    How about the fact that Palestinean suicide bombers did not threaten the US in any way?

    I think they do, actually. If they can strike Israel, why can't they strike the US, which is Israel's main protector? The fact that they don't is far more a logistical matter than it is a philosophical one. And since the logistical trend does not favor us, we have reason to fear.

    Or, is it a threat to the US simply because the Decider has deemed it so?

    Actually, I would say that Bush represents the majority view of the country rather than that he is misleading us. This seems to be another one of those conundra, whereas you seem to accord to him some mystical power to mislead, even while you (sometimes rightly) scorn his rhetorical skills.

    So, the more general claim is that any state that is not a healthy democratic society is a threat to the US. Is that right?

    That's right, but it doesn't mean we're going to systematicall attack every one of them. Different approaches are required for different cases. What works in Iraq may not work in Iran or North Korea. Sudan may be a lower priority than other countries. The only thing that is needed is a coordinated strategy.

    Speaking of which, you still didn't answer my question. George Bush has a strategy, which I realize you don't agree with. What exactly is your strategy?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 4:51pm

  69. When reading Ponty's and NACL's and their ilk's posts, the question that keeps jumping out is: how can they be so stupid? And on their side, they're some of the brighter ones. Is this some weird evolutionary side-stepping: ignorance and stupidity prevail over knowledge and intelligence? Because their boys--no brighter than these two dim bulbs--are in charge. They're driving world events. They haven't a clue about the direction but they're in the driver's seat nonetheless. Maybe it's Intelligent Design. The Designer made the intelligent choice of putting the idiots in charge so that the whole big mistake will self-destruct.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/26/2006 @ 4:51pm

  70. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/26/2006 @ 4:24pm

    the fact that these nutcases continue to call Iraq an islamofascist state speaks volumes about their ignorance. Iraq was the most secular of all middle east states. only after the US invasion and the smashing of that country, have the islamists gained any traction in Iraq.

    Johannes, since you're speaking as one who blames George Bush for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, I would tread lightly when it comes to calling other people nutcases. I'm sure if I poked your beliefs a few more times, I might find a few more pralines, pecans, or Brazils rattling around your noggin. For instance, are you one of those that thinks that George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks? Charlie Sheen thinks so, and I haven't heard you call him a nut. Ah, the left.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 4:57pm

  71. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/26/2006 @ 4:20pm

    BTW: hate to sound like a conspiracy freak,

    then you should have stopped there

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 5:04pm

  72. LEFTOCENTER

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin"

    The key word is ESSENTIAL liberty, where in the Constitution is it ESSENTIAL to be allowed to talk to terrorists and plot violence against innocents? That is not the ESSENTIAL liberty Franklin spoke of.

    Posted by CPT at 04/26/2006 @ 5:14pm

  73. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/26/2006 @ 4:20pm

    Well, no...actually it a well-reasoned dislike. Like for the installation of NSA spy equipment in AT&T switch rooms. Equipment that sniffs through telecomm and digital streams. Not JUST to OBL's calls....but millions of citizens (as far as we can tell from the limited info that trickles out.) Just Nosy?

    Well, that's certainly a concern, and something that all of us will need to keep an eye on. But I will tell you, speaking as an internet professional, that this type of sniffing was begun during the Clinton years, because I know people who knew people who were involved in it. I don't find anything particularly sinister with AT&T being involved, however, because who are you gonna call to do this work, Mother Jones?

    Well, the internal problems were a given. I believe the *real* issue (with respect to war) was that he was a grave threat to the US. Can you make that claim with a straight face? (Again...refer to the recent 60 mins episode where the claim was made that Dubya, et al, ignored intel because it "didn't fit". CBS Intel from a reliable source...versus the unreliable crap. Or the military intel report discounting those so-called bioweapons trailers before he told the nation "We found the evidence" Big Lie)

    I don't believe for a minute that Bush was any less convinced in the danger that Iraq posed than any of the dozens of high-ranking Democrats who believed the same thing. At the same time, I don't think that Bush thought at any moment that WMD's were the only reason to take out Saddam, either, because I didn't think so, either.

    re: the Bush Doctrine

    You'll pardon if I pass on the Kool-aid?

    I don't get the Kool-aid reference. The doctrine is a rational, well-thought out response to the threat of terrorism. It doesn't require any faith at all to believe it. This doesn't mean you have to, but you can't call it irrational either.

    I'd like to think that our chief exec doesn't believe himself above the law. That our rights STILL ARE our rights. Apparently Dubya et al do not think these liberties to be important any more - "post 9-11."

    I disagree, and so does the vast majority of Congress. Apparently he has conducted some warrantless surveillence of suspected terrorists making phone calls to their contacts in the US. How this affects our rights, I'm not sure if it does at all. In any case, any balanced person would wait until all the facts are known. I fully understand this idea of 'balanced' does not apply to those with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, however.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 5:17pm

  74. Posted by CPT 04/26/2006 @ 5:14pm: That is not the ESSENTIAL liberty Franklin spoke of.

    So what is the ESSENTIAL liberty, CPT?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 5:25pm

  75. Posted by BOOKMANJB 04/26/2006 @ 4:51pm

    Because their boys--no brighter than these two dim bulbs--are in charge. They're driving world events.

    As part of the duties of your self-appointed membership in the elite intellectual strata of society, perhaps you can explain to me how the left can accord Bush and Cheney such ominiscience and omnipotence in driving world events, and yet their dim-bulb status. Can it be possible that they can simultaneously both incredibly stupid and incredibly smart? Are they idiot savants, or what? Eagerly awaiting your explanation.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/26/2006 @ 5:26pm

  76. Lefty, you mean a speedball? killer of Belushi? and many others

    now they're going to spin Benjamin Franklin? it means what it says. these clowns are a trip, man

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 5:31pm

  77. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 4:51pm: but I will willing concede the point that he was secular in full confidence that it doesn't undermine the thrust of my argument at all.

    You only claimed 2 points. You are now conceding that the first point was incorrect. So we are left with the threat of Palestinean suicide bombers:

    If they can strike Israel, why can't they strike the US, which is Israel's main protector? The fact that they don't is far more a logistical matter than it is a philosophical one. And since the logistical trend does not favor us, we have reason to fear.

    Sounds very very scary. The Palestineans can't strike us for logistical reasons, but you claim that they want to. So the answer is to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives by invading a country that is tangentially related to the Palestineans. Good solid thinking, that. Thank you for helping me to understand the delusional thought processes of a madman.

    What works in Iraq may not work in Iran or North Korea.

    Am I to understand that you feel Iraq is working?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 5:32pm

  78. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 5:17pm: I don't get the Kool-aid reference.

    You of all people certainly should.

    The doctrine is a rational, well-thought out response to the threat of terrorism. It doesn't require any faith at all to believe it. This doesn't mean you have to, but you can't call it irrational either.

    You mean the rational doctrine that leads you to believe that "any state that is not a healthy democratic society is a threat to the US". And that is rational why?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 5:35pm

  79. CPT

    ...as opposed to "unessential" liberties?

    Ponti

    Did you happen to notice your last point conflicts your first point? "Essential" wiretapping versus setting up the electronic version of a fishing net...and all you can say is "we'll have to keep an eye on it? Howzabout we stop it because it's fricking illegal?

    BTW: Them "high-ranking Dems" did NOT have access to the intel/info noted in my post above. Therefore the logic that Dubya and the "high-ranking Dems" should reach the same conclusion is both fallacious and groundless.

    Well thought out is NOT equivalent to rational.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 5:36pm

  80. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/26/2006 @ 5:26pm: perhaps you can explain to me how the left can accord Bush and Cheney such ominiscience and omnipotence in driving world events, and yet their dim-bulb status.

    Umm... They are in charge of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet. And they are doing a horrendously awful job of running it.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 5:38pm

  81. Now this has been some kind of fun thread to wade through. I need a seriously strong detergent to bathe in, but the muck has been a blast.

    We've got LUVLIBERTY with a couple of major posts designed to slam Church and the results of his committee. Only one problem. There is still a gap between each of the pastes he makes and the work of the Church Committee. Each instance can be boiled down to nothing more than "and he said, 'We would have caught that bad guys if it hadn't been for that meddling Church and his committee.'" without tying specific flaws in the committee's work with intelligence flaws.

    We have CPT interpreting Benjamin Franklin for us. Tomorrow, ZERO will be doing an incredible spin as Britney Spears while NACL plays the part of her adorable baby as they re-enact that harrowing scene of Britney and Baby behind the wheel.

    And we have massive and entertaining posts by PONTIFICUS. I read every word. And this was my favorite part.

    I might also mention that by being one of the worst mass-murderers and one of the most oppressive dictators in the middle east, he was responsible for creating a lawless gangster society where people who valued peace and civilized behavior were like sheep to the slaughter. Where lawlessness was the norm, thus creating a society in which terrorists could breed and murderous fanaticism could thrive. The very fanaticism that reached our shores on 9/11.

    Now that's some very cool logic or whatever. Lawlessness and gangsters breeding terrorists. And you say this happened first on 9/11? The hell you say. Now I know these aren't documentaries, but perhaps you might want to watch something like High Plains Drifter or Goodfellas, two of my favorite movies. Not a lot of lawfulness in them, but good movies nonetheless.

    By the way Pontificus, I am not fond of doing the pasted point and counterpoint thing that others favor. So in our confab earlier this week I responded without pasting specific portions of your posts as references. I figured that since they were your words, you would remember them and own up to them. I guess by doing that I gave you an opportunity to act as if words typed above your byline cease to exist once we scroll down the page a bit. You may do that, of course. I've grown accustomed to this strategy from the President and Vice-President on down to the lowest level shlub within the administration who finds a mic pushed toward his lips. You can do better than emulate their performances.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/26/2006 @ 6:43pm

  82. TJ -

    The portion of the Popester's gibberish that you chose is instructive as to mindset of the torutred mind behind it:

    Where lawlessness was the norm, thus creating a society in which terrorists could breed and murderous fanaticism could thrive. The very fanaticism that reached our shores on 9/11.

    Clearly, the Pontif is trying to make the (fallacious, discredited) connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11. Three years from the invasion and we are still debunking this nonsense. No wonder why 90% of our troops think Saddam was in on 9/11 with keen intellects like this about.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/26/2006 @ 7:08pm

  83. Best of all, SKELETON, they didn't hear the Iraq-9/11 fallacy from the administration.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/26/2006 @ 7:50pm

  84. That's part of it, yes. I might also mention that by being one of the worst mass-murderers and one of the most oppressive dictators in the middle east, he was responsible for creating a lawless gangster society where people who valued peace and civilized behavior were like sheep to the slaughter. Where lawlessness was the norm, thus creating a society in which terrorists could breed and murderous fanaticism could thrive. The very fanaticism that reached our shores on 9/11.That's part of it, yes. I might also mention that by being one of the worst mass-murderers and one of the most oppressive dictators in the middle east, he was responsible for creating a lawless gangster society where people who valued peace and civilized behavior were like sheep to the slaughter. Where lawlessness was the norm, thus creating a society in which terrorists could breed and murderous fanaticism could thrive. The very fanaticism that reached our shores on 9/11.

    The only problem is that the fanaticism that reached our shores wasn't tied to Iraq at all. You slipped that conclusory bit in without any substantiation--the typical neo-con trick of conflating Iraq and 9/11.

    I guess the first problem, Brunowe, is that you have to begin from the premise that George Bush may not actually be the focus of evil in the modern world, that everything he says may not actually be a lie, and that he may actually mean what he says.

    Of course, I don't start with the premise at all. It's simply your rhetorical reflex of tagging anyone who doesn't buy the neo-con party of that type of extremism. The point is I gave you very specific reasons why the claim that the Iraq invasion was about democracy wasn't credible, and of course you had no solid response to any of them.

    Well, yes, so was Hitler. So was Saddam, who received 100 percent of the vote. That does not confer any greater degree of moral standing on either of them.

    You know very wel that Saddam was never democratically elected. And Hitler took power in a back-room political coalition deal.

    The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.

    The only problem is the Reagan yelling "tear down this wall" had far less to do with the Soviet Union then the latters internal decrepitude and demoralization in Afghanistan.

    The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries.

    No, what he does is use democracy as a rhetorical device to justify going into countries he was going to invade anyway.

    America's safety has not been enhanced one bit by going into Iraq.

    Opinion posing as fact. It's okay to have that opinion, but recognize it as such, and have the facts at hand to back it up. Cite some examples which support your position, if you have any.

    Simple, Iraq was neutralized militarily, had no WMD and no ties to al-Qaida. Since Iraq wasn't a threat, going in there didn't advance our safety. Now I suppose you can provide proof as to how our safety was enhanced.

    CPT

    The key word is ESSENTIAL liberty, where in the Constitution is it ESSENTIAL to be allowed to talk to terrorists and plot violence against innocents? That is not the ESSENTIAL liberty Franklin spoke of.

    Again, you have no proof that that is who is being listened too, and the program has turned up mostly dead-ends.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 9:11pm

  85. broadside aimed at all administration apologists

    look, the only way in which our modern intelligence community "let us down" was by knuckling under to bushco when they (the intelligence community) were told by bushco to find evidence of wmd and hussein/al queda links instead of present an accurate picture of what was happening. but then to stand up to the liars would have resulted in demotion or remotion, so i cant blame the agencies. the fault lies squarely with the lying, arrogant, cynical, incompetant, corrupt bastards we supposedly elected in 00.

    by the 70s the cia et al had gotten way out of control and you can excuse evil all you want and pretend anything done in the NAME of national security (often a nebulous, dubious, and self serving definition) by US is inherently good, but you are either ignorant, possessed of poor moral/ethical judgement, or just too weak willed to see a truth you find disturbing. or just too proud to either admit your wrong or see your country as anything but lily white pure.

    i love my country too, love it enough to see when its careening out of control and commiting evil, even if in the name of fighting evil. i do not condone it. do you?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2006 @ 11:11pm

  86. Ponty

    Sorry to be so late responding to your post but I do have other obligations.

    Ah, but history shows that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, my good man. Capitalism requires that the government protect the individual rights to life, liberty, and property and in return, provides the most successful econony in the history of the world (that of the US). Surely you can see that.

    - Surely you can see that the success of your vaunted economy only accrues to a small percentage of the population, my good man. The U.S. is seventeenth out of the seventeen most highly developed nations in the world when it comes to inequalities in the distribution of income to point out one example among many -

    It is no accident that the leftist countries of the 20th century were not only the greatest economic failures, but also the most murderous, tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind.

    - Thanks for the history lesson. And there's me thinking that the governments of Hitler, Mousallini, Franco, Pinochet et al were Right Wing, fascist dictatorships -

    I realize it's not fashionable to teach these truths in the universities, which seem to be the last refuge of scoundrels...

    - I thought Samuel Johnson said that "patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel". Seems almost prescient given the posturing of some conservatives in the Post 9/11 era.-

    Well, yes, so was Hitler. So was Saddam (democratically elected ), who received 100 percent of the vote. That does not confer any greater degree of moral standing on either of them.

    - Hmm. So much for democracy when you don't agree with the results of the election -

    Are we ( doing everything in our power to undermine the Palestinian free elections )? I didn't know that. Perhaps you mean we are trying to influence them such that those who advocate murder of civilians are not elected. Is that what you mean?

    - No friend what I mean is we are doing our best to cut off all outside economic support for the Palestinian people and trying to starve them into social chaos so as to nullify the elections and we are supporting Isreal in their efforts to hold back money legitimately owed to them in the form of taxes etc. These actions are not sanctions. They are blackmail and can not be justified -

    and Well, that's another issue ( how The CIA recently tried to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez ) but it's not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

    - Pray, do illuminate me ! -

    Who says we have no problem with [ General Musharraf or Bush's buddies, the Saudi royal family ] ?

    -We don't. At least as far as our policy toward them is concerned. That's a simple statement of fact. But we sure as hell will if Musharraf ever gets overthrown by a popular movement. Sorry. I should have said when he gets overthrown. And when that happens you're going to see some big time meddling in Pakistani affairs and to hell with pretentions at democracy-

    As to the rest of your argument sorry but I'm running out of patience. I can only repeat; respect the intelligence of the people on this website or go peddle your b.s. elsewhere !

    Posted by msmuffet at 04/26/2006 @ 11:13pm

  87. .

    BOOKMANJB 04/26 @ 07:36am

    Let's never forget that Saddam was placed on the CIA payroll by Bush Sr. in the 70's and collected his blood money right up until the Gulf War. NACL and his ilk have had their noses so far up the shit canals of the worst, most murderous scum of this or any other age for so many decades that they think the reek is perfume.

    You like to remember what never was. You want to forget that Saddam was in the Soviet camp, not the American. He was the tool of the KGB not the CIA. Soviet ambassador to Baghdad, Primakov was his mentor and life long friend, not Bush. The US did not have so much as diplomatic relations with Iraq from July 1967 to Nov 1984.

    NACL and his ilk over the past sixty years loudly supported regimes all over the world that raped nuns and murdered priests...and did EVERYTHING in their power to kill democracy."

    It's weeks since I raped a nun and months since I murdered a priest. I left off savaging democracy to have more time to sodomize children. Now that's done with, and so are you. If I want any shit out of you, Ill squeeze your head. .

    Posted by nacl at 04/27/2006 @ 02:16am

  88. .

    GLENNC.LEMON 04/26 @ 08:58am

    BOOKMAN: NACL and his ilk over the past sixty years loudly supported regimes all over the world that raped nuns and murdered priests

    GLENNC.LEMON: You have your finger on the pulse of the situation. NaCl indulges in rhetorical whacking off over torture and tongues ripped out --- you can hear his stunted grunts, the heavy breathing as he types it out --- but human rights is all a verbal game to him

    What you fellows do with your fingers is between your ass and your mouth, and none of my business. I just wish that that were you most disgusting aspect.

    I am not being polemical or rhetorical when I say, you knew that Saddam was a mass murderer, accused by the UN and HRW of having put 300,000 civilians into mass graves. You knew he had an actual edict that amputated the tongues of his critics. You knew that that was only the beginning of his horrors.

    It's not a question of you being indifferent to Saddam's cruelties as we all were to Idi Amin, Cambodia, Rwanda, Nicaragua, Franco's Spain, etc. What happened in Iraq was something else, something unprecedented. The US decided to wring the neck of a tyrant. That he was a horrible dictator was beyond question. But how did you react?

    You were enraged. You tore out your hair. You went into the streets. You protested madly and reviled the administration. You did what you could to prevent Saddam's ejection.

    Imagine the US had send an army into Spain after WWII to clean out Franco and the Felange. Would my grandfather have gone to rallies execrating Truman or Ike ? He might have thought the move ill advised, but in the same breath he would have said, I'm not going to shed a tear for that SOB. He would have thought it crazy to protest the ejection of a fascist. Indeed, there would have been no rallies in defense of Franco. Most everybody would have been ashamed to give that swine any support.

    Not you however. You thought opposing Saddam, who was many times worse than Franco, was a crime. Why? Because Iraq had been in the Soviet camp. It was the most resolute anti-US Arab country. Its army was the most powerful threat to Israel. Saddam had promised to turn the Jewish state into a sheet of flame. He paid suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses. That Iraq was a cruel police state bothered you as little as that the USSR had been the same. You have no real commitment to democracy or human rights. In short, you are what Saddam was, left-fascists. You may not admit it, even to yourselves, but that is what you are, the whole filthy, moralizing bunch of you.

    Your hopes were with that SOB. Now it's with an insurgency that fields the meanest bunch of fascists since Heydrich hanged democrats from meathooks. That is not rhetoric. That is not polemics. That is the truth.

    You fellows are fascist collaborators. That is not an exaggeration. That is so as surely as that Vichy France hoped for a German victory, and American Nazi sympathizers rallied for Hitler in Yorkville up in Manhattan, until 7 Dec 1941.

    You are the same ideologues who railed against Lend Lease and FDR, in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade newspaper:

    "Roosevelt needs its dictatorial powers to further his aim of carving out of a warring world, the American Empire so long desired by the Wall Street money lords. "To achieve this end, the suave Mr. Roosevelt has already committed America to undeclared belligerency in this 2nd World War. He has done this in spite of the oft expressed demand of the American people and in spite of his own "sacred" pledges to keep our country neutral. "We want no part of an American Empire." Click here

    You say about me:

    but human rights is all a verbal game to him and not a matter of principle. He gives not the least shit about human rights since it is simply a rhetorical device with which to mint accusations against opponents --- as he winks at its use by the side that he favours and its allies and clients.

    You know nothing about me. You don't know my commitments or principles. But I know yours. You have acted them out, and thereby you have nailed yourselves royally. You wiggle and wail but it won't help you. You have skewered yourselves, your whole twisted crew, which includes The Nation. You'll remain on that hook for decades, and then you'll slide into your hole.

    You dug it when you came out in support of pure fascists. You opposed their ejection with all your might. That will be remembered. (Just as the Left is remembered for siding with the Nazis when the British were being blitzed.) That hole of yours will still be pissed on when the worms that have gnawed holes through your living brains are eating your dead bones. .

    Posted by nacl at 04/27/2006 @ 03:03am

  89. Posted by SKELETONMAN 04/26/2006 @ 7:08pm

    Clearly, the Pontif is trying to make the (fallacious, discredited) connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11. Three years from the invasion and we are still debunking this nonsense. No wonder why 90% of our troops think Saddam was in on 9/11 with keen intellects like this about.

    I can address lots of things, but willful ignorance is not one of them. If you continue to prop up straw men (Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11) and make conclusory statements of your opinion (the idea that Saddam has no connection to terrorism), you are welcome to wallow in your ignorance. Perhaps you might be encouraged to keep it to yourself, however.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2006 @ 07:35am

  90. Posted by MSMUFFET 04/26/2006 @ 11:13pm

    Surely you can see that the success of your vaunted economy only accrues to a small percentage of the population, my good man. The U.S. is seventeenth out of the seventeen most highly developed nations in the world when it comes to inequalities in the distribution of income to point out one example among many

    Oh gimme a break with the class warfare you dumba ass lefty. The fact that the poor in America have widescreen tv's that are much smaller than the rich does not mean that America is fundamentally bad, and we should adopt the failed policies that have ruined the economies of every socialist country. That we want the mess that Germany and France have created, with their 10+ percent unemployment and collapsing societies. Wake up for God's sake.

    It is no accident that the leftist countries of the 20th century were not only the greatest economic failures, but also the most murderous, tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind.

    Thanks for the history lesson. And there's me thinking that the governments of Hitler, Mousallini, Franco, Pinochet et al were Right Wing, fascist dictatorships

    Yep and they were all bad. But not as bad as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, who all had the implicit, or in many cases, explicit approval of the American left.

    Hmm. So much for democracy when you don't agree with the results of the election

    That's right, I don't approve of murderous tyrants, even if they are democratically elected. Especially ones like Hitler and Chavez, who once they have gained power through legal means, hold onto it through illegal means.

    No friend what I mean is we are doing our best to cut off all outside economic support for the Palestinian people

    Only to the extent that their leadership is supporting terrorists, in my view

    and trying to starve them into social chaos

    that's a conclusory statement; why would we want to do that anyway?

    so as to nullify the elections

    of terrorists like Hamas? Seems like a good idea to me - would you rather go to war?

    and we are supporting Isreal in their efforts to hold back money legitimately owed to them in the form of taxes etc. These actions are not sanctions. They are blackmail and can not be justified

    As long as the Palestinians support murder of civilians as a policy, sanctions are the mildest of ways to deal with them. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

    and Well, that's another issue ( how The CIA recently tried to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez ) but it's not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

    - Pray, do illuminate me !

    I think Chavez's intentions to hold onto power as President for life are pretty clear. You might check out Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) for a list of his abuses of democracy. But I suspect since his rhetoric is right, the left will support him all the way.

    We don't. At least as far as our policy toward them is concerned. That's a simple statement of fact.

    No, that's a relativistic state of fact. These guys are bad, but in the middle east, they are the best we've got.

    But we sure as hell will if Musharraf ever gets overthrown by a popular movement. Sorry. I should have said when he gets overthrown. And when that happens you're going to see some big time meddling in Pakistani affairs and to hell with pretentions at democracy

    If he does, it'll be by someone even worse than him, like in Iran.

    As to the rest of your argument sorry but I'm running out of patience. I can only repeat; respect the intelligence of the people on this website or go peddle your b.s. elsewhere !

    At the core of leftist philosophy is a hatred of the most basic ideals of America. I don't think I'm going to just go away and let you folks wallow in your hate.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2006 @ 07:56am

  91. That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...

    Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.

    This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?

    The deal went like this:

    Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.

    It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.

    Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.

    With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.

    Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.

    Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.

    The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.

    Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.

    NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.

    The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.

    Just one piece of a very large chessboard.

    Hang them for TREASON.

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:22am

  92. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/

    Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

    Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/47/se ctions/section_1031.html

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefitted as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Everytime the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10202005.html

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=editorial072803

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:23am

  93. "Every conversation monitored under Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.

    Why? Becuase evidence obtained by Bush's warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned."

    STOP RIGHT THERE! THINK.

    Clearly the Bush Administration knew that to be true. So what EVIDENCE do you have that Bush actually wants potential terrorists prosecuted? How many terrorists have been CONVICTED AND SENTENCED since 9/11?

    Do the math folks. Think like a criminal. The clearest explanation is often right under your nose. False flag terrorism is a TACTIC of the Mossad and the CIA. The terrorists are merely doing the bidding of this administration and their surrogates. Any actual TRIAL with TV CAMERAS and EVIDENCE would blow their entire operation.

    If they really want to arrest AND CONVICT terrorists, they would absolutely follow the letter of the law. They CHOSE not to. Coincidence? NOT!

    What more do you need to know?

    http://www.countercurrents.org/usa-hassan050405.htm

    Let's start out with a recap of some highly disturbing events in this country, as reported by a mainstream newspaper on the United States in August of 2005:

    http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=46 1&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

    Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    And this official DEA report:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:25am

  94. Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?

    Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?

    Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?

    Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

    Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

    Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

    Why wouldn't it have been?

    You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.

    9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.

    CAN YOU SAY COVERUP?

    Remember how it was Andersen Consulting which took the brunt of the legal retribution for the Enron debacle? Michael Chertoff was responsible for that. He put them out of business:

    Andersen attorneys thought Chertoff was asking too much and said the firm would be better off going to trial.

    Chertoff then warned the Andersen team that if there was a trial, he would play to win. His prosecutors would take "head shots" at Andersen, Chertoff said.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-chertoff.htm

    FYI: Taking "head shots" is a term of the Mossad. It is their tactic for dealing with suicide bombers wearing vests. Mossad has taught this same technique to police forces across the United States.

    After Andersen's conviction, the government's Enron investigation gains momentum. After Justice Department criminal division chief Michael Chertoff obtained an indictment against Andersen in March, the prosecutor became the target of public demonstrations by Andersen employees. As the firm's employees confronted the reality that the indictment would drive Andersen out of business, they and others demanded to know why Chertoff wasn't going after his principle target, Enron.

    Chertoff's obstruction-of-justice indictment of Andersen quickly broke the firm.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-andersen.htm

    http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

    Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government's 9.11 investigation.

    "At the FBI's insistence, the White House had already forced ICE to give up its Operation Greenquest program investigating terrorism financing -- and forced Ridge to sign a memo pledging to keep his department away from similar investigations."

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

    Chertoff allowed scores of suspected Israeli terrorists and spies to quietly return to Israel. In several cases, Israeli suspects working for phoney moving companies, such as Urban Moving Systems from Weehawken, N.J., were caught driving moving vans which tested positive for explosives. On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, which was found to be a Mossad front company, fled to Israel after FBI agents requested a second interview.

    One group of 5 Israelis was seen on the roof of Urban Moving Systems videotaping and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. These Israeli agents were returned to Israel on visa violations.

    ABS 20/20 Investigation:

    http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

    http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

    FOX News 4-Part Investigative Series:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    Popular Mechanics:

    http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

    Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

    But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:28am

  95. Posted by NACL 04/27/2006 @ 03:03am

    Not you however. You thought opposing Saddam, who was many times worse than Franco, was a crime. Why? Because Iraq had been in the Soviet camp. It was the most resolute anti-US Arab country. Its army was the most powerful threat to Israel. Saddam had promised to turn the Jewish state into a sheet of flame. He paid suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses. That Iraq was a cruel police state bothered you as little as that the USSR had been the same. You have no real commitment to democracy or human rights. In short, you are what Saddam was, left-fascists. You may not admit it, even to yourselves, but that is what you are, the whole filthy, moralizing bunch of you.

    Amen, brother, well said indeed.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2006 @ 08:28am

  96. He predicts 9/11 and by sheer coincidence the Pentagon is hit by a remote controlled jet (Zakheim's ' SPC ' corporation is the premier company in the field).

    http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

    During his tenure as controller at the Pentagon from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004, over one trillion dollars was unaccounted for.

    Military information is jeopardized, military contractors billed the US for Israeli items, $50 million fighter jets are classified as surplus and the list goes on and on. As the scandal of the missing 3 trillion dollars surfaces the Rabbi quickly resigns.

    Here's how it all came together:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11385.htm

    Here's why:

    On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

    AND LESS THAN ONE MONTH LATER:

    On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

    http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:29am

  97. Larry Franklin Case:

    Full name: Lawrence Anthony Franklin

    Occupation: Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon since 1979 in these offices: Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, Office of Near East and South Asia, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, Iran Desk

    FBI Case Leaked: 27 August 2004

    Arrested by FBI: Wednesday, 4 May 2005

    Charge: Communicating classified US national defense information to persons not entitled to receive that information; that this information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation

    Count 1: Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it

    Count 2-4: Communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it

    Count 5: Communication of classified information to persons not entitled to receive it

    Count 6: Conspiracy to communicate classified information to agent and representative of foreign government without specific authorization

    Co-conspirators: Former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former senior Iran analyst. Naor Gilon, in charge of policy at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Uzi Arad, a former Israeli intelligence agent.

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7127

    The "Able Danger" data-mining operation that supposedly uncovered the New Jersey cell of the 9/11 plotters was – for some reason yet to be determined – blocked and prevented from apprehending key figures in the plot, according to the testimony of at least three people who have direct knowledge of this matter. Shea's memo opens up a possibility that may relate to (and explain) the "Able Danger" blockage: was surveillance of Arab terrorist groups in the U.S. subcontracted out to the Israelis, with the knowledge and complicity of the CIA, so that "Able Danger" was considered poaching on the Israelis' preserve? Shea cites a piece in The Forward that describes Israeli covert activities in the U.S. as a violation of "a secret gentleman's agreement between the two countries," and avers:

    "The real question today, however, appears to be whether the ‘gentlemen's agreement' did indeed prevail here and, because we lacked adequate warning from our surrogates who were keeping the Arabs under surveillance, helped bring us to disaster."

    http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php

    Israeli Company Provides U.S. Wiretaps

    One company reported to be under investigation is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm. Comverse provides almost all the wiretapping equipment and software for U.S. law enforcement.

    Custom computers and software made by Comverse are tied into the U.S. phone network in order to intercept, record and store wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.

    The penetration of Comverse reportedly allowed criminals to wiretap law enforcement communications in reverse and foil authorized wiretaps with advance warning. One major drug bust operation planned by the Los Angeles police was foiled by what now appear to be reverse wiretaps placed on law enforcement phones by the criminal spy ring.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:31am

  98. Bizarre coincidence?: National Reconnaissance Office scheduled an exercise involving aircraft crashing into buildings on 09-11-2001 In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

    "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

    Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

    The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

    After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

    An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

    In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team … were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

    GOT PROBABLE CAUSE?

    http://w3ar.com/a.php?k=1065

    Wiretaps?

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121701.html

    ASHCROFT'S COMPLICITY

    But Ashcroft is too busy rounding up Arabs and closing down their organizations to worry about the wholesale penetration of our communications system – including "secure" networks at the White House, the Defense Department, and elsewhere – by our wonderful allies, the Israelis. Cameron cites several unnamed law enforcement agents – concerned about the ominous implications of the Israeli penetration in light of 9/11 – who say that even raising the issue is "career suicide."

    I HOPE YOU'RE SITTING DOWN

    Okay, so the Israelis have the phone lines over at the White House, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and, for all we know, your local dogcatcher's office bugged to the max. So they have the capability to know where and when practically every phone call in the US, and large sections of the rest of the world, is made, and to whom. As fantastic as it sounds, given the advance of technology and the reputation of the Mossad, I'm willing to believe it. What's really alarming, however, is that, as Cameron reports:

    "On a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place."

    BEYOND THE BEGUINE

    The implications of this stunning news go far beyond my original contention: that the Israelis had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and simply failed to let us know the details. For it all depends on the intended target of the wiretaps: was it the Israelis, or Bin Laden's agents? If the former were acting differently after wiretaps were put in place, it means only that the Israelis were using their sources and methods to protect their own: if the latter, it means the Israelis were using their sources and methods to protect the Bin Ladenites. That is a possibility no one – including me – wants to contemplate, and, in all truthfulness, I must confess I cannot believe it. I am forced to concede, however, that, given what we now know, it is possible. Until and unless the government comes clean, we won't know for sure.

    INVESTIGATE THE ISRAELI CONNECTION

    At the end of his second report, Carl Cameron remarked to Brit Hume that the question of the Israeli connection to 9/11 "came up in the select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today," and "they intend to look into what we reported last night." Naturally, all this is occurring in secret, with the likelihood of a cover-up all but certain. What is needed is a public investigation, and full disclosure of the Israeli role, if any, in 9/11.

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:33am

  99. Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

    By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04

    The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

    Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR200512 2202119.html

    And then…a few weeks later…

    W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 1 A group of military scientists is feverishly examining the microscopic spores of anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle for clues to a mystery that could have profound implications for the United States and its ongoing war on terror: Who made it?

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92006&page=1

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:35am

  100. What are we to do when the entire process of elections becomes subverted, controlled by an outside force that takes US tax payer dollars, offshores them, then launders them right back into the political process thereby ensuring that only their hand-picked candidates become government officials?

    When all that cash is utilized to purchase media time to promote AIPAC's hand-picked candidates - the executives of the media companies can clearly see who they need to support in order to enrich themselves. The news departments are instructed to perpetuate the game for profit.

    Our tax dollars have been used to destroy Democracy. The electoral process is completely broken as a result of the money in politics. It is ironc that there is a new cry for publicly funded campaigns. They already are publicly funded...it's just that the entity responsible for distributing the public funding is AIPAC.

    While the vast majority of Americans are crying out for lobbying reform, every Jewish organization is actively campaigning against it - to protect AIPAC's grip on the system.

    Remember this?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml

    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

    - Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"

    All that cash leads to that kind of arrogance. Frankly, I'd rather fix the problem now than study it later.

    DEPORT AIPAC and win back your Democracy.

    It really is that simple

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

    Hedrick Smith noted in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a "superlobby ... [It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia; and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate."

    "You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

    "Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

    "A great asset to our country". Condoleezza Rice describing AIPAC in March, 2003.

    "Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." -- Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

    "I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker).

    "AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." -- Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    "A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." -- AIPAC research director Steve Rosen, 2001.

    "The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

    "Congress is 'terrorized' by AIPAC... In practice, the lobby groups function as an informal extension of the Israeli government." -- "They Dare to Speak Out," -- Congressman (1961-1982) Paul Findley.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 08:39am

  101. Pontificator:

    "Oh gimme a break with the class warfare you dumba ass lefty".

    As the French say "the wolf shows his ear". Congradulations you arrogant, supercilious, patronizing moron. That just won you a place of honor on my ignore list.

    Posted by msmuffet at 04/27/2006 @ 08:54am

  102. Posted by NACL 04/27/2006 @ 03:03am

    Not you however. You thought opposing Saddam, who was many times worse than Franco, was a crime. Why? Because Iraq had been in the Soviet camp. It was the most resolute anti-US Arab country. Its army was the most powerful threat to Israel. Saddam had promised to turn the Jewish state into a sheet of flame. He paid suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses. That Iraq was a cruel police state bothered you as little as that the USSR had been the same. You have no real commitment to democracy or human rights. In short, you are what Saddam was, left-fascists. You may not admit it, even to yourselves, but that is what you are, the whole filthy, moralizing bunch of you.

    Amen, brother, well said indeed.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/27/2006 @ 08:28am

    Remind me again. Was Saddam this big, awful threat to us and to Israel before, during, or after he consulted with us before he invaded Kuwait? He was/is a bad man. But you guys go all weird on us with these overstatements. Meanwhile, look again at the timeline set up by NACL: we had virtually no relationship with Saddam from '67 through '84. So what happened in '84 and who made whatever happened happen? Wouldn't that be the Great God of the Right making a foolish, short-term decision to work with a butcher? Was Saddam so anti-US while shaking Rummy's hand?

    He was bad. No debate. But such overreaching makes your argument seem like a lost cause, especially since the Iraq itself is starting to seem like a lost cause.

    And Pontificus, you're doing it again...piecing together very loosely thought out statements that connect Saddam with 9/11 in an almost MadLibs kind of way. And then you write that those who call you on such irrational thinking are the ones with issues. One who assigns himself the bold name Pontificus ought to be more careful with his words and more respectful of those who dare to read them.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/27/2006 @ 09:04am

  103. At the core of leftist philosophy is a hatred of the most basic ideals of America.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/27/2006 @ 07:56am

    This, quite possibly, is the most idiotic thing I have ever seen espoused on this blog. Where do you people get such ideas?

    Has it ever occurred to you that though we disagree on how to achieve the desired end - or even what the desired end might look like - that we of the more progressive mind set might just love our country as much (or, gulp, maybe even more than) the likes of you? If you can wrap your brain around that concept for a moment, then perhaps we can have a discussion about how to proceed; if not, we cannot have a meeting of minds.

    The arrogance of the ideologue (of whatever stripe) is staggering at times - to suggest that approximately half the country (based on the 2004 presidential popular vote) or more (based on Bush's incredible DISapproval rating) hates our country and EVERTHING it stands for is hauteur beyond description.

    Those who would beat their chests and shout 'My Country, Right or Wrong' would do well to remember the words of Sen. Carl Schurz delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago on October 17, 1899:

    'The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, "My country, right or wrong." In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.'

    The senator was a lot more eloquent than I could ever hope to be; for myself, I say this: I disimpact my mucus-encrusted nares at your hubris and your insolence.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/27/2006 @ 09:08am

  104. April 25, 2006 Obliterating the Dollar ... and the Middle Class?

    Preparing for the Economic Typhoon

    By MIKE WHITNEY

    Gold traders love George Bush. They know that his blundering mismanagement of the economy will keep gold soaring well into the future. In the last year alone gold increased nearly $200 an ounce capping off a 5 year run that has taken it from $274 per ounce to $635 at Friday's close.

    These are serious numbers and they reflect the uneasiness with the global political situation (Iran, Nigeria) as well as concern about the oceans of debt generated by our Oval Office numbskull.

    Is it really possible for one man to single-handedly obliterate the world's most robust economy?

    Guess so.

    After 6 years of looting the public till, the cupboard is just about bare. Bush has chalked up another $3 trillion of public debt which sounds the death-knell for Social Security, public education, and the social safety net.

    Think I'm kidding? Consider what new Fed-master Ben Bernacke said just yesterday, "If the dollar declined sharply, it would not necessarily disrupt markets".

    That's right; the Fed is conspiring to reduce its debt payments by driving a wooden stake into the heart of the greenback. In three to six months the dollar will probably be valued at 1.40 to 1.50 per euro. That is, if the bottom doesn't fall out completely. After all, allies and enemies alike are pretty sick of the good old USA, so it wouldn't be out of the question for someone (perhaps, China) to start a sell-off that would end in disaster.

    The dollar is now recognized as the empire's Achilles heel and the primary target for any asymmetrical warfare directed at America. If that means regime change at home, count me in. I'll worry about the wheelbarrow-loads of greenbacks for a loaf of bread some other time.

    The Group of Seven industrialized nations (G-7) took a few swipes at Washington's profligate spending this weekend; warning that they wanted "more flexibility" in the Asian currencies. This is a clear sign that the path is being paved for a freefalling dollar while the other currencies gain ground.

    How do you like the idea that half of your savings will be erased through executive fiat?

    Since Bush took office the dollar has plummeted 30% against the euro. The only thing that has kept it from joining the peso is the skyrocketing oil prices which have allowed the Fed to keep the printing presses going at full tilt. That's because oil is denominated exclusively in dollars, so while the price per barrel continued upward, the Fed was able to circulate another $2.5 trillion of funny money. The high cost of oil has kept the dollar reasonably stable even though the twin-deficits have eroded its true value. Maintaining the monopoly on the sale of oil (which forces foreign central banks to hold billions of greenbacks in reserve) is critical to US prosperity. A switch to euros would weaken demand for the dollar and send the American economy into a tailspin.

    Unfortunately, other countries are frustrated with the recklessness of the Bush team and are threatening to destabilize the system. First there was the danger of Iran opening an oil bourse that would compete head-on with the dollar; increasing the number of euros stockpiled in the central banks. Now, the Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin has fired a broadside at his American counterparts saying, "The US dollar is NOT the world's absolute reserve currency". He noted that the unsustainable' US trade deficit is "causing concern" and that "the international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability."

    Kudrin's remarks were greeted with the shock one would expect from a dirty bomb on a crowded subway. America's global dominance requires that it maintain the dollar as the world's reserve currency; if that changes then the US will be unable to trade its painted-script for valuable resources. It would also mean that America would have to start paying back its $9 trillion national debt.

    Kudrin's comments were interpreted to mean that Russia might ease away from the dollar in its oil transactions; a change that might spread to other countries that are equally skeptical of Uncle Sam's recklessness.

    The eroding value of the dollar is just one of the economic crises facing the American people. A 6 month downturn in housing starts signals that the housing bubble, the largest equity bubble in history, is quickly losing steam. With long term interest rates steadily rising (along with energy prices) the shaky loans that were blessed by former Fed-chief, Greenspan, are beginning to unravel. "No down payment", ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) and easy financing have the over-extended American public teetering towards insolvency. Foreclosures are up, mortgages balances are at unprecedented levels, and inventories are larger than they've been since the early 90s. Last month produced the biggest slowdown in sales in a decade and the real pain hasn't even begun. At least $3 trillion of the $9 trillion equity bubble is built entirely on the cheap money pumped into the system by the Federal Reserve to keep the economy percolating while Bush and Co. stole every last farthing in the US Treasury. Greenspan's low interest rates were nothing more than a carnival-hucksters' scam to shift the vast wealth of America's middle class into the pockets of well-heeled constituents.

    Thanks, Alan.

    Last year Americans used their homes as a personal ATM; withdrawing over $600 billion to pay off credit card debt and for personal spending. That "presto-equity" is quickly evaporating as home prices flatten out and wages continue to stagnate. Personal debt is currently in the stratosphere and there are some gloomy signs that the American consumer, that great engine of global economic power, is finally tapped out. Consumer spending represents 70% of US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) so, as housing prices retreat and energy prices increase; Americans will face the greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression.

    One thing is absolutely certain; Bush will stick by his constituents to the bitter end. It is physically impossible for him to act in the interests of the American people. He won't be deterred by the falling dollar, the deflating housing market, or the skyrocketing energy prices. He'll make his budget-busting tax cuts permanent and plunge the country into a sea of red ink.

    Betting that George Bush will do the wrong thing for the nation is not a matter of conjecture; it is a mathematical certainty. He is deliberately destroying the middle class, the prospects for upward mobility, and the currency. The economic underpinnings of American democracy have been demolished in just 6 short years. Smart people will prepare themselves for the typhoon ahead.

    Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

    Posted by plunger at 04/27/2006 @ 09:14am

  105. Ponti

    For shame sir.... your "Oh gimme a break with the class warfare you dumba ass lefty. The fact that the poor in America have widescreen tv's that are much smaller than the rich does not mean that America is fundamentally bad... shows not only poor taste and your crass uncaring nature, but more importantly mimics your clueless leaders lack of knowledge and respect for how most Americans *really* live out here in the world.

    ...and the garbage you spew as "At the core of leftist philosophy is a hatred of the most basic ideals of America. is just blatant bullshit. As point in fact it is our love of country, of the ideals that it once stood for, that are at the core of our perspectives, actions and purpose. I would further that it is you and yours who have forgotten these values. The decay of our nation, our freedom, our way of life is in the GOPs' hands. I just hope we make it past it. Perhaps what this nation needs is a good kick in the ass...a wake-up call to remind it of where it came from.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 09:49am

  106. Yes, Plunger.

    Buy gold - lots of it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 09:52am

  107. Nacl, LVLib, and now adding CPT and Pontretardicus,

    I am dismayed to see that you cowards are still here. I told the first two of you yesterday to leave America. You see America, is a place where we value liberty and freedom and not totalitarianism. You all want a government bestowed with so much power as to eradicate any chance whatsoever of terrorism.

    You folks need to be in 1978 East Germany.

    Americans like me don't want cowering terrified totalitarian loving anti-Americans in our country any more.

    Bye Bye.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 10:11am

  108. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/27/2006 @ 10:11am: Americans like me don't want cowering terrified totalitarian loving anti-Americans in our country any more

    And LoveShack promised to go away. Yet, like the killer in some c-grade horror movie, he just keeps coming back. over. and. over. and. over. again.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/27/2006 @ 10:37am

  109. FREEDOMPLEASE----"You all want a government bestowed with so much power"---In this phrase you seem to be condemning government power. Do you use the same philosophy when considering other government powers (ie. power to regulate interstate commerce) that have been stretched and contorted to allow the national government to supercede the wishes of state governments? Government needs enough power to meet the challenges/purposes stated in the Preamble of the Constitution---form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure blessings of Liberty.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 11:14am

  110. "The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened."

    I think this sums up Sen. Church's point precisely. As I've said many times over the past 5 years, when you adopt the characteristics and motivations of your enemy, you become your enemy. You've defeated yourself.

    Posted by scoff0165 at 04/27/2006 @ 11:19am

  111. Len,

    The Executive branch has essentially pulled a coup d'etat on the other two branches of government under the guise of "war powers". At other points in our history, like when we were actually at war, that may or may not have made sense.

    The remote occupation of Iraq does not qualify for a suspension of the Constitution.

    The "war" on terror is a euphimism. It's as much of a "war" as was the "war" on drugs or the "war" on poverty. Terrorism like illegal drugs and poverty is something that a vast majority of the country would like to see erradicated so we call our efforts to erradicate it a "war".

    Is the "war" against terrorism more serious or actually more warlike than the "wars" against drugs or poverty? You will say people die in large numbers at the hands of terrorism and in addition, terrorist attacks are exceedingly detrimental to our economy. OK, no argument there. However, MORE Americans die of poverty and in the illegal drug trade and the problems of illegal drugs and poverty are clearly MORE detrimental to our economy than attacks from terrorism.

    Do I realize that terrorism would get worse if left unchecked? Yes. As would the other problems.

    I don't advocate a suspension of the Constitution for the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty or the "war" on terrorism. Do you?

    If you do not, then you simply cannot have a President declaring himself above laws like FISA and the Torture Law.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 11:44am

  112. You were enraged. You tore out your hair. You went into the streets. You protested madly and reviled the administration. You did what you could to prevent Saddam's ejection.

    Well NACL it's typical of what passes for logic with you that you'd conflate being against this war with being for Saddam. I suppose that's because the case for this war has become so bankrupt that you have to resort to hysterical polemics (and please don't insult my intelligence or the English language by trying to pass your discourse as "civil"). The fact is we were against the war because the rationalizations given by Bush & Co. didn't show that this was worth the life of one American soldier. I defy you to show one anti-war poster on this site who has ever defended Hussein per se.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/27/2006 @ 1:33pm

  113. Freedom

    ...to continue, isn't the actaul war technically "over"? Dubya said so on the deck of that aircrat carrier for his photo op like 6 weeks after it started. It was a war against Saddam and his regime. That is gone now but for some odd reason we are still at war and still there? Someone please explain this in real English and not "Kool-Aid speak".

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 2:07pm

  114. That is gone now but for some odd reason we are still at war and still there? Someone please explain this in real English and not "Kool-Aid speak".

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/27/2006 @ 2:07pm

    Dubya bullshitted us.

    Again.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/27/2006 @ 2:22pm

  115. Freedomplease----We are actually at war. Because of the Sept. 14 Congressional Resolution the Congress put us legally on a war status even though it did not declare war. I understand and agree that a war on terror does not seem to have a forseeable end and therefore is an unusual event in our history. But this does not change the fact the Congress and the President have legally put us on a war status. The Congress could take the war powers away from the President (but remember he still has war powers concerning Iraq) by issuing a resolution rescending the Sept. 14 Resolution, but they have not done so. As to your question concerning the suspension of the Constitution----the Constitution may not be suspended at any time war or not, but there are powers in the Constitution that enable government to take certain actions in certain situations. And in certain situations there are unchecked powers i.e. Presidents have the power to grant pardons and there is no formal check for this power by the other branches of government. As to the President holding himself above the FISA law the question has to be asked can the Congress restrict the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. An excellent argument can made that they can not. The anti-torture law may be a matter that torture to one person is nothing more than making a person uncomfortable to another.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 2:25pm

  116. As to the President holding himself above the FISA law the question has to be asked can the Congress restrict the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. An excellent argument can made that they can not. The anti-torture law may be a matter that torture to one person is nothing more than making a person uncomfortable to another.

    Congress wrote and voted favorably on the FISA statute and the President signed it into law. You can't have another President just willy nilly ignoring it. If it is unconstitutional (and it might be) then it would have to be declared as such by the Supreme Court.

    You see Len, that's three seperate but equal branches at work. That's how it works in this country! When one of the branches takes a law that has previously passed the sniff test in all three branches and still passes in two branches but decides to break it it is called a suspension of the constitution......you know why? Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and if we're not punishing a violation of the Supreme Law of the land then it can only be because we've suspended it.

    Your answer on the anti-torture law is laughable. If I don't think stealing is bad so long as I'm the one doing it and I only do it in raids of $1000 or less does it make my actions acceptable?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 2:38pm

  117. FREEDOMPLEASE-----"When one of the branches takes a law that has previously passed the sniff test in all three branches and still passes in two branches but decides to break it it is called a suspension of the constitution"

    Your premise in incorrect. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the FISA law. Therefore all three branches have not given it the "sniff test" as you say. A case must come before the Supreme Court with legal standing before it can rule. It is not a proactive organization. As to the torture law what I was referring to was that you and I may have a different definition of torture.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 3:06pm

  118. LEFTOCENTER

    If you say "as opposed to unessential liberty" then why have any laws? What if it is determined that child molesters have essential liberty to view child porn? or forget the dramatic example, what if why is it a crime to solict hitman to kill some one?

    Point is that our liberties are not ABSOLUTE, they are relative to the rights of others we live with, insomuch that this is necessary condition to listen to people that are planning to do us harm.

    BRUNOWE

    I know you dont really beleive that professional intell collectors at the NSA are wasting their time listening to those whoo arent likley to harm us. Yes, no doubt some of the surveillence will turn out to be unnecessary and benign, it is prudent to be mindful regradless.

    And we dont have proof of what they have uncovered either, not wise to annouce "hey look what this has wrought!!"

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 3:10pm

  119. BRUNOWE

    The anti-war left and SADDAM and AQ-like groups have a common aim.

    To withdraw US Troops from the ME, that is the danger of being anti-war, you skate close to the enemy though you may not want to, there is no denying that both groups want the US out of the ME.

    Which group is wrong?

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 3:14pm

  120. Len Moose,

    NO, YOUR PREMISE IS INCORRECT.

    Unless a Law passed by Congress is found to be unconstitutional by the SC or a tempoary injuction has been placed on the law pending constitutional review, IT HAS TO BE OBEYED.

    The President could have wire tapped with warrants, the President probably could have asked for the FISA Law to be suspended and reviewed on Constitutional grounds so that he could wire tap without warrants, which may or may not have been granted by the Judicial branch.

    The President decided to disobey the Law passed by Congress and decided not to seek a remedy through the judicial branch. In short he pulled off a stunning coup d'etat against the other branches.

    His actions will be punished, if not by the spineless supplicant Members of today's congress or even the member of Congress post November then at least his actions will be punished by history.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 3:22pm

  121. CPT

    Sounds like the Kool-Aid talking! We have LM arguing that the FISA law may not apply to the Preisdent (because Dubya doens't want to?) and that while the "War" is over we are in "War status" against no one in particular. Then we have you claiming shades of grey with respect to freedom (sure, the gov't can spy against anyone without oversight because they are the gov't....I think that seems to be the gist of that arguement on your side?) and using non-arguments such as your "why have any laws at all..." which makes no point at all...and then below you join the trolls like Ponti and Salt-dog by equating the left to AQ/Saddam.

    All unsurprising I suppose....we on the left keep hoping you guys will "see the light" and crawl out of your dank cavern of fear-mongering bullshit long enough to see how deep in crap the country is because of BushCo....

    Skel

    Yeah....that's what I figure, but kinda hoped a wingnut might try to translate their random shouts of acceptance and support of insanity into something a normal human might be able to absorb.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 3:26pm

  122. Oh, here we go. CPT and his revision of the "Better red than dead" crap. One wanders away from this "discussion"- some things change. But the idiocy of the righteous right lives forever.

    Posted by bkarloff at 04/27/2006 @ 3:46pm

  123. CPT:

    "Yes, no doubt some of the surveillence will turn out to be unnecessary and benign, it is prudent to be mindful regradless."

    Yup - you gotta watch out for those Quakers and peaceniks.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 4:02pm

  124. Today's news cycle is even more disturbing than most days news cycles.

    1. There is a breaking Story that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Rockerfeller) has been cock blocked by Pat Roberts (R), from interviewing Condi, Powell and Tenent in regards to the Phase II investigation (the requests were made in January but just coming public). In other words, the Phase II investigation is now destined to be yet another worthless piece of paper masquerading as the peoples work.

    2. Senate Republicans are proposing a $100 rebate for Gas consumption! This is utterly assinine. The current generation decided to invade a sovereign country that posed no threat to the USA and the current generation has been asked to sacrifice no more than buying a magnetic ribbon to slap on their SUV's (which we were able to afford due to a tax cut). Future generations will pay the financial cost of the Iraq war, the tax cuts and now we're having them pay for our gasoline!!!!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 4:18pm

  125. Freedom

    Item #1 - sounds like GOP busines as usual. Time for more leters to my congress-persons.

    Item #2 - warm fuzzies for bible-thumpers, Nascar crowds, and trailer park tenents that they depend on for support.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 4:28pm

  126. It's not a question of you being indifferent to Saddam's cruelties as we all were to Idi Amin, Cambodia, Rwanda, Nicaragua, Franco's Spain, etc. What happened in Iraq was something else, something unprecedented. The US decided to wring the neck of a tyrant. That he was a horrible dictator was beyond question. But how did you react?

    You were enraged. You tore out your hair. You went into the streets. You protested madly and reviled the administration. You did what you could to prevent Saddam's ejection.

    Imagine the US had send an army into Spain after WWII to clean out Franco and the Felange. Would my grandfather have gone to rallies execrating Truman or Ike ? He might have thought the move ill advised, but in the same breath he would have said, I'm not going to shed a tear for that SOB. He would have thought it crazy to protest the ejection of a fascist. Indeed, there would have been no rallies in defense of Franco. Most everybody would have been ashamed to give that swine any support.

    Posted by NACL 04/27/2006 @ 03:03am

    AS long as we are imagining, let us imagine a scenario where the administration is honest with the american people. Instead of claiming "WMD" and "links to Al Qaeda", Bush, Rice, Rummy et. al. proclaim "We need to invade Iraq because Saddam is a brutal dictator."

    In other words, sell the war to the US public based on the truth! Then, if we agree, send in the troops.

    But I suspect you know what the result would have been. The american people would have been OUTRAGED that the decider in chief was giving up on Osama bin Laden to chase after a diversion. Of course that is the reason that the claims were made of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda.

    Face it, NACL, your justification would have been categorically rejected by everyone except the right-wing types who come to this website to insult liberals.

    Is opposing the war tantamount to support for Hussein? No, it is support for america! That's right, support of our troops, so they don't die in a needless war, diverted from the job of killing OBL. Support for US taxpayers, so they don't have to spend a billion a week rebuilding someone else's country and lining the pockets of war profiteers such as Blackwater Security.

    But we know your contempt for the first ammendment. How? We've read your insults, hurled at people who dared to use speech and protest to stand up for American troops and American taxpayers.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 4:47pm

  127. btw NACL, I defend my dissertation May 10th. You are invited...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 4:50pm

  128. HMAN

    You never know, those Quakers can be s.o.b.s when they want to.

    LeftoCenter

    It seems the two sides here are the ones who dont want any surviellence of terrorists for fear of an innocent conversation being listened to and the ones who expect the govt to listen to people who want to do the US harm.

    Bharkolff

    "the idiocy of the righteous right", give me that over the everlasting trusting terrorists sentiment of the left.

    Which is more harmful?

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 4:50pm

  129. FREEDOMPLEASE----"Unless a Law passed by Congress is found to be unconstitutional by the SC or a tempoary injuction has been placed on the law pending constitutional review, IT HAS TO BE OBEYED"

    Your argument is correct for almost all people, and all corportions, but not for the President. We the people give the government enough power to operate. In doing so the Constitution creates both Congressional powers and Executive powers. Neither branch can diminish the powers of the other. This does not mean the President is above the law. He is not. However, the office of the President is granted expressed, implied and inherent powers, just like the Congress--and Congress may not legislate them away.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 4:53pm

  130. Freedom -

    I share your frustration with Senator Roberts. I'll repost what I said on KVH's Editor's Cut blog - I tried to switch the subject from the boring topic of Tony Snow - to no avail. I'm glad to see I am not the only one who thinks Roberts is a disgrace:

    On other news (because the Tony Snow topic is really such a yawner):

    I see that Senator Roberts - in charge of the long overdue Phase II, so-called "investigation", into the pre-Iraq intelligence issues - is stonewalling attempts by Democratic committee memebers to collect testimony from key people in the administration, including Rice and Tenet, among others.

    Excuse me but Senator Roberts should be clued in to the pretty simple notion that to have an adequate INVESTIGATION, one actually needs to do some INVESTIGATING. This is business as usual for Senator Roberts. Phase II was promised and promised again, what, well over a year ago?!?! And Senator Roberts is still playing a shell game with administration witnesses. Of course Senator Roberts ... the former director of the CIA and the former National Security Advisor ... move on, there is nothing to see here people!!

    What a shameless partisan joke this guy is. This should be an outrage to anyone who demands public accountability for our politicians (no matter what the end result of an actual investigation would determine).

    Got whitewash? (with credit to Plunger for this last line)

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 4:54pm

  131. CPT,

    I hope your writing from some other country now as I told you at 10:11AM today that American's like me don't want such petrified fools like you staying here trying to turn a place of freedoms into a totalitarian government state under the guise of safety.

    So which country did you go to, and how's the weather?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 4:56pm

  132. ILOVE

    War profiteers? What the hell does this mean? Is it perniciously evil to have a company that serves as a security force for others?

    Blackwater has lost several employees in the line of duty, they deserve to make a profit. Nearly 98% of its employees are recently former servicemen.

    But how dare they profit? Which is it, the war or the profit? that you have a problem with?

    Dying needlessly?? You mean Saddam and his sons would have stepped down without being forced?

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 4:56pm

  133. I Love Physics----When you defend your disertation make sure that if they have you write anything and you have to spell amendment make sure you know that it is not spelled ammendment. Might make the difference --you never know.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 4:59pm

  134. However, the office of the President is granted expressed, implied and inherent powers, just like the Congress--and Congress may not legislate them away.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/27/2006 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person

    Yet you don't seem to care that the Congress was thwarted (illegally) and you don't even mention the role of the jusicial branch!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 5:01pm

  135. LEFTOFCENTER---"Item #2 - warm fuzzies for bible-thumpers, Nascar crowds, and trailer park tenents that they depend on for support."

    Love it when the liberal elite look down on portions of American society and thumb their nose----Just one more vote for the conservative cause.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 5:03pm

  136. Len Mosse -

    The broad principle you posted at 4:53 is correct. Of course, the president ignores the law at his own peril.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:05pm

  137. FREEDOM

    I must stay here, and fight the war for America, the land i love, from your ilk, who would rather turn it into a tree-hugging, hand holding bastion for terrorists, as they eventually turn on you and move to make the country into a islamo-facist state.

    The last thing you are able to say as they turn to slice your heads off is:

    "But wait, i am an enlightened liberal, i understand you, i understand your hatred for us, we have disenfranchised you and alienated you into hating us, it is not your fault but the conservative christain right"

    The last thing you hear is their laughter. The last thing that goes thru your mind is,

    "My God, the conservatives were right all along"

    So i am here for your benefit to ensure that reality never comes to pass, thank you.

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 5:06pm

  138. ILOVE

    War profiteers? What the hell does this mean? Is it perniciously evil to have a company that serves as a security force for others?

    Blackwater has lost several employees in the line of duty, they deserve to make a profit. Nearly 98% of its employees are recently former servicemen.

    But how dare they profit? Which is it, the war or the profit? that you have a problem with?

    Dying needlessly?? You mean Saddam and his sons would have stepped down without being forced?

    Posted by CPT 04/27/2006 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person

    Are you for real????

    You are an recruiter right?

    Don't you think that relisting has become a more difficult proposition for the armed forces due to, among other things, the fact that a service man has the option of relisting or instead taking a job with Blackwater for three times the pay.

    And while I'm not opposed to the kids getting what they deserve the other side of the coin is that the US Taxpayer is paying more because Blackwater is doing the job than they would if say the USMC were doing the job.

    I can see how this is good for Blackwater and Blackwater's employees, but how is this good for the USA again?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 5:07pm

  139. Wow - you here that Freedom?

    THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF!!

    THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF!!!

    AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!

    Thank you so much CPT for protecting us. I now can come out of my bunker.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:10pm

  140. FreedomPlease---I care about the Constitution and the powers that were created for all three branches not just the legislative branch. The Court has yet to rule on this. I am willing to accept their verdict on the Constitutionality of the FISA law and the Presidents actions under it. In fact, it is important that they do rule because that has been their historical role when their is a conflict between competing powers. What I find interesting in your opinion is that you give no weight to Executive powers in the Constitution, you see it strictly from a legislative point of view. Here is a hypothetical for you to consider: If the Congress passed a law taking away the Presidents powers as Commander in Chief and gave them to the Majority leader of the U.S. Senate, would the President have to obey that law prior to any decision made by the courts?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 5:10pm

  141. hear, not here.

    Yes, English is my first language.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:11pm

  142. FREEDOM

    BTW-"petrified"?

    Me, nah, i dont talk to terrorists nor those who want to harm the country.

    I guess i want those who do talk to those who WANT to harm the country to feel paranoid.

    It is kind of like those who get nervous everytime a policeman comes around, those who do are usually breaking the law.

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 5:12pm

  143. CPT,

    You still don't get it do you?

    I would rather have my head cut off by terrorists than let this country become a totalitarian state.

    So you are dismissed.....go now to a country that wants protection at ALL costs.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/27/2006 @ 5:13pm

  144. FREEDOM

    It is good, for us, specifically because you free up troops to do other missions.

    Security of officials and other contractors is better handled by them.

    And actually more guys are re-enlisting than ever, but hey those who get out and do work for Blackwater, know its a temp gig.

    HMAN

    We should have said the terrorists are coming in the 90s, who knows what that might have prevented, huh?

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 5:19pm

  145. ILOVE

    War profiteers? What the hell does this mean? Is it perniciously evil to have a company that serves as a security force for others?

    Dying needlessly?? You mean Saddam and his sons would have stepped down without being forced?

    Posted by CPT 04/27/2006 @ 4:56pm

    You can read in the current issue of the Nation how Blackwater cooks its books.

    There is nothing wrong with making a profit by selling goods and services to the government. What is wrong is to lie about the details of the transactions in order to get more money than you could if you presented the truth.

    If you don't believe me, check out the article.

    Dying needlessly? By that I mean that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq was laughably weak, and not even Kuwait was afraid of them anymore. The war was unnecessary from the POV of the interests of the american public.

    If getting rid of Saddam is such a holy grail for you, there are much cheaper ways. But of course by any other means the Bush administration wouldn't be able to heavily influence the Iraqi government.

    I Love Physics----When you defend your disertation make sure that if they have you write anything and you have to spell amendment make sure you know that it is not spelled ammendment. Might make the difference --you never know.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/27/2006 @ 4:59pm

    LEN, if it's that close then I probably don't deserve it, even if I did know how to spell.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 5:21pm

  146. uhh ... CPT ... some did. There was even a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Team Bush ignored it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:22pm

  147. FREEDOM

    Where is the totalitarian state??????? What speech has been censored? Where are the dissentents in jail? Why arent the Nation writers in jail? Where is it? Why isnt Feingold, kerry, Durbin, Reid and Pelosi in jail?

    All this has happened in time of war BEFORE in our history and guess what we survived.

    BTW you a PFC, proud freaking civilian, a PFC does not outrank a CPT, therefore you cannot dismiss me. FYI

    Posted by CPT at 04/27/2006 @ 5:23pm

  148. CPT,Here is the link. See how easy I made it for you to get informed?

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 5:25pm

  149. So CPT, we on the left are exagerrating about a totalitarian state yet you are not when you charge that the left is turning the U.S. into an Islamofacsist state

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:25pm

  150. HMAN23----It seems that there is plenty of exageration to go around on both sides. We are not becoming a totalitarian state. We may, I repeat may, have strayed off the strict and narrow path of Constitutionalism for a short period of time. We have done it before and I am sure we will do it again.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 5:30pm

  151. LM

    That is who the GOP campaigns shoot for. Call'em like I see'em. Besides...with my income I could hardly be considered amongst the "elite" of anything.

    CPT

    Hypothetical situation. If someone sees the gov't going corrupt, it is their mandate under the 2nd Amendment to "stratighten them out"...that IS what the "right to bear arms" is about! So let's say this person is on a conference call about the abuses of the gov't and the need for people to stand up and overthrow it. Couple of beers later, the talkers get a bit flippant :"I've got a gun...how about you?"..."Sure, maybe we should do something." Next thing you know the blcak SUVs roll up and its off to GTIMO! Terrorists, no doubt!

    That is what Americans should REALLY be worried about! Not the butcher of Baghdad...what was he gonna do, lead a camel charge across the Atlantic?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 5:37pm

  152. REEDOM

    I must stay here, and fight the war for America, the land i love, from your ilk.

    Posted by CPT 04/27/2006 @ 5:06pm

    I believe there are laws against what you say you are purporting to do. Are you saying that you are in the military to defend this country against its citizens? Wow, so, like, you're in the CIA, dude? Hug a tree and die? America is not some fragile, hothouse flower and it certainly does not need you to determine who belongs and who is a threat.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:37pm

  153. So many on the left are outraged because they believe that the President has acted outside the Constitution. It is an interesting and thought provoking debate. However, do the same people who run to the defense of the Constitution today also defend it when a more liberal regime stretches and twist it for their own purposes and designs. For example: Would an executive order that placed price controls on gasoline be Constitutional?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 5:37pm

  154. LM -

    I understand and agree that exaggeration often happens in these debates. I wasn't implying that I think we are living in a totalitarian state - we are not even close - thanks to 20th century liberals (he-he).

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 5:40pm

  155. HMAN23---What everyone needs to understand, especially on boards like this, is that our country has been a success because of the larger definition of the word Liberalism. The definition that contains both the present day progressive movement and the present day conservative movement.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/27/2006 @ 5:45pm

  156. so now conservatives are liberals

    I think you need to go over to the conservative web sites and advocate that idea

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 7:45pm

  157. It seems the two sides here are the ones who dont want any surviellence of terrorists for fear of an innocent conversation being listened to and the ones who expect the govt to listen to people who want to do the US harm.

    Posted by CPT 04/27/2006 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person

    CPT, I know it's ever so much easier to refute someone else's argument when you get to make it up for them, but really, this just makes you sound, well, less than bright. I've been reading at this board for a very long time and not once, not ever, has anyone posted such a statement. "Get a warrant and do it legally" is completely and utterly different than we "dont want any surviellence of terrorists for fear of an innocent conversation being listened to."

    Posted by Lillian at 04/27/2006 @ 7:51pm

  158. CPT... still here breaking the law. And like your fearless leader you also took an oath to defend the constitution (and the law).

    And like your fearless leader you too are above the law.

    You're a disgrace to the uniform

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm#ce1

    E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

    E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

    E3.6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

    E3.6.3. Refrain from participating in any political activity while in military uniform, as proscribed by reference (f), or using Government facilities or resources for furthering political activities.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 8:08pm

  159. No, the right is correct about everything. Just like CPT's claim that people who grow nervous around police must have done something wrong. In short, "the very absence of suspicious activity is itself suspicious", as the FBI said of Nelson Algren.

    We're dealing with some sick motherfuckers here.

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 04/27/2006 @ 8:51pm

  160. That is the find of the month Will.

    Nice work.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2006 @ 10:07pm

  161. Posted by HMAN23 04/27/2006 @ 10:07pm

    I actually found it a month or so back when I was researching a statement that CPT made referencing the illegality of an active duty service member running for national office.

    Which means CPT is aware of the regulation.

    which means he is willfully breaking the law.

    The funny thing is the first time I hinted at it to him he then proceeded to disappear from the daily blog and adopted the terrorist tactic of hit and run posts.

    But like they say... the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 10:40pm

  162. LM

    As to the President holding himself above the FISA law the question has to be asked can the Congress restrict the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

    Actually, we know that they can--that was the point of the Youngstown case.

    The anti-war left and SADDAM and AQ-like groups have a common aim.

    To withdraw US Troops from the ME, that is the danger of being anti-war, you skate close to the enemy though you may not want to, there is no denying that both groups want the US out of the ME.

    No, the anti-war left doesn't (with some exceptions) want us out of Afghanistan. Further, our going into Iraq has been a boon to al-Qaida, giving them an extra front in which to operate.

    I know you dont really beleive that professional intell collectors at the NSA are wasting their time listening to those whoo arent likley to harm us. Yes, no doubt some of the surveillence will turn out to be unnecessary and benign, it is prudent to be mindful regradless.

    And we dont have proof of what they have uncovered either, not wise to annouce "hey look what this has wrought!!"

    Actually, it was the NYTimes that reported in January that most of the leads from this program were dead ends. Further, none of that is a reason to not require warrants.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/27/2006 @ 10:40pm

  163. WILL C

    LOL, what i am to say, to this, well i guess you certainly told me now.

    Trying to supress a dissenting voice, how illiberal, not suprising though, your hypocrisey knows no bounds.

    The regulation does not apply in this case, I am not a memeber of any party, nor am i a paid operative for any party. I am not speaking for the Department of the Army or advocating any position for them. I speak for myself.

    I must have really gotten to you and others here for you to have dug that up.

    You know if you were really smart you could have easily ID me by now, over the months i have given more than enough clues. By all means you know the hotline number, call it.

    But if you dont like me or my ideas then please ignore list me. But of course you like to fashion yourself as too cool to even be bothered by the innane rantings of a conservative voice.

    Yet you go to these lengths to stymie dissent, well WILL, try again

    Posted by CPT at 04/28/2006 @ 11:03am

  164. WILL C

    You see WILL this is all part of the my own training program, as i get to talk with many HS and College Counsolers, adminstrators, department heads, teachers, prinicpals, parents, professors and students.

    I noticed that they many had similar viewpoints, so it is good to know the basis of their arguments and i enjoy shredding them, although i do it in a nice way. It has opened schools to us and other avenues, so i place some value in coming to these adversial sites.

    It is a benefit to me in performing my current duties, so for that i grudgingly thank you and others here. Not in any way trying to come off as a demeaning or condecsending.

    Posted by CPT at 04/28/2006 @ 11:17am

  165. BRUNOWE----The Youngstown case is "broadly similar" to the facts in the NSA case. There are, of course, obvious differences between the Youngstown case and recent efforts to combat terrorism. The seizure of the steel mills, for instance, was a wholly domestic matter. The surveillance program, by contrast, monitors international communications between the United States and other nations. Also, Truman tried to seize the steel mills in order to prevent a strike that he thought might interfere with the war -- whereas the NSA intercepts are direct warmaking actions to gather enemy intelligence.

    Will C----The broader definition of Liberalism is a belief in the teachings of such people as Locke, Montisquieu, and later Madison and Jefferson. It is a belief in the system that we have created---A Federal Democratic Republic. Within this unique form of government, progressives and conservatives compete for the people's support.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 2:53pm

  166. Hey, Rush Limp-bag got indicted.

    I saw a bumper sticker today that said "Even on drugs, Rush is still right." The things you see when you don't have a gun.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/28/2006 @ 6:58pm

  167. Another Republican arrested.

    Rush Limbaugh was arrested today.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/28/2006 @ 7:23pm

  168. Will C---I noticed that you referred to my definition of Liberalism in a derogatory manner on another board. Do us all a favor, take a Civics class at your local community college. If you do so, the larger and broader definition of Liberalism will be taught in one of the early chapters. Good Luck. I am sure you will do well.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 7:27pm

  169. All charges to be dropped on Rush if he continues his drug re-hab. So I guess now the post on all the boards will sink to new lows of who can come up with the republican or democrat who has the most drugs,sex, or financial problems. Boring.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 7:31pm

  170. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin"

    The key word is ESSENTIAL liberty, where in the Constitution is it ESSENTIAL to be allowed to talk to terrorists and plot violence against innocents? That is not the ESSENTIAL liberty Franklin spoke of.

    Posted by CPT 04/26/2006 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person

    The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: 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.

    Sounds like the right to privacy, and the requirement to obtain a lawful search warrant are pretty well defined as "essential" to me!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 7:41pm

  171. LILLIAN----The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable" I would agree that the rights described in the 4th Amendment our essential. Also I would say that it is not within our ability to give up rights as they are inalieable rights. However, I do not believe that all searches are unreasonable.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 8:30pm

  172. .

    BRUNOWE 04/27 @ 1:33pm

    Well NACL it's typical of what passes for logic with you that you'd conflate being against this war with being for Saddam. I suppose that's because the case for this war has become so bankrupt that you have to resort to hysterical polemics (and please don't insult my intelligence or the English language by trying to pass your discourse as "civil"). The fact is we were against the war because the rationalizations given by Bush & Co. didn't show that this was worth the life of one American soldier. I defy you to show one anti-war poster on this site who has ever defended Hussein per se.

    If you find me frustrated and disgusted, you're right. I am tired of the argument. I'm tired of your lot. I'm no longer surprised or enraged by how the whole crumby Nation coterie instinctively twists and lies and knows no shame. I am resigned to all that. There are some people who cannot be reached. That is true for certain psychopaths hopelessly lost in their mental labyrinths. It is also true for certain hardened criminals. They have crossed a frontier where not a flicker of human feeling remains. And then there are political ideologues. Some encase themselves in deep mental bunkers where, regardless of what goes on in the world outside, they twist events to their own crazy logic. It doesn't matter what you holler down to them. Their reply is surreal. Take the case of Plunger who has concluded that the Iranian president persists in statements t harmful to Iran because he is an agent of Mossad or the CIA.

    Of course, there is also the chance that you guys are the sanes ones, and I'm the one who isdemented. Lichtenstein said: a man can never be sure he is not living in a madhouse.

    Well, my animal faith tells me, anyone who sides with a ruler who pulls out the tongues of his critics, is a scumbag. That is not a civil remark, but it is not arguable. You become a grotesque when you think the moral high ground is protecting a mass murderer.

    You might reasonably enough have told yourself, they are going after Saddam on grounds apart from his crimes, they tolerate other bastards, they are not as sure of their WMD charges as they pretend, etc. In short, a cynical view of US motivations, or a letter to your senator dissenting from the policy, or worrying about the aftermath, might have made sense. That would not have dishonorable.

    But what you actually did, was. No sensible person could have failed to tell themselves: I'm shedding no tears for that SOB. Wringing Saddam's neck is not objectionable. The world is better off without him. Millions of Iraqis will breath easier. Hundreds of thousands will be avenged. My time and energy is not going to the protection of such an abomination.

    But your time and energy did. The only explanation is your lot's left fascists sympathies. You went to bat for an anti-American champion, for a hero of the radical world. Because he had been making a monkey of the US. Because he had demonstrated that with persistence the US can be outflanked. He had the strongest Arab military. He had promised to turn Israel into a sheet of flame. He had the moxie to by hook or crook get the bomb and then come into control of the Gulf's oil, and make the US and Israel dance to his tune. He was your great white hope. That is why a threat to him drove you crazy, why all the raunchiest covens in the world, came to his defense.

    That has exposed you, nailed you, defined you. You are a fascist collaborator whether you know it or not.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 04/28/2006 @ 9:41pm

  173. Trying to supress a dissenting voice, how illiberal, not suprising though, your hypocrisey knows no bounds.

    Posted by CPT 04/28/2006 @ 11:03am

    I neither can nor will suppress your voice. Of course I am free to point out that your partison ranting here on the Nation's blog while in uniform on the tax payers dime is against army regulations and a criminal matter.

    but please, don't mind me... contiune on with your criminal behavoir.

    (I hear it's very conservative to break the law)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 9:53pm

  174. Will C----The broader definition of Liberalism is a belief in the teachings of such people as Locke, Montisquieu, and later Madison and Jefferson. It is a belief in the system that we have created---A Federal Democratic Republic. Within this unique form of government, progressives and conservatives compete for the people's support.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/28/2006 @ 2:53pm

    Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

    len

    there is no broder definition of liberalism. There's just the definition of liberalism. Simply because you and all the other hamsters have such a mind numbingliy narrow definition of liberalism doesn't in any way create a broader definition. It simply demonstrates how narrow your thinking is,

    perhaps if you took a few classes at your local community college you might just free your mind.

    I guarentee your ass will follow.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:03pm

  175. I must have really gotten to you and others here for you to have dug that up.

    Posted by CPT 04/28/2006 @ 11:03am

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    My only regret is that you make yourself scarce when I'm in the room.

    and watching a conservative flagrantly violate army regs...

    makes me smile

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:08pm

  176. it's almost as good as liberty admitting that he cheats on his taxes

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:09pm

  177. Whoa...NaCl is off his meds again.

    Easy there fella...them evil polka-dotted Islamofascist lefties aren't *really* crawling out of the AC vents. That's just a really bad dream. Take the blue pill!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 10:23pm

  178. Will C---It was you that questioned my statement that "everyone needs to understand, especially on boards like this, that our country has been a success because of the larger definition of the word Liberalism. The definition that contains both the present day progressive movement and the present day conservative movement". It is an accurate statement. Today's American progessive and conservative political movements are both grounded in the same philosophy---a belief in popular sovereignty, constitutionalism, equality, justice and freedom. Because the two do not agree on the best way to achieve these priciples does not mean that both did not spring from the same well. Also---I see that you have learned to copy and paste from encyclopedias. Congratulations. I am sure that this will come in handy as you plagerize your way through community college.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 10:26pm

  179. However, I do not believe that all searches are unreasonable.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/28/2006 @ 8:30pm

    Damn

    Len tells me to take a civics class but he himself gets all plum tuckered out before he gets to the second half of the forth amendment.

    (why do they always miss that half... perhaps it's the inconvenience factor?)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:29pm

  180. len you should realy hold off trying to get your head around complex definitions like liberalism until you get a better understanding of the simple terms like "and"

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:31pm

  181. Will C----If your reasoning on the 4th Amendment was correct then the police could never search without a warrant. As we both know there are cases when a warrantless search is considered reasonable.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 10:35pm

  182. Will C--The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: 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 particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If you read carefully, and I know you can. the clause reads "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"----This means that a judge may not issue a warrant unless there is probable cause to do so and that the police support their reasons for asking for the warrant by an oath or affirmation. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL SEARCHES NEED A WARRANT.

    I take it back. You don't need to take a civics class at your local community college. Just set an appointment with me for the same time that you would spend on a class and I think I can set you on the right track---maybe. p.s.-(since emotions are hard to convey on this board, and statements can not be accurately interpreted because of this failing, I should add ha ha)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/28/2006 @ 10:45pm

  183. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL SEARCHES NEED A WARRANT.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/28/2006 @ 10:45pm

    your correct len. All searches don't need a warrant. Just the ones having to do with our... how did you put it

    persons, houses, papers, and effects

    and of course the supreme court ruled that phone conversations are included in that list.

    you should really read more len. You might just pick some of this stuff up.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 11:37pm

  184. Hey wingers, Your fat god, Limbaugh has some serious legal trouble. It appears that he just cannot stop choking down dope. From the sounds of your posts over the past couple of years, one might be led to believe that the rest of your sorry lot are similarly addicted. That fat fool kind of reminds me of Bill Bennett, another addict, and loser. (We will not discuss, at this time, the Cunningham "Hookergate" stuff; it's just too much to absorb in one sitting.

    Spring is fully engaged...time to clean house.

    Love,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 04/28/2006 @ 11:38pm

  185. here Len

    let me help to start you on the road to your very own brain

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 11:48pm

  186. Will C--The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: 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 particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If you read carefully, and I know you can. the clause reads "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"----

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/28/2006 @ 10:45pm | ignore this person

    Actually Len, I read your post VERY carefully and it DIDN'T say that. Apparently you cut that part out. Probably just a simple case of cutting when you meant to be copying? ;-)

    And actually, Will got it EXACTLY correct regarding telephone conversations.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/29/2006 @ 12:01am

  187. LM

    whereas the NSA intercepts are direct warmaking actions to gather enemy intelligence.

    Actually, they are to a large extent domestic surveillance, the programs are aimed at communications where a US person is a party. It's aimed at people in the US who the government thinks may be violating the law.

    Your take on the 4th Amendment is off as well, although SCOTUS as found many cases where warrantless searches are permitted, they have always been defined as exceptions to the warrant requirement (i.e. search incident to arrest, automobile searches, etc.), so warrants are always required unless SCOTUS has defined an exception.

    NACL

    There are some people who cannot be reached. That is true for certain psychopaths hopelessly lost in their mental labyrinths. It is also true for certain hardened criminals. They have crossed a frontier where not a flicker of human feeling remains. And then there are political ideologues. Some encase themselves in deep mental bunkers where, regardless of what goes on in the world outside, they twist events to their own crazy logic. It doesn't matter what you holler down to them. Their reply is surreal.

    Physician, heal thyself.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/29/2006 @ 12:34am

  188. I know this was from a little while back, but the discussion seems to be dying fast.

    I want to deal with a prior Constitutional issue. The powers of each branch are laid out in the Constitution, and there is exactly one means by which those powers can legitimately be altered: an amendment to the Constitution. Since Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute, they cannot pass a law reducing the Executive's powers below those articulated in the Constitution. Though individuals in society can be coerced to follow laws until they are proven unconstitutional, the same is not true of other branches. Were that the case, as mentioned in a prior post, the President would be obligated to honor a law passed by Congress delegating all war powers to the Speaker of the House. That's silly, and it exposes the ridiculousness of that position. In other words, the President is not obligated to bow to an unconstitutional limitation of his powers, any more than Congress would be obligated to bow to an Executive Order dissolving Congress.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2006 @ 01:23am

  189. lucky for us ol gee dubya has to bow to the fourth amendment

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 02:20am

  190. From what I have been able to garner of the NSA/AT&T wiretap rooms they are broad spectrum, and very non-discriminitory filters at the 1st level. They are, in effect, an electronic "fishing net" for the majority of US telecomm streams. What this boils down to is they aren't just listening to OBL order pizza. They are listening to EVERYONE to see what kind of illegalities they can find. It is violation of the 4th at the most fundamental level. It is as if they have installed a listening device in every American home....and you can't tell when they are tuning in, only that they could.

    If that doesn't rankle even hardened wing-nuts, then they MUST be wearing crisp brown boxers until the rest of the uniforms are done.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 09:05am

  191. I want to deal with a prior Constitutional issue. The powers of each branch are laid out in the Constitution, and there is exactly one means by which those powers can legitimately be altered: an amendment to the Constitution. Since Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute, they cannot pass a law reducing the Executive's powers below those articulated in the Constitution.

    Actually, SCOTUS held otherwise in the Youngstown case, holding that inherent Presidential powers are at their lowest ebb when in the face of contrary Congressional legislation. The main question is was Congress competent to pass FISA in the first place, which they certainly were.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/29/2006 @ 09:31am

  192. Actually, SCOTUS held otherwise in the Youngstown case, holding that inherent Presidential powers are at their lowest ebb when in the face of contrary Congressional legislation. The main question is was Congress competent to pass FISA in the first place, which they certainly were.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/29/2006 @ 09:31am

    This is exactly the point that the apologists so conveniently choose to ignore. Congress has legislated on this matter in the form of FISA. Bush is setting himself above the law by refusing to conform to the proscribed course under FISA. The 'inherent powers' of the presidency do not include the perogative of forswearing those laws the executive deems inconvenient.

    Before some winger gets all up-jumped, strips to the waist and tears the hair (in the singular) from his chest and shouts 'you're for the rights of terrorists!!!!!,' let me say categorically that I am advocating no such thing. I am for the Constitution (yes, even the 2nd Amendment, so long as you keep your firearms clear of me and mine).

    As for the terrorists, I say we give 'em a fair trial, then we hang 'em. But give 'em a fair trial first, because the rule of law is one of the values that separates us from them.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/29/2006 @ 10:18am

  193. the "inherent" powers of the president as commander in chief were amended by the fourth amendment.

    If he wants to spy on us...

    all he has to do is get a warrant

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 10:30am

  194. ALL

    This is absolutely great......I'm the Decider

    Definitely in the LMAO category

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 10:36am

  195. Will C--"your correct len. All searches don't need a warrant. Just the ones having to do with our... how did you put it

    persons, houses, papers, and effects"

    You are incorrect Will. Searches are conducted on "persons" all the time in this country without a warrant. Houses are a different deal. In almost every case, a warrant is needed. Also to imply that the 4th Amendment amends Executive Powers is an incorrect understanding of the Bill of Rights. Many of the founding fathers felt there was no need for a Bill of Rights. In fact they were concerned that by listing a group of rights would imply that those were the only ones that we had--(therefore the 9th Amendment). The Founding Fathers believed that these rights existed prior to any statement of them in the Bill of Rights. Therefore the Bill of Rights Amended nothing in the Constitution--in fact many scholars consider it an independent document separate from the Constitution-it simply clarified in print rights that already existed. The Constitution for the most part creates powers for the three branches of government. The Executive powers should be used in such away as to not violate the rights of Americans, however the 4th Amendment should not be seen as amending the inherent powers of the Executive Branch. All actions of government are limited by the rights that the people posses, but it should not be seen as an amending of those powers.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/29/2006 @ 11:04am

  196. len

    the bill of rights was the final compromise with the states for ratification. Without it, the US constitution would not have been ratified. Without the US constituion there is a pretty good chance that the forces that brought about the consitutional convention in the first place would have torn the country apart

    And it doesn't matter what the arguments were concerning the Bill of Rights. They are there. The mechanisms of Article five were used to put them there. And they are the law of the land.

    unless you can find a stated exception in article two or in the fourth amendment itself, then the fourth amendment modifies executive power so that the executive needs a warrant to spy on us.

    And look... the congress was nice enough to give him a secret court to get that warrant.

    (they'll even let him wear his groucho glasses and nose when he comes in for it)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 11:24am

  197. (they'll even let him wear his groucho glasses and nose when he comes in for it)

    Posted by WILL C. 04/29/2006 @ 11:24am

    But what's Dickie C gonna wear - as we all know, that ass-wipe Bush couldn't possibly be expected to testify - UNDER OATH or otherwise - without his handler present.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/29/2006 @ 12:48pm

  198. Actually, SCOTUS held otherwise in the Youngstown case, holding that inherent Presidential powers are at their lowest ebb when in the face of contrary Congressional legislation. The main question is was Congress competent to pass FISA in the first place, which they certainly were.

    The Youngstown case doesn't actually support your position. All it says is that the President can't act if both (1) there isn't clear enumerated power from the Constitution to act, and (2) Congress passes legislation directly in opposition to the action. In other words, Congress still can't amend the President's enumerated powers without directly amending the Constitution. This makes sense, because, as I pointed out earlier, allowing one branch to alter the enumerated powers of the others without directly amending the Constitutition would be silly. So, if the Constitution's text as originally understood gives the Executive the authority to say, conduct a wiretapping program, no legislation that Congress passes can alter that. The only question at that point is whether the power to wiretap is included under the President's enumerated powers as originally understood. And yes, Will is right that the Amendments matter insofar as they are law. They functionally limit the power of the government in the way that only explicitly codified law can do (which is also why I think the "fundamental rights not mentioned in the Constitution" thing is a terrible justification for the Court to overturn laws).

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2006 @ 1:14pm

  199. So, if the Constitution's text as originally understood gives the Executive the authority to say, conduct a wiretapping program, no legislation that Congress passes can alter that. The only question at that point is whether the power to wiretap is included under the President's enumerated powers as originally understood.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 1:14pm

    but the president doesn't have an enumerated power to spy on us without a warrant.

    he doesn't have an enumerated power to spy on us at all.

    you understand that enumerate means list, spell out, catalog, detail, name, specify... right?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 1:40pm

  200. of course the protections granted to us by the fourth amendment are enumerated

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 1:41pm

  201. THRAWN,

    Why didn't the President just say what you are saying rather than tell us that he had warrants to conduct his tapping? Was he lying or ignorant of his own powers?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 1:46pm

  202. He actually did say that he had the legitimate power to do so. That was one of the reasons that he explicitly gave. Also, he definitely told Congress that this program was going on, and Congress chose to do nothing. This suggests that there isn't clear Congressional opposition to what he's doing (outside of political manuevering).

    Will: enumerated powers doesn't mean "if the Constitution doesn't say 'by the way, you can also wiretap,' he doesn't the power to wiretap." When the Constitution, for example, vests in the President the "executive power," that designation was chosen for a reason, and would have been understood a particular way. Though there was undoubtedly some grey area as to the extent of the President's powers, he still those powers as would have been generally originally understood. Moreover, in order for Bush's action to have been clearly unconstitutional, it would have to be even outside the grey area of the President's powers, because it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the President can exercise grey-area powers if Congress expresses no form of opposition to them. I don't think this has been demonstrated, so I don't think there has been a really solid argument made that the President's actions were plainly unconstitutional. This also means that these actions certainly cannot qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," meaning that there is no legal justification for impeachment.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2006 @ 3:11pm

  203. April 2004, Vush said:

    "there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

    This is a lie or a delusion. Have your pick. He did not indicate that there were exceptions. If he had knowledge of what his administration was doing and confidence in its legitimacy/constitutionality, why would he not have discussed the entirety of his wiretapping program which, sometimes, excludes the court?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 3:20pm

  204. Vush is my pet name for Bush, by the way.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 3:21pm

  205. Vush is my pet name for Bush, by the way.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/29/2006 @ 3:21pm

    "Vush" ????

    Strange, that's the sound my toilet makes when I flush it. It's one of those fancy Eura-peein' jobs, don't ya know.

    Posted by skeletonman at 04/29/2006 @ 4:27pm

  206. Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 3:11pm

    Will: enumerated powers doesn't mean "if the Constitution doesn't say 'by the way, you can also wiretap,' he doesn't the power to wiretap."

    But the strict constructionist argument does follow that if the constitution doesn't say it, then it just isn't there. And our president is a self proclaimed strict constructionist, as are conservatives (I still have the ringing in my ears). But that's beside the point. What you are trying to define is generally referred to as implied powers. And for an implied power to be legitimate, it must be something that backs the play of an enumerated power.

    When the Constitution, for example, vests in the President the "executive power," that designation was chosen for a reason, and would have been understood a particular way. Though there was undoubtedly some grey area as to the extent of the President's powers, he still those powers as would have been generally originally understood.

    He has his enumerated powers and then he has the implied powers that support his enumerated powers. Unless they are modified in the original draft of the constitution or by subsequent amendments. The fourth amendment is such a modification.

    Moreover, in order for Bush's action to have been clearly unconstitutional, it would have to be even outside the grey area of the President's powers, because it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the President can exercise grey-area powers if Congress expresses no form of opposition to them. I don't think this has been demonstrated, so I don't think there has been a really solid argument made that the President's actions were plainly unconstitutional.

    Then let me make it for you. The fourth amendment as further defined by Katz vs. USA, requires the executive to obtain a warrant before tapping a phone call. It's very simple. And as such the president acted outside the very clear limitations on executive powers.

    This also means that these actions certainly cannot qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," meaning that there is no legal justification for impeachment.

    It doesn't mean anything of the sort. The man broke the law of the land (And not just any law, but the law that defines one of the most fundamental rights we have). He tapped people's phones without a warrant. He behaved as someone who broke the law behaves by hiding the action and publically lying about it. And then to add insult to injury, the strict constructionist hides behind the murky world of implication to justify his actions when at anytime he could bring the question before the FISA court for review and if it doesn't go his way, to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

    There's more than enough justification for a high crimes and misdemeanors review before an impeachment committee.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 7:31pm

  207. Will C==="the bill of rights was the final compromise with the states for ratification. Without it, the US constitution would not have been ratified."==

    The Bill of Rights was offered at the first Congress by James Madison in 1789. Eleven states had already ratified the Constitution at that time. Only Rhode Island and North Carolina had not. Only 9 states were needed for the new Government to go into effect (ratification)==as it did when Congress met in 1789. This is a small point, but you seem to get a lot of small points wrong (ie. implying that a warrant is always necessary for a search) and I feel it is my duty, nay my obligation to correct you. It is the least I can do when you seem to have no interst in taking that class I mentioned.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/29/2006 @ 8:46pm

  208. Actualy it's not a small point. The compromise was made before ratification of the constitution. And the the individual amendments that became the Bill of Rights were individually ratified after that point.

    these were men of honor and they kept their promise.

    They were liberals

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 8:53pm

  209. Will C==="the bill of rights was the final compromise with the states for ratification. Without it, the US constitution would not have been ratified."==

    Actually, Will is right. The compromise that led to New Hampshire and Massachusetts ratifying the constitution was an agreement to consider amendments in the form of a Bill of Rights.

    Thrawn

    Congress as a whole was NOT briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/29/2006 @ 9:19pm

  210. All right; I'm glad we're agreed that Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute. That means that the only question left is whether the ability to wiretap falls within the President's powers as originally understood. Strict constructionism doesn't preclude my argument; "the executive power" is a term that almost certainly has a specific meaning within the context of British law, something that ex-British colonists would almost certainly understand. I'm still being fully consistent with strict constructionism; all I'm doing is determining what the words themselves mean, because they weren't just thrown together randomly. This means that the only relevant question is whether something like wiretapping would fit within the domain of "the executive power." Moreover, since we're dealing specifically with calls to other countries, this could very well fit under the responsibilities of the President as Commander-in-Chief, or as the actor understood to have a great deal of authority in terms of foreign policy.

    I would also argue that the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly preclude this power. The standard for searches and seizures is "reasonability"; nowhere is a warrant listed as a categorical necessary condition. Moreover, I believe that the Court has defined "security in your property, etc." in terms of an expectation of privacy, something that probably doesn't apply to this case because we're dealing with foreign calls.

    So, in the end, there's no clear basis for believing that this program violates the Fourth Amendment, or that it unequivocally falls outside of the President's authority as provided in the Constitution. This means, first and foremost, that it can't fall under the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors," particularly since prominent actors in Congress were informed of this program in 2001 and have chosen not to challenge it in any way until they thought it would benefit them politically.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2006 @ 10:26pm

  211. All right; I'm glad we're agreed that Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute. That means that the only question left is whether the ability to wiretap falls within the President's powers as originally understood. Strict constructionism doesn't preclude my argument; "the executive power" is a term that almost certainly has a specific meaning within the context of British law, something that ex-British colonists would almost certainly understand. I'm still being fully consistent with strict constructionism; all I'm doing is determining what the words themselves mean, because they weren't just thrown together randomly. This means that the only relevant question is whether something like wiretapping would fit within the domain of "the executive power." Moreover, since we're dealing specifically with calls to other countries, this could very well fit under the responsibilities of the President as Commander-in-Chief, or as the actor understood to have a great deal of authority in terms of foreign policy.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 10:26pm

    The congress can't ammend the constitution by statue. What they can do is use their enumerated power...

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    and proscibe that the president use the FISA court when exercising his enumerated position of commander in chief to spy on Americans in use of force time.

    because as commander and chief the president is bound to follow the rules that govern and regulate the armed forces and their supporting componenets as laid down by congress

    it's a check and balance on the executive

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 10:37pm

  212. I would also argue that the Fourth Amendment does not explicitly preclude this power. The standard for searches and seizures is "reasonability"; nowhere is a warrant listed as a categorical necessary condition. Moreover, I believe that the Court has defined "security in your property, etc." in terms of an expectation of privacy, something that probably doesn't apply to this case because we're dealing with foreign calls.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 10:26pm

    but you're not arguing, you're fantasizing.

    and you have an expectation to privacy when picking up the phone as laid out in Katz. It doesn't mater where you call or who calls you. Just like you have an expectation of privacy when you write a letter (which is primarily what papers refers to in the fourth amendment)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 10:42pm

  213. So, in the end, there's no clear basis for believing that this program violates the Fourth Amendment, or that it unequivocally falls outside of the President's authority as provided in the Constitution. This means, first and foremost, that it can't fall under the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors," particularly since prominent actors in Congress were informed of this program in 2001 and have chosen not to challenge it in any way until they thought it would benefit them politically.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 10:26pm |

    with the exception that the president broke the law of the land as laid down in the constitution, the courts and the congress, hid it and lied about it.

    I think impeachement would be the nicest thing we could do for our fearless leader

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 10:45pm

  214. and it's interesting how "congress" has tranmagorified into "prominent actors in congress"

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 10:47pm

  215. Moreover, in order for Bush's action to have been clearly unconstitutional, it would have to be even outside the grey area of the President's powers, because it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that the President can exercise grey-area powers if Congress expresses no form of opposition to them./b>

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    Thrawn, the establishment of the FISA court, and later, the specific amendment of that courts powers would seem to be a VERY clearly expressed opposition to the Presidential power that you claim. Remember, the creation of the FISA court was a DIRECT response to Nixon's exercise of the specific "presidential power" you claim. And the later ammendment of the statutes governing that court were a direct response to Clinton's excercise of that same presidential power (and actually occurred with Clinton's approval and blessing.)

    In other words, there is NO gray area here. Individual presidents attempted to excercise power they "thought" they had, over and above the rights of the people as expressly stated in the FOurth Ammendment to the Constitution. And the people (in the form of the legislative branch) took specific action (laws) to check that power. Those laws, once passed, stand, and must be obeyed, unless or until the SCOTUS deems them to be in opposition to the Constitution.

    So, in the end, there's no clear basis for believing that this program violates the Fourth Amendment, or that it unequivocally falls outside of the President's authority as provided in the Constitution.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 10:26pm | ignore this person

    Actaully, it seems crystal clear to me that the president has violated existing law. You may believe, as does Bush, that these paticular laws are unconstitutional. However, neither your belief nor his determines anything. IF there's a problem with these particular laws, or ANY given law for that matter, those procecuted under it are free to take up the matter with the SCOTUS who may or may not issue a ruling invalidating the existing law based on constitiutional grounds. Unless and until they do, ANY given law, including the ones establishing the FISA court and it's powers are, without question, the law of the land! Which the president has clearly violated.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/29/2006 @ 11:22pm

  216. and it's interesting how "congress" has tranmagorified into "prominent actors in congress"

    Posted by WILL C. 04/29/2006 @ 10:47pm | ignore this person

    It's also interesting how Thrawn conveniently forgets that 1) very few members of congerss were notified of anything, 2) those that were informaed, weren't fully informed, and 3) all memebers of congress were specifically barred by the Patriot Act from discussing ANYTHING they had been told concerning the gathering of intelligence.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/29/2006 @ 11:27pm

  217. Still wondering, THRAWN, why the president told us he went through the courts for his wiretaps when this is not always true.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 11:58pm

  218. There's a really clear and important difference that I don't think either of you give credence to. The calls that are being tapped are foreign calls. That means that this program doesn't meet the standard that Katz laid out, because you don't have an expectation of privacy on foreign calls. Why not? One really obvious reason is that other countries (like the countries that the program specified) almost certainly do listen in on the other side. As such, you have no legitimate prior expectation that the call won't be listened to. At the very least, this difference means that there's no explicit Supreme Court precedent to invalidate this action. That also means that this definitionally can't count as high crimes and misdemeanors, because it doesn't defy any explicit legal precedent. There are also arguments to be made about the border search exception to the Amendment, ie that the Fourth Amendment allows searches of things entering or exiting the country (or their functional equivalent)(US v Hernandez); US v Ramsey allows for warrantless searching of mail, providing an even clearer precedent in favor of the program. Interestingly enough, as a side note, Katz also explicitly left open a national security exception, to be determined by the President or Attorney General. There are also appellate court decisions that seem to provide even more Constitutional justification for warrantless wiretapping. It's also not entirely clear that FISA is constitutional, given that "the executive power" was understood to include intelligence-gathering. Though that understanding may have changed since Nixon, that's irrelvant because the meaning of Article II can't be changed by any means other than Constitutional amendment.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2006 @ 11:58pm

  219. thrawn are you brain dead or did your brain die?

    I shaking my head here as I read that our government can ignore our constitutional rights because another govenment may chose to ignore them.

    That's an interesting piece of brain deadedness.

    Exactly where did you pull that one from? My guess is from the soft tip of a rectal turd... unblossomed. I would have said your ass but I'm also guessing that your anal sphincter has a death grip on your neck and couldn't relax enough to let something like that slip by your head.

    oh and another thing, border searchs have a legitimate customs function. But unless we implement a nural scan of all the folks crossing the border, then ideas and or languague aren't something that customs check for.

    and i'm a little unclear about your take on executive power. Is it something that was understood at the time of the writing of the constitution (which of course didn't include anything to do with maxwells equations) or has it evolved over time, in which case fourth amendment protections would also have evolved over time.

    and of course all this doesn't change the nature of the implied powers of the president that you keep hinting at directly conflicting with the enumerated power of the congress

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces

    even if as you say there is no supreme court rulling that would prohibit the president from spying on Americans without a warrant (and there doesn't need to be, we have both the fourth amendment and FISA) you are saying that the president is the only commader in the armed forces that doesn't have to follow the rules (FISA being one) that govern and regulate the land and navel forces of our nation as laid down by congress or (as you might like us to believe) the president has an implied power that let's him order his commanders to ignore said rules.

    is that what you are saying?

    cause that's kinda what it sounds like you're saying

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 01:19am

  220. first paragraph of US v Ramsy

    Title 19 U.S.C. 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.

    full text

    US v Ramsey [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 01:48am

  221. And which US v Hernandez are you referring to

    this one?

    first paragraph of US v Hernandez

    An anticipatory search warrant is a "warrant which only becomes effective upon the happening of a future event" ­ often called the "triggering event" ­ which is, more often than not, the controlled delivery of drugs or other contraband by law enforcement officers. United States v. Hugoboom, 112 F.3d 1081, 1085 (10th Cir. 1997). Anticipatory warrants are generally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but care must be taken to describe the triggering event with sufficient specificity to ensure that any judgment call regarding probable cause is made by a neutral magistrate and not by the enforcing officer. This case raises the question whether a warrant that is to be executed when "delivery" of a package is "made" by an undercover officer posing as a UPS delivery man is sufficiently specific, and whether it is necessary that this language be contained in the warrant itself or papers attached to the warrant.(1)

    full text

    US v Hernandez [kscourts.org]

    or this one?

    from first paragraph in analysis of US v Hernandez

    We stress that no one contends that this was an unlawful traffic stop at its inception: Defendant does not dispute that the trooper observed the vehicle violate the speed limit. We also observe the defendant does not contest that she, in fact, consented to the search.

    Full text

    US v Hernandez (pdf file) [ca11.uscourts.gov]

    or is it another one that I need the super secret hamster pass codes to access?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 09:57am

  222. Interestingly enough, as a side note, Katz also explicitly left open a national security exception, to be determined by the President or Attorney General.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/29/2006 @ 11:58pm

    nope... sure didn't

    [ Footnote 23 ] Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.

    here's justice Whites concurance which quotes footnote twenty three and may be what confused thrawn

    MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.

    I agree that the official surveillance of petitioner's telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjected [389 U.S. 347, 363] to the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and that on the record now before us the particular surveillance undertaken was unreasonable absent a warrant properly authorizing it. This application of the Fourth Amendment need not interfere with legitimate needs of law enforcement. *

    In joining the Court's opinion, I note the Court's acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which it is reasonable to search without a warrant. In this connection, in footnote 23 the Court points out that today's decision does not reach national security cases. Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 112 -118 (1967) (WHITE, J., [389 U.S. 347, 364] dissenting). We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.

    here is justice's Douglas and Brennan seperate concurrance which rebuts justice Whites.

    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, concurring.

    While I join the opinion of the Court, I feel compelled to reply to the separate concurring opinion of my Brother WHITE, which I view as a wholly unwarranted green light for the Executive Branch to resort to electronic eaves-dropping without a warrant in cases which the Executive Branch itself labels "national security" matters.

    Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate [389 U.S. 347, 360] and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate.

    There is, so far as I understand constitutional history, no distinction under the Fourth Amendment between types of crimes. Article III, 3, gives "treason" a very narrow definition and puts restrictions on its proof. But the Fourth Amendment draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests in cases of "hot pursuit" and the arrests on visible or other evidence of probable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of crime.

    I would respect the present lines of distinction and not improvise because a particular crime seems particularly heinous. When the Framers took that step, as they did with treason, the worst crime of all, they made their purpose manifest.

    full text

    KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 11:52am

  223. I appreciate the links you provided (and apologize for not providing them myself, especially for Hernandez). When I read through the opinions in detail, I noticed something very interesting. Even though Katz didn't provide clear support for my position in the way that I thought it did, every single case still supports the conclusion I've defended. That being said, I'm going to go ahead and jump into the individual cases, then go back to some of the other analysis that was either ineffectively addressed or just not responded to.

    Ramsey

    I noticed that you quoted the intro, but there was some very interesting stuff underneath it that you missed:

    Held:

    1. Under the circumstances, the customs inspector had "reasonable cause to suspect" that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes, and therefore the search was plainly authorized by the statute. Pp. 611-616.

    2. The Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by the inspector in opening and searching the envelopes. Pp. 616-625.

    (a) Border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 616-619.

    (b) The inclusion of international mail within the border-search exception does not represent any "extension" of that exception. The exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country, and no different constitutional standards should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not [431 U.S. 606, 607] carried - the critical fact being that the envelopes cross the border and enter the country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into the country from without it that makes a resulting search "reasonable." Pp. 619-621.

    (c) The border-search exception is not based on the doctrine of "exigent circumstances," but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's general principle that a warrant be obtained. Pp. 621-622.

    (d) The opening of international mail under the guidelines of the statute only when the customs official has reason to believe the mail contains other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden by the regulations, does not impermissibly chill the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and any "chill" that might exist under such circumstances is not only "minimal" but is also wholly subjective. Pp. 623-624.

    Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be "reasonable" by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself.

    Hernandez

    I apologize for the confusion; I didn't realize that there were multiple cases by this name. Also, since I couldn't get the link function to work for this case, I just posted the URL. Here is the one that I was referring to:

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:y0bwFw3tkS4J:www.metnews.com/s os/0905%252F0450286.PDF+US+v+Hernandez&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_ en&client=firefox-a

    Here is the interesting excerpt from it:

    After the district court denied the motion to suppress in this case, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), holding that the disassembly and reassembly of a vehicle's gas tank at the border did not require a reasonable suspicion to believe the gas tank contained contraband. Id. at 155. The Court first con- cluded that "[c]omplex balancing tests to determine what is a ‘routine' search of a vehicle, as opposed to a more ‘intrusive' search of a person, have no place in border searches of vehi- cles."

    Katz

    After looking back at the case, I have to concede that this case does not clearly affirm the "national security exception" to the Fourth Amendment (though it, of course, doesn't provide clear precedent on which to reject it, either). However, what it does say is extremely helpful to my position:

    First of all, it provides additional support to the "expectation of privacy" standard:

    As the Court's opinion states, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."

    Second, though the support comes from the dissenting opinion, there is a basis for arguing that wiretapping doesn't constitute search and seizure:

    The first clause protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." These words connote the idea of tangible things with size, form, and weight, things capable of being searched, seized, or both. The second clause of the Amendment still further establishes its Framers' purpose to limit its protection to tangible things by providing that no warrants shall issue but those "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. In addition the language of the second clause indicates that the Amendment refers not only to something tangible so it can be seized but to something already in existence so it can be described. Yet the Court's interpretation would have the Amendment apply to overhearing future conversations which by their very nature are nonexistent until they take place. How can one "describe" a future conversation, and, if one cannot, how can a magistrate issue a warrant to eavesdrop one in the future? It is argued that information showing what [389 U.S. 347, 366] is expected to be said is sufficient to limit the boundaries of what later can be admitted into evidence; but does such general information really meet the specific language of the Amendment which says "particularly describing"? Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.

    Tapping telephone wires, of course, was an unknown possibility at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted. But eavesdropping (and wiretapping is nothing more than eavesdropping by telephone) was, as even the majority opinion in Berger, supra, recognized, "an ancient practice which at common law was condemned as a nuisance. 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 168. In those days the eavesdropper listened by naked ear under the eaves of houses or their windows, or beyond their walls seeking out private discourse." 388 U.S., at 45 . There can be no doubt that the Framers were aware of this practice, and if they had desired to outlaw or restrict the use of evidence obtained by eavesdropping, I believe that they would have used the appropriate language to do so in the Fourth Amendment. They certainly would not have left such a task to the ingenuity of language-stretching judges. No one, it seems to me, can read the debates on the Bill of Rights without reaching the conclusion that its Framers and critics well knew the meaning of the words they used, what they would be understood to mean by others, their scope and their limitations. Under these circumstances it strikes me as a charge against their scholarship, their common sense and their candor to give to the Fourth Amendment's language the eavesdropping meaning the Court imputes to it today.

    Under the standard of original understanding, which has never once been contested, it can very easily be contended that the Fourth Amendment does not include wiretapping in the first place. Moreover, Justice Black (in that same dissenting opinion) argues that precedent also favors this interpretation:

    The first case to reach this Court which actually involved a clear-cut test of the Fourth Amendment's applicability to eavesdropping through a wiretap was, of course, Olmstead, supra. In holding that the interception of private telephone conversations by means of wiretapping was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, this Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Taft, examined the language of the Amendment and found, just as I do now, that the words could not be stretched to encompass overheard conversations. ...

    Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , is an even clearer example of this Court's traditional refusal to consider eavesdropping as being covered by the Fourth Amendment. There federal agents used a detectaphone, which was placed on the wall of an adjoining room, to listen to the conversation of a defendant carried on in his private office and intended to be confined within the four walls of the room. This Court, referring to Olmstead, found no Fourth Amendment violation....

    To support its new interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which in effect amounts to a rewriting of the language, the Court's opinion concludes that "the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been . . . eroded by our subsequent decisions . . . ." But the only cases cited as accomplishing this "eroding" are Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 , and Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 . Neither of these cases "eroded" Olmstead or Goldman. Silverman is an interesting choice since there the Court expressly refused to re-examine the rationale of Olmstead or Goldman although such a re-examination was strenuously urged upon the Court by the petitioners' counsel. Also it is significant that in Silverman, as the Court described it, "the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners," 365 U.S., at 509 , thus calling into play the supervisory exclusionary rule of evidence. As I have pointed out above, where there is an unauthorized intrusion, this Court has rejected admission of evidence obtained regardless of whether there has been an unconstitutional search and seizure. The majority's decision here relies heavily on the statement in the opinion that the Court "need not pause to consider whether or not there was a technical trespass under the local property law relating to party walls." (At 511.) Yet this statement should not becloud the fact that time and again the opinion emphasizes that there has been an unauthorized intrusion: "For a fair reading of the record in this case shows that the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners."...

    The other "eroding" case cited in the Court's opinion is Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 . It appears that this case is cited for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment applies to "intangibles," such as conversation, and the following ambiguous statement is quoted from the opinion: "The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited." 387 U.S., at 304 . But far from being concerned [389 U.S. 347, 372] with eavesdropping, Warden v. Hayden upholds the seizure of clothes, certainly tangibles by any definition. The discussion of property interests was involved only with the common-law rule that the right to seize property depended upon proof of a superior property interest.

    Other Stuff

    I don't really get your argument on border searches. They don't constitute an exception strictly because of their customs function, but rather because of the more broader right of the government to control what goes in and out of the country, as the court cases above makes crystal clear.

    The standard I use for executive power (and for Constitutional interpretation in general) is what's been dubbed "original understanding." The meaning of words and phrases of the Constitution should be construed as what they would have originally been understood to mean at the time they were written. Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about secret intentions or goals that the Framers might have had, but rather about how what they wrote down would have been understood.

    The final argument you make, and the one I think to be the strongest, is that my construal of executive power conflicts with the implied powers of the legislature. Unfortunately, I don't think it's directly responsive to what I'm defending. The President is in a unique position with regard to the military, as the civilian that controls it and heads the Executive Branch. Moreover, the idea of the President being bound by Congress' rules is dependent on those rules actually being within Congress' power to start with. If the President has a specific domain of authority, no rules enacted by Congress (short of a Constitutional amendment) provide legal limitations of that authority.

    One thing I'm curious about is the separation of powers issue. Presumably, the federal government has the authority to order wiretapping, particularly in national security cases. Since the judicial branch clearly can't order it (they can only allow it), and the legislative branch certainly can't order it, that leaves only the executive. If the power to wiretap rests with the federal government at all, it must rest with the executive. The only justification for a judicial check is if there is a violation of Constitutional rights in question, which the Fourth Amendment analysis shows there isn't.

    So, to sum up...

    1) The Fourth Amendment does not preclude the wiretapping program because

    a) There is no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (as was mocked, but never answered. This principle is rooted in Supreme Court precedent and has never actually been contested.

    b) The border search exception allows interception of calls to and from foreign countries without a warrant or probable cause.

    c) Eavesdropping on phone conversations arguably does not constitute search and seizure

    This, on its own, means that there is no legal justification for impeachment because no actual law was violated.

    2) Authorization of warrantless wiretapping falls within the executive's power

    a) The President's acknowledged role in directing the nation's foreign policy

    b) The role of the President as Commander-in-Chief

    c) The national security exception that was at least acknowledged in the Katz case, even if a minority of judges supported it. At the very least, this makes it a credible understanding of the executive's powers.

    d) Since the federal government has the authority to wiretap, and neither the legislative and judicial branches could have the ability to do so, it necessarily follows that the executive must have that power. This is consistent with the original understanding based on the fact that early Presidents were understood to have that power (and chose to use it).

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 2:34pm

  224. Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 2:34pm

    1) The Fourth Amendment does not preclude the wiretapping program because

    a) There is no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (as was mocked, but never answered. This principle is rooted in Supreme Court precedent and has never actually been contested.

    if it was never actually contested, then there woould be no supreme court precident... making your statement ridiculous (by the way, that was more mocking)

    b) The border search exception allows interception of calls to and from foreign countries without a warrant or probable cause.

    excepting that US law as stated in the very first paragraph in ramsey and latter affirmed by renquist requires a warrant to read mail opened in a customs search for contraband. And katz affirms an expectation of privacy when I pick up the phone reguardless of where I am or who I'm calling

    c) Eavesdropping on phone conversations arguably does not constitute search and seizure.

    except that in Katz, the court argued that it did (you can read right) and that a warrent was necessary for government interception of phone calls (even when the bad guys are talking about bad things)

    This, on its own, means that there is no legal justification for impeachment because no actual law was violated.

    except the laws requiring a warrent to intercept a phone call. see:katz, FISa and the fourth ammendment

    2) Authorization of warrantless wiretapping falls within the executive's power

    Nope. it falls within the power of the magistrate

    a) The President's acknowledged role in directing the nation's foreign policy

    yup... so what. He's not negotiating treaties with the people he is illigally wiretapping.

    b) The role of the President as Commander-in-Chief

    yup...and he's bound by the laws congress is enumerated to make for the government and regulation of the military. see: article 1 section eight and FISA

    c) The national security exception that was at least acknowledged in the Katz case, even if a minority of judges supported it. At the very least, this makes it a credible understanding of the executive's powers.

    Sorry... it wasn't acknowleged. It wasn't addressed. see footnote twenty three in Katz

    d) Since the federal government has the authority to wiretap, and neither the legislative and judicial branches could have the ability to do so, it necessarily follows that the executive must have that power. This is consistent with the original understanding based on the fact that early Presidents were understood to have that power (and chose to use it).

    early presidents didn't have any electronic communicaton systems. Thus nothing to tap... making this statement ridiculous .

    and i'm not exactly sure why you wasted so much space quoting the dissenting opinion in Katz. It doesn't carry any force of law.

    it really doesn't mean anything other than giving the guys who disagree an outlet to bitch.

    And kid, I would like to believe you have a clue as to what the concepts of checks and balances is. From your writing, you don't.

    it's always fun frolicking with the hamsters and you have that special degree of mental deficiency that always puts a smile on my face.

    i only wish I could get you on a poster

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 3:44pm

  225. oh, I almost forgot. The actions of a foriegn soverign are never used to determine an exception to our constitutional rights.

    Never

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 4:09pm

  226. As a note to start off with, most of these responses don't make any sense. For clarity, though anything quoted will be in italics, what you said will be in bold.

    1) The Fourth Amendment does not preclude the wiretapping program because

    a) There is no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (as was mocked, but never answered. This principle is rooted in Supreme Court precedent and has never actually been contested.

    if it was never actually contested, then there woould be no supreme court precident... making your statement ridiculous (by the way, that was more mocking)

    My argument was this: you've never challenged my argument that there's no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (since foreign governments listen in all the time, especially the ones we're wiretapping from). Katz didn't address the particular circumstances I'm describing, so it's unclear what precedent you're citing. Until you beat this argument, I'm necessarily winning the Fourth Amendment debate because an expectation of privacy is a necessary condition for a violation of the Amendment.

    b) The border search exception allows interception of calls to and from foreign countries without a warrant or probable cause.

    excepting that US law as stated in the very first paragraph in ramsey and latter affirmed by renquist requires a warrant to read mail opened in a customs search for contraband. And katz affirms an expectation of privacy when I pick up the phone reguardless of where I am or who I'm calling

    This isn't responsive at all. The argument I'm making is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't preclude these kinds of searches and seizures. So, unless you're winning the argument about executive power, my position stands. Also, Katz does not say that you have a categorical expectation of privacy, perhaps because that position makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to the kind of foreign calls we're discussing.

    c) Eavesdropping on phone conversations arguably does not constitute search and seizure.

    except that in Katz, the court argued that it did (you can read right) and that a warrent was necessary for government interception of phone calls (even when the bad guys are talking about bad things)

    Yes, I can read, and I know exactly what you're referring to. The majority opinion did indeed hold that there was an expectation of privacy. There are two problems with this. First, the originalist justification for the inapplicability of search and seizure isn't actually addressed, as one of the quotes I bolded for you makes clear. Second, and even better, there's still a solid precedent for the view that wiretapping doesn't fall under the Fourth Amendment. Since that precedent has not actually been overturned (even if you buy the majority opinion), it still stands as valid constitutional law.

    All I have to do is give one reason why the Fourth Amendment does not apply to this case, and right now I'm winning three separate reasons. First, I'm winning the border search exception; those are specifically exempt from the Fourth Amendment. Second, I'm winning the argument that there's no expectation of privacy for foreign calls. You have yet to actually answer this argument, and Katz doesn't answer it for you. Third, I'm winning the argument that wiretapping doesn't fall under search and seizure anyway, based not only upon constitutional reasoning but also based on precedent.

    As long as I'm winning any of these three justifications, the only relevant question is whether wiretapping falls under Constitutional executive authority. If it does, laws passed by the legislature are irrelevant because you can't limit Constitutionally-given authority by statute. I give you four reasons to believe that the executive has this authority:

    a) The President's acknowledged role in directing the nation's foreign policy

    yup... so what. He's not negotiating treaties with the people he is illigally wiretapping.

    If foreign policy=treaty negotiation, this would be responsive. Since it isn't, my argument has yet to be responded to. I'll admit, it's not the greatest justification in the world, but it works.

    The (b) point deals with the Commander-in-Chief role; to avoid regurgitation, I'll simply say that the limitation of Congressional laws begs the question as to whether Congress has that authority to begin with.

    c) The national security exception that was at least acknowledged in the Katz case, even if a minority of judges supported it. At the very least, this makes it a credible understanding of the executive's powers.

    Sorry... it wasn't acknowleged. It wasn't addressed. see footnote twenty three in Katz

    The case in question didn't ask about other possible sufficient conditions, that's true. That doesn't mean that the ruling didn't have any implications for them, since the opinions of Supreme Court justices tend to have a pretty significant influence on the understanding of Constitutional law. That also explains why we have dissenting opinions. They're not just opportunities for angry justices to complain; they have an important role in shaping the law, even if it's just because their analysis makes sense (as the Katz dissent certainly does). Moreover, like before, the dissent cited historical precedent, and precedent does have legal import (even if that import isn't binding).

    d) Since the federal government has the authority to wiretap, and neither the legislative and judicial branches could have the ability to do so, it necessarily follows that the executive must have that power. This is consistent with the original understanding based on the fact that early Presidents were understood to have that power (and chose to use it).

    early presidents didn't have any electronic communicaton systems. Thus nothing to tap... making this statement ridiculous.

    This response doesn't make any sense. The Katz dissent discusses how there were good analogues to wiretapping when the Constitution was being written (like eavesdropping).

    Moreover, this is not at all responsive to the argument I actually made, namely that we acknowledge that the federal government has the power to wiretap. Given that this power exists, it logically must inhere in one of the three branches that make up the federal government. It doesn't inhere in either the judicial or legislative branches, which only leaves the executive.

    I'm willing to say that I have a pretty decent understanding of checks and balances; limitations were built into the Constitution to prevent one branch from having too much power. The thing about these checks is that they are explicitly written in the Constitution (ie, the President can veto legislation).The check on Presidential abuse is almost always the judiciary, but the only check they can call on is the Constitution. Unless you can find some part of the Constitution other than the Fourth Amendment to justify your position, the authority legitimately exists.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

  227. My apologies for the bad bolding.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

  228. A little light reading on a cloudy, sad Sunday provided by Will and Thrawn.

    Love the lengthy legal regurgitations. Really. Especially when they are presented in their most painful dryness.

    But...to get through the application of legal precedents to our current situation, we arrive at what? That some wish to give our country's leader the authority to spy (call it what you wish, but it ain't just a matter of having a neighbor peep through your windows during dinner) on us with no requirement for oversight. Look at the numbers on how many times to how many people the FBI spied on citizens and legal residents in the last year: over 9,000 times to over 3,000 people. Add to that over 2,000 wiretaps during the last year through FISA.

    Do we all feel safer or really creeped out with this knowledge? What isn't known, of course, is how many times the administration decided to skip past other legal oversight and conduct their own secret investigations. And what will we make of all this important information after the next terrorist attack on our nation?

    And, again, what are we to make of the president lying to us in April 2004 when he assured us that wiretaps occurred with court-ordered warrants? Certainly Gonzalez has the time and the desire to acquit any action by his president. Certainly he could do at least the basic work done here by Thrawn. Hell, he came up with legal rationalizations for torture, didn't he. But on the topic of wiretapping, he let the president give us the impression that everything was on the up and up. Why?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/30/2006 @ 5:11pm

  229. My argument was this: you've never challenged my argument that there's no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (since foreign governments listen in all the time, especially the ones we're wiretapping from). Katz didn't address the particular circumstances I'm describing, so it's unclear what precedent you're citing. Until you beat this argument, I'm necessarily winning the Fourth Amendment debate because an expectation of privacy is a necessary condition for a violation of the Amendment.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    i'm kind of curious. Did you read katz? Because this is the conclusion of the majority opinion. You know, the opinion which matters

    The Government does not question these basic principles. Rather, it urges the creation of a new exception to cover this case. 23 It argues that surveillance of a telephone booth should be exempted from the usual requirement of advance authorization by a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause. We cannot agree. Omission of such authorization

    "bypasses the safeguards provided by an objective predetermination of probable cause, and substitutes instead the far less reliable procedure of an after-the-event justification for the . . . search, too likely to be subtly influenced by the familiar shortcomings of hindsight judgment." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 .

    And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment [389 U.S. 347, 359] violations "only in the discretion of the police." Id., at 97.

    These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored "the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment," 24 a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition of the kind of electronic surveillance involved in this case. Because the surveillance here failed to meet that condition, and because it led to the petitioner's conviction, the judgment must be reversed.

    It is so ordered.

    the government asked the court for a new exemption. The court said no.

    Sorry... you lose

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:07pm

  230. My argument was this: you've never challenged my argument that there's no expectation of privacy for foreign calls (since foreign governments listen in all the time, especially the ones we're wiretapping from). Katz didn't address the particular circumstances I'm describing, so it's unclear what precedent you're citing. Until you beat this argument, I'm necessarily winning the Fourth Amendment debate because an expectation of privacy is a necessary condition for a violation of the Amendment.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    this isn't an argument. It's a fantasy. The actions of a foreign sovereign are outside the juristiction of the US Constitution and have no bearing at all on the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the preamble, the individual articles...

    nothing

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:10pm

  231. This isn't responsive at all. The argument I'm making is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't preclude these kinds of searches and seizures. So, unless you're winning the argument about executive power, my position stands. Also, Katz does not say that you have a categorical expectation of privacy, perhaps because that position makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to the kind of foreign calls we're discussing.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    You understand that you can't legally enter the country without going through customs and that until you clear customs you're not in the country. It is for this reason that the forth amendment doesn't begin until you have cleared customs. But the authority of a customs search only extends as far as people and products. Current US law requires customs to get a warrant to search for anything else, like information contained in a letter. In Ramsey, Rehnquist affirms this

    The statute in question requires that there be "reasonable cause to believe" the customs laws are being violated prior to the opening of envelopes. Applicable postal regulations flatly prohibit, under all circumstances, the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant, 19 CFR 145.3 (1976):

    "No customs officer or employee shall read or authorize or allow any other person to read any correspondence contained in sealed letter mail of foreign origin unless a search warrant has been obtained in advance from an appropriate judge or U.S. magistrate which authorizes such action."

    Cf. 18 U.S.C. 1702.

    If the executives need a warrant to read a letter that's crossing the border, it doesn't take much gray matter to conclude he also needs a warrant to listen to a phone call crossing the border. The only difference between the two is the means by which the words are carried.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:39pm

  232. Yes, I can read, and I know exactly what you're referring to. The majority opinion did indeed hold that there was an expectation of privacy. There are two problems with this. First, the originalist justification for the inapplicability of search and seizure isn't actually addressed, as one of the quotes I bolded for you makes clear. Second, and even better, there's still a solid precedent for the view that wiretapping doesn't fall under the Fourth Amendment. Since that precedent has not actually been overturned (even if you buy the majority opinion), it still stands as valid constitutional law.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    first of all the majority opinion is tha law of the land. if you have a problem with it, or even two problems with it... that's your problem.

    and if you are going to say this:

    Also, Katz does not say that you have a categorical expectation of privacy,

    and then quickly follow it with this:

    The majority opinion did indeed hold that there was an expectation of privacy.

    and you can't see the inconsistancy,

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    you're fucking brain damaged

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:45pm

  233. Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    All I have to do is give one reason why the Fourth Amendment does not apply to this case, and right now I'm winning three separate reasons. First, I'm winning the border search exception; those are specifically exempt from the Fourth Amendment.

    it is legitimate customs funtion prior to legal entry into the country limited to people and products

    Second, I'm winning the argument that there's no expectation of privacy for foreign calls. You have yet to actually answer this argument, and Katz doesn't answer it for you.

    The only support you've given this "argument" is... because thrawn says so

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Third, I'm winning the argument that wiretapping doesn't fall under search and seizure anyway, based not only upon constitutional reasoning but also based on precedent.

    damn, you really didn't read katz did you. I really don't know how to help you with this. Maybe the guy who does your typing and changes your drool cup can explain it better.

    remember... ask nicely

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:51pm

  234. If foreign policy=treaty negotiation, this would be responsive. Since it isn't, my argument has yet to be responded to. I'll admit, it's not the greatest justification in the world, but it works.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/30/2006 @ 4:52pm

    I'm not exactly sure what i'm responding to. Foreign policy is a set of political goals that seek to outline how our nation interacts with other nations.

    It really doesn't have anything to do with the illegal wiretapping of US citizens by their president you idiot

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:56pm

  235. i'm not dealing with your bold eruption.

    if you want to redo it, i'll comment on it

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 6:57pm

  236. All right, look. I want to make something really clear. I'm not a big fan of the NSA program myself. What I do have a problem with, though, is when people say "all defenders of X policy are idiots." Though the policy may end up being a bad idea, it's important to actually give consideration to the arguments in favor of it. Only after giving consideration to the arguments of one side is it fair to attack it. That being said, on to the arguments...

    First, the Fourth Amendment. I'm glad we've agreed on the burdens involved; you have to either beat all of my arguments on the Fourth Amendment or all of my arguments on executive power.

    a) Expectation of Privacy

    I don't think you've really understood the argument. The Court has repeatedly held that if the people involved have no actual expectation that their conversation will be private. So, contrary to your claims, the policy of other countries can affect our policy. Your response to this argument has been to either cite Katz (which doesn't apply to this case insofar as they still accept the "expectation of privacy" requirement) and then say "the laws of other countries matter? that's silly." Neither of these beats the argument, so I'm winning the Fourth Amendment debate right now.

    I also don't see what the contradiction is in my position. I say: people have to have an expectation of privacy in order for any violation of the Fourth Amendment to take place, they don't have an expectation of privacy in this case, ergo no Fourth Amendment violation.

    b)Border Search Exception

    I don't think this argument is as compelling, but you don't really respond to it effectively either. The citation you made was of postal regulations, but I'm pretty sure that postal workers aren't part of the Executive Branch, nor do postal regulations correspond to Constitutional requirements.

    c) Eavesdropping= search and seizure

    I'm not sure how compelling this one is, but it's certainly interesting. You're right, the Katz decision very clearly states that it is. First, I argue that this claim is incorrect based on Constitutional analysis. As you say, though, the decision is binding even if incorrect. However, there are also a large number of decisions that say the opposite. That means that there is a fair amount of un-overturned legal precedent in favor of this argument, which (under the idea of stare decisis) carries weigh even if it's not conclusive.

    Next, the executive authority issue. This is where I think I'm weakest; in blunt honesty, I've started to think that the Commander-in-Chief and foreign-policy arguments aren't all that compelling. I think the others might have some merit, though. I'll deal with them once you respond to them.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 8:00pm

  237. I'm not sure how communications between citizens of different nations wouldn't be construed as foreign policy, nor do I see how communications that enter and leave the country wouldn't fit under the border search exemption; Katz refuses to distinguish between property and communications, so I'm not sure how that distinction could work here. When stuff enters the country, it can be inspected without violating the Fourth Amendment, even if postal regulations wouldn't be in favor of it.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 8:04pm

  238. your not an idiot because you are defending X policy

    your an idiot becuse you are making shit up. For example... your fantasy ruling that only you can see in katz

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:05pm

  239. if the president is responisble for the nations foreign policy and I'm making an overseas call, I'm not the president... by definition my call has nothing to do with foreign policy

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:06pm

  240. actually Katz does distinguish betwen property and communications. It says that you don't have to be on your own property to assume comunications free of government intrusion unless the government has probable cause and a warrant has been issued

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:09pm

  241. and words aren't stuff... and this is where US law is entirely consistant with first amendment protections. In ramsey Rehnquist addresses the chilling effect that the unwarrented reading of letters would have on free speech which is why he affirms current US Law with reagurds to the neccesity of the warrant requirment.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:15pm

  242. dude, in your post a through c you demonstate that I am not having a converstion sentient being but rather watching the ranting of a cultist.

    until you are willing to believe the ruling in Katz, the limitations on border searches, and the checks and balances that are designed into our constitution then all I'm doing is using a putty knife to scrap the shit off the wall that you threw hoping some of it might stick.

    you're following a god that doesn't exist... but i'll never be able to convince you of that.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:23pm

  243. correction... conversation with a sentient being

    Posted by Will C. at 04/30/2006 @ 8:40pm

  244. All right...most of these responses either don't make any sense, or aren't the least bit responsive. If I've been giving you too many arguments so far, I'll narrow the Fourth Amendment arguments down to three.

    First, the expectation of privacy. You seem to continually misunderstand the "expectation of privacy" standard. In order for a communication to be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the people communicating must have an expectation of privacy. They have to have prior reason to believe that their communication will not be disclosed to others; that, for example, is why loud conversations in the park clearly aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment. The people who are being wiretapped by the NSA program also don't have an expectation of privacy, because the other end of the communication is almost certainly going to be monitored (and, of course, governments can and often do talk to one another about these kinds of things). Since Katz still accepts the "expectation of privacy" standard, it can never be used to challenge this argument, and nor can any case that also accepts this standard.

    Second, the "search and seizure" question. You're right; communications and property are different. On a basic level, it doesn't make sense to speak of "searching and seizing" telephone conversations. This is probably part of the reasons why, based on an originalist standard, wiretapping does not violate search and seizure. There was an analogue to wiretapping in the Framers' time; it was called eavsdropping. As early court decisions make crystal clear, eavsdropping was completely consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and only by changing the meaning of the Amendment (which the Supreme Court can't legitimately do) can you get the kind of answer that the Supreme Court reached in Katz. Katz also isn't absolute law; there's a significant amount of precedent that goes the other way, and this precedent has never been overturned. If, as both reason and legal precedent say, wiretapping does not constitute search and seizure, it cannot violate the Fourth Amendment.

    Just as a side, I want to beat a quick strawman. Yes, someone calling a person in another country isn't making foreign policy. That's true, but that wasn't the argument I made; I argued that the President has a dominant role in the US' relations with other nations, and those relations would certainly include communications from one nation to the other. I realize this argument is a little sketchy, since it would seem to imply that the President can do whatever he wants in international affairs, but it's certainly not what you were making it out to be.

    Anyway, onto the "border search" argument. Ramsey says exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Rehnquist specifically says that searching mail from foreign countries does not have an impermissible chilling effect, and he also says this:

    Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be "reasonable" by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. 14 We reaffirm it now.

    Since the decision explicitly authorizes border searches regardless of whether any warrant or any probable cause for the search exists, and it bases this based on the right to control that which enters and leaves the country, it very clearly applies to this case. It's not simply a matter of customs, since Ramsey doesn't deal with customs at all. Unless you're going to argue that the NSA-monitored conversations don't enter and leave the country (which would be silly), they fit under the border search exemption as well, so they don't violate the Fourth Amendment.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2006 @ 11:47pm

  245. expectation of privacy?

    katz says you do aaaaaaaaannnnnnnd iiiiiiittttttt doesn;t matter what a foreign govenment is doing

    latter court decisions don't allow eavsdropping. you can;t beam the laxor beam on the window pain without a warrent, you can't point the flir at a house without a warremt, you can;t use any electronic means to decern whats going on inside a house without a warrent. and as far as phine calls... katz says tyou need a warrent.

    your foreign policy argument is bullshit

    and rehnquist does say that opening the mail doesn't have a chilling effect becsue you nee a warrent to read it. and read ramsy again... acustoms agent opened someones mail and found contraband. I don;t know how you can read that and then say it's not about customs.

    but then you can read katz and say it doesn't say you have a right to privacy and then two second later say it does say you have a right to privacy.

    have you ever considered shock treatments? I don;t know if they will work for you... but you need help

    Posted by Will C. at 05/01/2006 @ 9:18pm

  246. but what ever you decide to do. i'd appreciate it if you would stop making shit up and then suggesting that I have to disprove your bullshit or else it's valid.

    Posted by Will C. at 05/01/2006 @ 9:21pm

  247. Thrawn

    You miss the elephant in the room. The NSA sponsored filters in AT&T switchrooms must be, at the first level, be relatively non-discriminatory in order to "hear" the magic keywords (whatever they may be.) The gov't did NOT need an elaborate hardwired eavesdropping infrastructure in all/mmost of the AT&T primary switch points just to listen to OBL and his buddies play phone tag. We are talking about a system that intercepts most domestic phone and internet traffic. Where the hell is the "expectation of privacy in that?"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

  248. LeftofCenter

    That's not actually the case, because the only calls that the NSA is authorized to wiretap are calls from the US to specific other countries, and vice versa.

    Will

    Your responses don't make any sense, except for one. I think you're right about the foreign policy argument being bad.

    Read Katz, and tell me where it says that I have an expectation of privacy in any and all phone calls that I make. All it says that people who use phone booths tend to expect that their calls won't be overheard; that's not responsive to my argument at all. A foreign government's actions do matter because they determine whether you actually have reason to expect that your conversation will be private.

    You also make virtually no response to the basic search and seizure question. Insofar as Katz affirms that wiretapping=search and seizure, it's bad constitutional law, and since it didn't explicitly overturn cases that said exactly that, your position doesn't clearly match the law. Your entire argument here relies on Katz as a justification for wiretapping being search and seizure; I'm saying that both reason and prior Court decisions (which are still relevant because they haven't been overturned) support mine.

    I don't think you actually read Ramsey, either. Rehnqusit explicitly said that the Constitution doesn't require a warrant to search stuff coming in and out of the country. The mere fact that something is entering or leaving the country makes a search reasonable, meaning that no warrant is required. It should be obvious that this principle covers more than just customs; it covers anything entering or leaving the country, which would include international calls.

    Finally, the so-called privacy contradiction. You do not have a general right to privacy, but certain amendments give you specific domains of privacy. That's why the "expectation of privacy" standard matters. However, the domain of privacy given out by the Fourth Amendment does not include anything entering or leaving the country.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/01/2006 @ 10:35pm

  249. Thrawn

    First off....how much do we "know" about this wiretapping? Almost nothing.....and then only because it got "outted". So my trust level of "facts as presented" is marginal at best. And actually, the only calls "warranted" would be ones where there are "warrants"...even after the fact warrants (which FISA allows.) As posted on another thread hereabouts....Dubya kinda picks and chooses the laws he feels like obeying "today." Doesn't sound very presidential to me...

    Second, you still have to address the need for what seems to be a relatively large infrastructure for a "few calls"...sorry, don't think I've had enough Kool-aid to swallow that one whole.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/01/2006 @ 10:43pm

  250. Tell me where it doesn't say you have an expectation of privacy in any and all phone calls you make

    it doesn't matter if you think Katz is bad constitutional law. It doesn't matter at all.

    I never said you needed a warrent to search at the border, our country has a legitamate interest in what people and goods are crossing.. but that's it... people and goods (you can open the letter to check it for people or goods but to read it you need a warrent. psst...see ramsey)

    dufus... we weren't discussing a general right to privacy. We were discussing Katz

    Dude, your almost manic. It's kind of funny though

    Posted by Will C. at 05/01/2006 @ 10:50pm

  251. LeftofCenter

    I don't think Bush just randomly chooses which laws to follow; if you want to make that argument, you might want to back it up. If the NSA program goes beyond screening international calls, I'm willing to say that it's probably a bad thing. Also, it's not as though the program exists for no reason, or that the infrastructure itself violates any specific rights. We should probably make sure that it doesn't get abused, but I don't think there are any intrinsic problems with the infrastructure itself.

    Will

    First and foremost, I can't tell you where Katz doesn't say something. That's like saying "go to this page and show me where it doesn't have the word 'alpha.'" It's your job to show that Katz does say that you have an expectation of privacy in all phone calls. It doesn't, because that would be retarded.

    Also, you're right that my opinion of the Katz decision doesn't really matter in and of itself. That's where the part about precedent comes in. The decisions that say that wiretapping isn't a violation of search and seizure have about as much legal weight as Katz does because they haven't been overturned. Ergo, the law supports me on the "search and seizure" point just as much as it supports you.

    Also, you do not need a warrant to search stuff that's crossing the border. A lof of searches are reasonable only because you have a warrant for them, but that isn't true for border searches. Border searches are always reasonable, warrant or not. Supreme Court precedent makes that exquisitely clear, as does Rehnquist in Ramsey. Let me quote him again:

    Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be "reasonable" by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself.

    Checkmate.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2006 @ 12:16am

  252. katz says you have a expectation of privacy when you pick up the phone. You yourself have agrree to this premise (although two seconds prior to your agreement, you disagreed). Unless in Katz an exception was made, and an exception wasn't made because you have admited your inability to find one, then you always have a expectation of privacy when you pick up the phone... always, thus the government needs a warrent to tap your call... always

    if katz says you need a warrent to tap a phone, any prior ruling that said you don't need one is overruled... that's the way it works

    And a.. Check mate?

    let me requote myself (here it's comes)

    I never said you needed a warrent to search at the border, our country has a legitamate interest in what people and goods are crossing.. but that's it... people and goods (you can open the letter to check it for people or goods but to read it you need a warrent. psst...see ramsey)

    So retard, if you have any other questions or perhaps some more of your wonderful fabrications to discuss. I'll be home sometime after Five PDT tommorrow.

    see ya

    Posted by Will C. at 05/02/2006 @ 01:15am

  253. Thrawn

    Dubya's many "signing statements" (end-run, line vetos) are an expression of Dubya's contempt for the law. A bill get passed, then everyone shows up to a signing ceremony at which GWB pens an addendum that goes pretty much like...nice law, except for part [B] which I interpret these words to be something entirely different than anyone else ever has...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 07:29am

  254. LeftofCenter

    I think you'll have to clarify what you mean by "end-run"; if what you mean is "finding a way around the process," as opposed to engaging Congress, etc., I think you'll have to show how he's actually done that. For one thing, the accusations that he made an end-run around advice and consent are silly; the Judiciary Committee more than fulfilled its function.

    It's also not clear why a line-item veto expresses contempt for the law, insofar as its primary purpose is to weed out pork. Maybe it's a bad idea, particularly for separation of powers, but that doesn't mean he's expressing contempt for the law by advocating it. I'm also not sure when Bush has used this "addendum" mechanism, or why it would matter since his interpretation of the words probably isn't binding.

    Will

    For the last time, Katz does not say what you want it to. What it says is that someone using a phone booth doesn't automatically relinquish an expectation of privacy simply because other people can see them. When using it, they generally have a legitimate expectation that their transmission won't be broadcast to the world. Here's the quote:

    The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye - it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen. No less than an individual in a business office, 10 in a friend's apartment, 11 or in a taxicab, 12 a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.

    The point that I'm making is that someone is not entitled to assume that their conversation will not be overheard when they make a call to another country, particularly one that almost certainly will be listening in on the other end. If it's virtually certain that a call will be overheard (as is the case for calls to the countries that the NSA program includes), it is logically impossible for an expectation of privacy to exist. Without that expectation of privacy, no warrant is necessary.

    Your response to the border search argument is very strange:

    I never said you needed a warrent to search at the border, our country has a legitamate interest in what people and goods are crossing.. but that's it... people and goods (you can open the letter to check it for people or goods but to read it you need a warrent. psst...see ramsey)

    This doesn't make any sense. If you don't need a warrant to search stuff at the border, you don't need a warrant to read things. If a search is reasonable even without a warrant (as Ramsey makes clear that all border searches are), then no part of the search requires a warrant. As such, there's no violation of the Fourth Amendment when you search stuff at the border without a warrant.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2006 @ 11:54am

  255. This doesn't make any sense. If you don't need a warrant to search stuff at the border, you don't need a warrant to read things. If a search is reasonable even without a warrant (as Ramsey makes clear that all border searches are), then no part of the search requires a warrant. As such, there's no violation of the Fourth Amendment when you search stuff at the border without a warrant.

    Posted by THRAWN 05/02/2006 @ 11:54am

    On this point, you do need to do as WILL suggests and re-read Ramsey. The court agreed with the existing statute that allowed envelopes to search for things other than correspondence but prevented reading of any correspondence in the envelope. They mentioned this to make certain those fighting for 1st Amendment rights would be satisfied that communication would be transferred without unwarranted spying by federal agents.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/02/2006 @ 1:45pm

  256. Thrawn

    Try this...FindLaw

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 1:56pm

  257. Thrawn

    I'm guessing that english is your second languague.

    Katz says you need a warrent to tap a phone. There's no other way to read it.

    And you don't have a border search arguement. You have a border search dream. And you are clinging to it while at the same time praying that you never wake up again

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 12:12am

  258. I think it's important to remember that the question at hand is this: does unwarranted wiretapping of international calls violate the Fourth Amendment?

    That being said, on to Ramsey. Nowhere in the decision does it say that the Constitution requires a warrant to read international mail. It does say that a particular statute does, but that's an entirely different issue. Moreover, nowhere in Ramsey does it say that a search without a warrant would invoke a violation of the First Amendment, and moreover, the existence of a chilling effect is not sufficient to invoke the First Amendment anyway. So...Ramsey never claims that the Constitution requires a warrant for international wiretapping.

    LeftofCenter

    I think that this article makes a fair point. Insofar as the President claims the authority to evaluate the constitutionality of a law in some way other than that given to him expressly by the Constitution, he exceeds his authority. However, I think it's a little silly to claim that his action is unconstitutional; rather, I would contend that these signing statements don't carry any real legal weight. The President doesn't meaningfully exceed his authority unless he actually carries out actions that both Congress and Supreme Court precedent declare to be manifestly illegal.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2006 @ 12:52am

  259. The constitution doesn't say a lot of things, for instance needing a warrant to tap a phone. That's why we have the Supreme Court

    Of course when Rehnquist affirmed the statute requiring a warrant to read a letter he gave the issue constitutional stature and once again he added no caveats that would place a limitation on the need for a warrant to read that letter.

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 10:02am

  260. You're right, there are aspects that the Constitution doesn't explicitly cover. Of course, we need to make a distinction here. The Supreme Court can apply existing Constitutional principles to distinct situations, but it can't just create new principles altogether. That's not to say that the other branches don't have to obey them when they do (they still have to), just that they're overreaching their legitimate boundaries.

    In Ramsey, Rehnquist did not, at any point, hold that the Fourth Amendment (or the First) specifically required a warrant in order to search and read the letters in question. Though he said that the statute requiring a warrant to read mail was perfectly fine and Constitutional, nowhere did he say that it was constitutionally required. As such, there is still no reason to believe that the lack of a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2006 @ 12:34pm

  261. Though he said that the statute requiring a warrant to read mail was perfectly fine and Constitutional,

    Posted by THRAWN 05/03/2006 @ 12:34am

    well thrawn, if rehnquist says needing a warrant to read a letter is constitutional...

    I'm not exactly sure how you can argue that Rehnquist didn't apply existing constitutional principles.

    or how reading a letter crossing the border without a warrant or it's equivalent, tapping a call into the country without a warrant is anything but unconstitutional.

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 8:38pm

  262. and you're correct he made no exceptions for reading a letter without a warrant

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 8:39pm

  263. Thrawn

    I disagree. By re-interpreting the act in his statement, he de facto chooses to use executive power to legislate. That is unconstitutional and hardly silly. Especially if he actually follows through on his interpretations.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/03/2006 @ 10:12pm

  264. true... he only gets to veto, not line item veto, not conditionally sign

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 10:43pm

  265. Will

    Yes, Rehnquist was making constitutional analysis. Nowhere did he say that opening a letter that's crossing the border is unconstitutional. What he said was that it's consistent with the Constitution to have that regulation, but it's also consistent with the Constitution to not require a warrant. Either option is consistent with the Constitution.

    LeftofCenter

    He doesn't actually legislate unless he chooses to act contrary to the law or commands some other actor to do so. Otherwise, it's just an assertion. If all these things are is a note from the President that he doesn't think something is Constitutional, that's fine. It could be a problem if the Justice Department has to defend the law, but there's no meaningful Constitutional violation involved unless it's used to violate the law.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2006 @ 01:00am

  266. thrawn you just created languague in a supreme court opinion you little judicial activist you.

    go back to Katz, in the majority opinion the majority says that the government asked for an exception to the fourth ammendment for wiretapping and that request was denied by the court. Which any rational human being would could only believe to mean that the fourth amendment is in effect until an exemption is asked for and then granted by the court.

    In ramsey Rehnquist makes it clear that the border exception is only for people and products and affirmed that a warrent is neccesary to read the letter that was just searched for people or products.

    No exception was granted.

    Posted by Will C. at 05/04/2006 @ 09:49am

  267. correction... exception, not exemption

    Posted by Will C. at 05/04/2006 @ 09:50am

  268. in the majority opinion the majority says that the government asked for an exception to the fourth ammendment for wiretapping and that request was denied by the court. Which any rational human being would could only believe to mean that the fourth amendment is in effect until an exemption is asked for and then granted by the court.

    That would only be true for cases where the Court hadn't already established an exception to the Fourth Amendment. If the Court's precedent says "any cases X represent an exception to the Fourth Amendment," the government doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court every time and go "Wait, does this situation fall under the exception? How about this one?" What happened in Katz was that the defendant appealed their case and the Supreme Court took it; it wasn't the government asking the Court for authorization. With the premise of your argument gone, the rest falls as well.

    As far as Ramsey goes, that isn't what Rehnquist said. He said that the statute forbade the reading of mail without a warrant. It doesn't follow from that the Fourth Amendment does so as well. In order for your argument to work, there has to be a part of Ramsey that limits this broad statement, which I've quoted numerous times:

    Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be "reasonable" by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself.

    Until you can show from Ramsey why reading the letters is specifically unconstitutional, not just prohibited by the statute, your challenge to the border search argument doesn't hold any water. This isn't judicial activism, it's making you find the explicit link for a Constitutional assertion.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2006 @ 2:25pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

RNC's Steele Decides It Is O.K. to Play the Race Card | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
12 Comments

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
33 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
47 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
31 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
60 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
56 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman