#2 - 12/24/05 09:58 PM (Msg Id: 558105:2410) Re:#1
Websurfingnow
View Profile
Send IM
Send Mail
Rating:
0 % of 9 people liked this post
Do you find it useful? Yes or No
George Will is an ignorant liberal and you fall in line behind him. You liberals are unbelievebly short sighted....history will show how full of crap you really are.....
Reply to Message Ignore Websurfingnow Notify AOL Mark Message Unread
From Will's WaPo biography:
Will was born in Champaign, Ill., and was educated at Trinity College in Hartford, and Oxford and Princeton universities. Prior to entering journalism, Will taught political philosophy at Michigan State University and the University of Toronto, and served on the staff of U.S. Sen. Gordon L. Allott (R-Colo.). Until becoming a columnist for Newsweek, Will was Washington editor of the National Review, a leading conservative journal of ideas and political commentary.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
BARRON'S ON BUSH
(Hat-tip to Atrios, Via BigPicture)
The pursuit of terrorism
does not authorize the president
to make up new laws
By THOMAS G. DONLAN
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB113538491760731012.html
(requires subscription)
AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
The pursuit of terrorism
does not authorize the president
to make up new laws
By THOMAS G. DONLAN
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB113538491760731012.html
(requires subscription)
AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
FUN WITH NUMBERS
A UCLA study purporting to show widespread liberal bias in the media has been making the rounds in WingnutWorld. The HTML version of the study is here and you can find criticisms of the flaws here and here but I want to concentrate on "face validity."
The authors use the Americans for Democratic Action ratings of congress critters and then look at how often each one cites a particular think tank or policy group. They then make a composite rating for each think tank or policy group based on how often each critter mentions it in his or her speeches. They also decided that the centrist voter in America has an ADA rating of 50.1. The ADA scale goes from 100 (perfect liberal) to 0 (perfect conservative).
OK, here's the fun part.
What would you guess would be the think tank or policy group closest to the center? Well, if you were thinking of either the Heritage Foundation (20) or the Consumer Federation of America (81.7), you would be wrong.
The winner in this contest is ... the ACLU!!!! (49.8).
Now, what would you guess would be the most liberal of the major news outlet?
CBS Evening News (73.7)? NPR Morning Edition (66.3)? Nope, it's the Wall Street Journal!!!! (85.1).
You probably won't get these tidbits from the wingnuts but it would be a good thing to inform them, just to hear the sputtering and spewing.
The authors use the Americans for Democratic Action ratings of congress critters and then look at how often each one cites a particular think tank or policy group. They then make a composite rating for each think tank or policy group based on how often each critter mentions it in his or her speeches. They also decided that the centrist voter in America has an ADA rating of 50.1. The ADA scale goes from 100 (perfect liberal) to 0 (perfect conservative).
OK, here's the fun part.
What would you guess would be the think tank or policy group closest to the center? Well, if you were thinking of either the Heritage Foundation (20) or the Consumer Federation of America (81.7), you would be wrong.
The winner in this contest is ... the ACLU!!!! (49.8).
Now, what would you guess would be the most liberal of the major news outlet?
CBS Evening News (73.7)? NPR Morning Edition (66.3)? Nope, it's the Wall Street Journal!!!! (85.1).
You probably won't get these tidbits from the wingnuts but it would be a good thing to inform them, just to hear the sputtering and spewing.
Friday, December 23, 2005
BUSH THE FELON
(Via Atrios) Glenn Greenwald sums it up nicely:
The issue is not whether the President has this authority to eavesdrop without a warrant but whether it is legal for him to do in the face of Congressional laws which make it a crime to do so. And none of the authorities they cite conclude that the President has such a royal power. Not one.
Marty Lederman has a superb and crystal clear post on precisely this issue. Even if one assumes to be true the dubious proposition that the President possesses inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance on American citizens, that does not mean that it is legal for him to do so in violation of a criminal statute enacted by Congress. But that is what Bush did here, and there is just nothing which even arguably gives that behavior the color of legality. That’s because we live under the rule of law where not even Presidents are bestowed with the right to engage in conduct which Congressional criminal law expressly prohibits.
SOMEBODY TELL BUSH
GAME. OVER.
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.
"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."
Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
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.
"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."
Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
"JUSTIFICATION"
Here's the latest from BushWorld:
Bush administration defends spying program
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer
Dec 22, 7:21 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.
In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.
"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."
Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.
Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."
The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.
I've read this bill and I can find no mention of anything being allowed besides the use of the Armed Forces. Here's the bill:
Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
[note: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]]
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) [note:President.] In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. [[Page 115 STAT. 225]]
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
Bush administration defends spying program
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer
Dec 22, 7:21 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.
In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.
"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."
Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.
Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."
The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.
I've read this bill and I can find no mention of anything being allowed besides the use of the Armed Forces. Here's the bill:
Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
[note: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]]
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) [note:President.] In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. [[Page 115 STAT. 225]]
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
RADIO TIDBITS
On Wednesday, Fats was tearing into Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) because Levin didn't support Rush's right to privacy over his medical records. Fats then played a clip of Levin stating that he supported Rush's claim of privacy!
OOPS!
Fats hemmed and hawed and finally went to break. I don't listen to him much, but this may be the first time that he really screwed up and his listeners know it.
OOPS!
Fats hemmed and hawed and finally went to break. I don't listen to him much, but this may be the first time that he really screwed up and his listeners know it.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
"THEY LIED"
I haven't read the judge's decision in the Dover/ID case but the York Daily Record, one of the local papers, has a good editorial about one overlooked aspect of the case (hat-tip Atrios)
Investigate perjury in Dover ID case
Judge Jones issued a broad, sensible ruling
- finding that some board members lied.
York Daily Record/YorkSunday News
http://www.ydr.com/editorial/ci_3330100
Dec 21, 2005 — They lied.
William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell wanted to bring God into high school biology class, and in the process, they lied.
They lied about their motives.
They lied about their actions.
They lied about what they did or didn't say at public meetings.
They even lied when they claimed newspaper reporters lied in stories about Dover school board meetings.
In his ruling on the Dover case, U.S. Judge John E. Jones III said it was "ironic" that individuals who "proudly touted their religious convictions in public" would "lie" under oath.
Yes, ironic - at the very least. But also sinful according to the 9th Commandment.
And perhaps also criminal. We can only hope that the appropriate authorities are investigating possible perjury charges in this case. There should be some consequences for what Mr. Bonsell and Mr. Buckingham have done in depositions and on the witness stand by otherwise misrepresenting the facts.
Investigate perjury in Dover ID case
Judge Jones issued a broad, sensible ruling
- finding that some board members lied.
York Daily Record/YorkSunday News
http://www.ydr.com/editorial/ci_3330100
Dec 21, 2005 — They lied.
William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell wanted to bring God into high school biology class, and in the process, they lied.
They lied about their motives.
They lied about their actions.
They lied about what they did or didn't say at public meetings.
They even lied when they claimed newspaper reporters lied in stories about Dover school board meetings.
In his ruling on the Dover case, U.S. Judge John E. Jones III said it was "ironic" that individuals who "proudly touted their religious convictions in public" would "lie" under oath.
Yes, ironic - at the very least. But also sinful according to the 9th Commandment.
And perhaps also criminal. We can only hope that the appropriate authorities are investigating possible perjury charges in this case. There should be some consequences for what Mr. Bonsell and Mr. Buckingham have done in depositions and on the witness stand by otherwise misrepresenting the facts.
ANOTHER BLAST FROM THE PAST
UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
407 U.S. 297 (1972)
(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.
407 U.S. 297 (1972)
(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.
2 MORE GOP SENATORS CONCERNED ABOUT TAPS
From the Wapo:
Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.
With McCain and Graham, that makes 5 Republican senators concerned about NSA abuses.
Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.
With McCain and Graham, that makes 5 Republican senators concerned about NSA abuses.
CENSURE BUSH
Rep. Conyers comes through once again! He has introduced 3 bills in the House calling for the censure of Bush and Cheney and an impeachment inquiry.
H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Bill Status here.
H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958. Bill Status of 636 and 637.
H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Bill Status here.
H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958. Bill Status of 636 and 637.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
AN OLDIE BUT GOODIE
NIXON ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not Illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not Illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
THE REAL "SLAM DUNK"
Article II
Sec. 3
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...
PRES. FREDO: Secondly, 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.
4/20/04 (Via Atrios)
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
12/19/05
Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]
LINK
CONCLUSION:
Sec. 3
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...
PRES. FREDO: Secondly, 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.
4/20/04 (Via Atrios)
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
12/19/05
Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
LINK
CONCLUSION:
Monday, December 19, 2005
ANTI-SPYING: IT'S NOT JUST FOR LIBERALS
Lawmakers Call for Domestic Spying Probe
By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Dec 18, 2005 — Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do." Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal authority for bypassing the courts.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it. "That's a legitimate part of the equation," McCain said on ABC's "This Week." But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."
By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Dec 18, 2005 — Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do." Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal authority for bypassing the courts.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it. "That's a legitimate part of the equation," McCain said on ABC's "This Week." But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."
WINGNUT QUOTE OF THE DAY
Well, perhaps not in all of WingNuttia but this one on AOL stood out:
Japan and Germany were NOT allies.- DakotaKen
LINK
Japan and Germany were NOT allies.- DakotaKen
LINK
Sunday, December 18, 2005
RADIO TIDBITS
This morning I was listening to Jay Sekulow's ACLJ This Week on KVOI, one of Tucson's wingnut radio stations. I heard his guest, Ben Ferguson, claim that soldiers returning from Iraq have been called "baby killers" and I decided to look a little further into these clowns.
The ACLJ was founded by the Jeebus radical Pat Robertson and Sekulow got his doctorate from Regents University, also founded by Robertson. The radio show is part of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, founded by Paul and Jan Crouch. TBN has the usual "poor us" crap on their site:
Like many Jeebus hypocrites, Paul Crouch has a lavish lifestyle and a secret he does not share with his flock: He likes gay sex. Here's some more about that:
Ben Ferguson is a radio host for Radio America and writes for TownHall although he has no articles on the site. His bio there includes this fluff: “Ferguson’s book It’s My America, Too was released by HarperCollins in September 2004 and was selected by “USA TODAY as one of it’s critics top choices.”” I couldn't access this edition of USA Today but I did find a couple of other reviews, one from Publisher's Weekly and one from Kirkus Reviews:
PW
A light polemic, Ferguson's book is not closely argued; the writing is unsophisticated and the ideas are simplistic.
KR
Spatter some pimples on Rush Limbaugh, substitute Kit Kats for OxyContin, rev up the sense of entitlement, layer in a high-pitched whine, and you have this thin primer: conservatism for tots.
To sum up, on a whore for Pat Robertson radio show that is part of a closeted gay minister's network, a young Jeebus punk smears the anti-war movement freely. And they wonder why so many people can't stand them.
The ACLJ was founded by the Jeebus radical Pat Robertson and Sekulow got his doctorate from Regents University, also founded by Robertson. The radio show is part of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, founded by Paul and Jan Crouch. TBN has the usual "poor us" crap on their site:
Faith in God.
Love of family.
Patriotic pride.
These are the values Americans consider most precious.
Values that have been attacked and ridiculed by our pop culture and news and
entertainment media. (http://www.tbn.org/index.php/3/18.html)
Like many Jeebus hypocrites, Paul Crouch has a lavish lifestyle and a secret he does not share with his flock: He likes gay sex. Here's some more about that:
Televangelist Paul Crouch Attempts to Keep Accuser Quiet; A former worker at TBN threatened to disclose an alleged 1996 homosexual encounter.; [HOME EDITION]
William Lobdell.
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 12, 2004. pg. A.1
ALLEGATION: Enoch Lonnie Ford went to work for the ministry after meeting Paul Crouch at a TBN-affiliated drug treatment center, where Ford sought treatment in 1991. His manuscript alleges a 1996 sexual encounter with Crouch at a TBN- owned cabin.;DEFENSE: Lawyers for Paul Crouch, pictured in 1988, said publication of the allegation would violate a secret settlement.;
After Ford threatened to sue TBN in 1998, claiming that he had been unjustly fired, Crouch reached a $425,000 settlement with him. In return, Ford agreed, among other things, not to discuss his claim about a sexual encounter with the TV preacher.
This account of the controversy is drawn from interviews with friends of Ford's, unsealed court records, correspondence among TBN lawyers and a copy of the arbitrator's confidential ruling. The arbitrator's decision contains details about the 1998 settlement and Ford's manuscript -- both of which are under seal.
Arbitrator Robert J. Neill ruled that Ford's right to make his allegations public "was sold to [Crouch] for $425,000." Ford "bargained away his right to speak on certain matters and now suggests that his right to free speech trumps that bargain.... [His] right to discuss these matters was bought and paid for. He relinquished that right."
Ben Ferguson is a radio host for Radio America and writes for TownHall although he has no articles on the site. His bio there includes this fluff: “Ferguson’s book It’s My America, Too was released by HarperCollins in September 2004 and was selected by “USA TODAY as one of it’s critics top choices.”” I couldn't access this edition of USA Today but I did find a couple of other reviews, one from Publisher's Weekly and one from Kirkus Reviews:
PW
A light polemic, Ferguson's book is not closely argued; the writing is unsophisticated and the ideas are simplistic.
KR
Spatter some pimples on Rush Limbaugh, substitute Kit Kats for OxyContin, rev up the sense of entitlement, layer in a high-pitched whine, and you have this thin primer: conservatism for tots.
To sum up, on a whore for Pat Robertson radio show that is part of a closeted gay minister's network, a young Jeebus punk smears the anti-war movement freely. And they wonder why so many people can't stand them.
THE LAW BUSH BROKE
FISA
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1801
(h) "Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means-(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805
§ 1805. Issuance of order
f) Emergency orders
(2) In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
JINGOISM AND RELIGION
The picture below is of the Rev. Bill Bowler of Tucson, a really scary Jeebus wingnut. I used to listen to his local radio show before it went off the air and all the breaks were filled with Armed Forces anthems and the usual patriotic songs.
As a friend put it in the local paper,
"He's on the radical right and he's a strong Christian, and a strong patriot. That's why I like him," said Dick Oxnam, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has been a fan of Bowler's since the 1960s, when Bowler was a local radio personality.
JINGOISM & RELIGION
As a friend put it in the local paper,
"He's on the radical right and he's a strong Christian, and a strong patriot. That's why I like him," said Dick Oxnam, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has been a fan of Bowler's since the 1960s, when Bowler was a local radio personality.
JINGOISM & RELIGION
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
