Mr. David Corn,

I hope you did not miss the question about "Brokeback Mountain". (link on the last thread)

Great post.

Thanks

Kirk

Bush got a round of applause at Kansas for declaring that he had approved no-warrant eavesdropping.

The people that they gather for these "town halls" would applaud if Bush fucked a goat on stage right in front of them.

Just remember Don, Bush is the likable one. He gets by with this BS because he pretends to ride a horse and he knows how to saunter like John Wayne. Seriously, how would this spying go over if Cheney was the president?

This isnt Kansas any more Toto, slowly, bit by bit we are drifting into a position where the Reich Wing will be able to impose their Nazi will upon Kansas and the rest of the country. Wonder if they will applaud then. Rather they will be whining about not seeing it coming. By then it will be TOO LATE!

I posted this a few minutes ago on the other thread. Good article.
Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, "The real reason for Mr. Principil's departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the 'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military."
Bernklau continued, "This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."
He added, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of 'disabled Vets' means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!" The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

"The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000," wrote Bernklau. "He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret's report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!"

--------------------------
It's a daily cover up story. When the Bush administration is long gone the historians will still be discovering cover-ups.
It is so sociopathic. Get caught, lie, lies don't work, lie some more and make it sound more believable with the right audience. Pick the audience so that the applause gets heard.

Bush's actions fail the "appropriate" test as David observes, but they also fail the "necessary" test. It's bad enough that he violated the 4th Amendment, and hid his actions from all but a few members of Congress, the folks who supposedly green-lighted the wiretaps. (Talk about a convoluted argument--Congress can't be trusted to know what they agreed to!) But the most galling part of this is that Bush could have immediately gotten wiretaps for any halfway reasonable wiretaps he wanted. The extent of his contempt for even the most pliable Court in the land and for a legislative branch that is firmly in his pocket is staggering. GOP Congressmen should be embarrassed and angry at Bush's disregard for them, if they had any capacity for shame at all.

This Detention Facility brought to you by your friends at KBR (Halliburton), please enjoy your stay and if released come back and see us real soon. Brought to by the good folks at Kellogg Brown and Root.... BS?... think again

Hand injury? Hmmm, maybe that is why the White House is reluctant to go on fishing expeditions.

Fishing injuries. I have had my fair share of those. Usually involving a lot of beer.

The real Cisneros scandal: There was no cover-up
It's independent counsel's behavior that warrants probe

By ROBERT LITT

An independent counsel has issued a report claiming that officials of the Clinton administration blocked his investigation into allegations of tax violations by former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros. Although these sensational charges have been trumpeted by partisans as evidence of Democratic corruption, they are completely false.

I know; I was there.

The independent counsel, David Barrett, was appointed to investigate charges that Cisneros had lied about payments he made to his mistress. (After investigating this charge for several years, Barrett meekly allowed Cisneros to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge with a promise of no jail time.)

In 1997 Barrett came to the Justice Department, where I was serving in the Criminal Division, and asked permission to expand his case to investigate whether Cisneros had evaded income taxes over four years. The law allowed the attorney general to grant him that jurisdiction if there were "reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation" of possible tax violations was needed.

Nonpartisan career lawyers in the department's Criminal Division and in the Tax Division studied the independent counsel's application in great detail over several weeks. They met with his office, reviewed documents and interviewed witnesses. Each of them concluded that, with the exception of a single year's tax return, there were no reasonable grounds to investigate Cisneros for tax violations.

These career lawyers found that the independent counsel's submission was full of legal and factual errors. For example, the independent counsel claimed that Cisneros had failed to report more than $100,000 in income during 1991, but he was unable to produce evidence that there was any unreported income at all.

The conclusions of the career lawyers were reviewed in detail by other officials including myself, up to the attorney general. Every single lawyer in the Justice Department who reviewed this matter concurred in the analysis.
---
---
In short, there was no conspiracy, no outside political influence, no improper conduct. There was only a good-faith evaluation of the facts and the law that produced a different result from the one the independent counsel desired. Even the Bush administration told Barrett that there was "no actual evidence" of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Litt, a Washington lawyer, served from 1994 to 1999 in the Justice Department, where his last position was principal associate deputy attorney general. This article originally appeared in The Washington Post.

Just so we can all be on the same page:
(1)Do you understand that the only calls eavesdropped were ones originating from outside the United States, from known AlQaeda operatives, into the United States?

(2)Do you understand that President Bush informed both the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the wiretaps?

Uh, you know this how?

Bill 11 I'd like to be on the same page but Bush's credibility is almost zero with me. If he needed these extra powers why didn't he change the law rather than break it?

Bill,
And with no oversight who is there to back that up? If they followed FISA it would be documented.

General Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA, offered defense of the department's actions. For those with the intellectual fortitude to read something that may differ with their own preconceptions, please read here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf

Bill,
He's screwed and so is the American public.

Bill wrote:

Just so we can all be on the same page:
(1)Do you understand that the only calls eavesdropped were ones originating from outside the United States, from known AlQaeda operatives, into the United States?

You have absolutely no evidence of this. If this was the case, they would have had no problem getting warrants under FISA.

(2)Do you understand that President Bush informed both the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the wiretaps?

Informing them is not the same thing as getting their consent. Several of them questioned the legality, but they were sworn to secrecy.

Your game is weak, Bill.

David: I know how it feels (quite often) to have your hands injured clearing hooks/brush but still needing to type!

You said: "Bush is right: he's not a lawyer. He miscited the congressional law and overstated Hamdi."

Most people don't doubt politicians `miscite' or `overstate' on any of a number of occassions; including quite likely for Bush here. The head of our government, like a CEO, must have command of the generalities of many issues while relying on their staff for specifics. For most people, it is enough that Bush consulted w/his legal counsel and received their `lawyerly' OK opinion before proceeding on now-questioned-by-the-Left actions.

Do we really want to turn future SC rulings, Congressional authorizations, laws, et.al. into something resembling our tax code nightmare where even business grads have trouble following because of all the exceptions, ifs, buts, but onlys, maybe able to..... There is a reason to having a Unitary Executive...

If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do, have it debated in Congress and whatever compromise gets set in stone. Anything not spelled out and not in CLEAR violation of the Constitution shall then be permitted in national security matters.

You also state: "...but it did not grant the Bush administration the right to seize and hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without granting them access to courts or lawyers--a right the White House had claimed."

My question is, did the court prohibit this `right' to hold such suspects? Assuming most suspects are in fact, enemies, don't you think we can get more useful information, to saving lifes, if there are no lawyers present?

Lastly, you said: "I know that Bush went to business school (where no doubt he learned much about deficit-financing) and not law school."

The correct terminologies (in this MBA's HO), instead of "deficit-financing", is combinations of `Leveraging', `Return on Equity', Debt/Equity Ratio, Debt Coverage Ratio,......

Well, it looks like it was the day to say, I AM NOT A LAWYER...This is astounding!

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to
target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have
probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. ... I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is
crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of"reasonably believe" in place [of] probable cause because the FISA court
will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding
to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a
reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one --
what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is
"reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
++++++++++++++++++++
"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."
-- Fourth Amendment of the Constitution

see:

LTG Hayden is Bush's point man on this scandal. He is not a constitutional scholar as evidenced by this Editor and Publisher interview.

Still weak.

Hi there everybody . Today I'm announcing
that " Operation Truth " has changed its name
to " I.A.V.A. " . That is a condensed
way of saying " Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America " ; it is possible
to hit them up at www.iava.org and quite
frankly, it is still perfectly okay
to find them via www.operationtruth.com .

As for me, I am NOT a military person,
I just be a big-mouthed American with a lot of questions .......

Here's a " for instance "

WHY is it , even after a horrible event
like 9-11-01 occurred involving SAUDI
ARABIANS , the mainstream American media
still does NOT have a dialogue going
with the typical, average, non-royal ,
regular citizens of Saudi Arabia ? ?

Is that so much to ask for ? ?

Anderson Petition

micki beat me to that interview, but the link is good for the whole thing.

We know this to be true, and it backed up, because President Bush reported the details to both the Chairmen and Ranking Members (Democrats)on both Senate and House Intelligence Committees. I would think that if the facts were something other than what had been told them (e.g., only incoming calls from known AlQaeda operatives being monitored), at least the Democrats would have said so.

Don't you just know the Democrats are just itching to catch President Bush in an untruth here? So far, no luck. Everything he told them is true.

Happy wrote:

If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do

Get the fuck out of here. It isn't up to "the Left" to define the what the executive branch can and cannot do; that's the Constitution's job. You're an idiot.

Everything he told them is true.

So I take it you have a list of those investigated? Should we expect a series of arrests?

I find it hard to believe that you're actually this naive. I suppose if Hillary said, "It's only terrorists, cross my heart and hope to die," everything would be hunky-dory as well.

You're reading too much Powerline, Bill.

Don,

Regarding the informing of the Chairmen and Ranking Members:
(1)How did the Senators question the legality of President Bush's eavesdropping? And questioning it is different from declaring it illegal. As Senators, they should report any illegalties. So, what actions did they take to satisfy themselves that the actions were legal or illegal?

(2)As members of the Intelligence Committees, they are sworn to secrecy on everything they receive. This was no different.

And again, we have the typcial liberal tactic of shooting the messenger, in this case General Hayden. That's why I don't link. You liberals lack the intellectual fortitude to attack the message rather than the messenger. With what in General Hayden's presentation do you have specific disagreements?

Haven't read it - have you?

Do any of you have a clue that General Hayden was appointed by President Clinton and not President Bush?

Do any of you have a clue that he retired from the NSA, so he can now say anything he wants?

He is also one of the most distinguished members of the U.S. military. For you to impugn his integrity, without knowing anything about the man, is beyond reproach. It is also why the American public will have nothing to do with the Leftist agenda. You are simply not credible.

Don,

So, I suppose if what President Bush did was illegal, we should be expecting his impeachment and conviction sometime soon?

I've mentioned in previous threads that Glenn Greenwald, a real Constitutional scholar and lawyer, is doing excellent work on civil liberties during the age of Bush. Here's his latest post on the domestic spying scandal. He dismantles Hayden.

Why engage trolls? Now trolls are engaging each other, this is NOT a Reich wing blog! Good posters are getting edged out by the moronic exchange. Not responding to the trolls does work.

So, I suppose if what President Bush did was illegal, we should be expecting his impeachment and conviction sometime soon?

Uh, Bill, are you aware that the Republicans hold both the House and Senate? Just checking. So, no, I don't think that "we" should be expecting that anytime soon.

Glenn Greenwald is a hard-working
man . He is excused from the assign-
ment of asking working-class Saudi Arabians what their future plans are .

Anderson Petition

DEN,

I am well aware that the trolls who post here have absolutely no principles when it comes to their Dear Leader and that there is no convincing them. However, I have to watch this drivel on television and hear it on the radio without responding and it annoys to me no end. I therefore reserve the right to give the virtual bitch-slap whenever I so desire. Just sayin'.

I encourage all to reserve all rights
for they are in constant jeopardy.

Anderson Petition

www.warisaracket.org

Please join me in wishing
Rachel Jean Marteen a very, very
happy birthday !!! !!!!!
Yows - zerrrrrrrrr ......

American Soldiers

More American soldiers are killed in the Middle East.

2,495 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's evil lies.

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. Henry Kissinger

Very well said Bill.

For those of you saying 'where is the proof that Bush is telling the truth', innocence is virtually impossible to prove; only guilt can be proven to a legal standard. Since you can put forth no evidence of guilt then by legal defination he is considered innocent. Al I hear in these post are ravings against Bush with hereasy statements being taken as evidence.

Go back to school and take some logic courses... it will help you with critical thinking when you grow up and facethe real world. You must present provable facts and then draw logical conclusions. Without this you are only blowing hot air.
If these are you opinions then present them as such, and stop trying to make opinion into fact. Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion and like buttholes, everyone has one.

Why should I argue about LTG Hayden's BS when I have Glenn Greenwald to do it for me?

"In light of Gen. Hayden's new claim yesterday that the reason the Bush Administration decided to eavesdrop outside of FISA is because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was too onerous (and prevented them from obtaining warrants they needed to eavesdrop), there is a fact which I have not seen discussed anywhere but which now appears extremely significant, at least to me."

Click the link, Bill. You want to argue with someone with "intellectual fortitude," argue with Glenn Greenwald in the comments section. As I said on a previous thread, you will have your ass handed to you.

I'm done with you for now, so don't waste any more time.

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT...

The following is an excellent example of why the Left loses when facing serious issues:

Post #24 from DON
Get the fuck out of here. It isn't up to "the Left" to define the what the executive branch can and cannot do; that's the Constitution's job. You're an idiot.

Posted by: Don at January 24, 2006 02:53 PM

Everybody, is the Constitution a `living' thing or even an electronic-enhanced document where like a children's learning aid, you can press Q&As? Does this Don (Corleone) have any intelligence at all? Does he know what are Constitutional Scholars? Oh, also NOTE the name-calling!

Keep it up, Don, Good work!! It is just your types that make our work easy.

BTW, just got this week's issue of Business Week, cover article "The Future of Outsourcing". This is one megatrend issue, regardless of party, we all need to stay abreast of!

Everything Is Relative!

Dear Cornposters:

If you noticed, I will from time to time post the number of killed American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nazi trolls have said that the number is small in comparison to the World Trade Center. Let us not forget that Iraq is a war of choice and not necessity.

I guess that the 519,000 soldiers with permanent medical disabilities from the Gulf War is a small number because they are not dead due to depleted uranium. Our soldiers cannot receive health care because all the money is going to rich Nazi Americans to horde. 11,000+ soldiers are dead from related DU malignancies. But I guess the Nazi trolls will still consider this number small. They will not be happy until six billion people are exterminated on planet, Earth. The six billion figure of dead human beings is the goal for the Nazi cabal who make up the Project for the Next American Century. But I guess six billion killed human beings is a relatively low number. Everything and every number will appear to be relatively low for the Nazi trolls.

With the Iraq war there will be more soldiers with permanent medical disabilities due to depleted uranium. But these numbers will be low for the Nazi trolls. They are never satisfied with any number of killed and maimed American soldiers. I guess that is why we will have to carry out endless wars and maybe at some point the Nazi trolls will accept a certain number of killed and maimed American soldiers that will make them happy.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion and like buttholes, everyone has one.

And in your case, Elton, you are one.

Don,
Glad you are reading Glenn Grenwald. He is a hard-Left Democrat, opposed to the war, opposed to Iraqi elections.

So, what we have are opinions from the Right and opinions from the Left on the legality of the NSA actions.

You weren't trying to infer that Grenwald was an unbiased observer, were you?

Personally, I'd rather believe General Hayden. And his arguments are more persuasive to me.

I think your postings here are helpful to understand both sides of an issue. Thanks for the tone of the posts.

Don:

You can fool most of your Lefty buddies on running a warehouse business but you don't fool me. Unlike you, I have run more than one business.

There is no way your temperment and `moth' can run a warehouseing/forwarding business with the time pressures of client loads, full or less-than-trailer load. Of course, your temperment will also not let you take the `abuse' of irate clients.

Bill,
We can play a hundred million scenarios for why the Congressmen failed to say anything. Most notably I would say it was because they were sworn to secrecy as a duty of the office. Furthermore we can take it farther by saying 1) Democrats have no spine. They wont stand up to anything unless theres at least 10 of them in the room. Maybe 8 as evidenced by the Alito confirmation.
2) Republicans have surrendered their right to being individuals. Each Republican is now known as 5 of 1500 or 12 of 1500. Since Bush took office they marched lock-step with every order he has issued. In short, they have no spine.
Personally I will not say anything about General Hayden, I am well aware of just how far you have to bend at the knee to buy time to make change later down the road. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of pressure on the shoulders of someone in his position. Besides, the Attorney General said it was a lawful order. A soldier or airman or marine cant be expected to be a constitutional scholar. Sometimes you just have to take the advice thats given to you and do your duty. Again though, all of this could have been avoided if FISA was used, and it wasn't. And I have yet to hear any decent justification for why FISA had to be circumvented.

Oops, an expose needs better spelling!!

Don:

You can fool your Lefty buddies on running a warehouse business but you don't fool me. Unlike you, I have run more than one business.

There is no way your temperment and `mouth' can run a warehousing/freight forwarding business with the time pressures of client loads, full or less-than-trailer loads. Of course, your temperment will also not let you take the `abuse' of irate clients.

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT...

The following is an excellent example of why the Left loses when facing serious issues:

Yeah, because some guy on a blog calls an idiot an idiot, Kerry lost the election. Please.

Everybody, is the Constitution a `living' thing or even an electronic-enhanced document where like a children's learning aid, you can press Q&As?

I guess wasn't clear enough; it's so hard to reply to you without disdain. Here's what you wrote: "If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do." My point was that the Left doesn't have to define anything in this particular case. The Constitution is clear enough. The president doesn't have the right to spy on American citizens in the United States without a warrant. Congress hasn't given him that power, and even if they did it would be unconstitutional. Simple enough?

Does this Don (Corleone) have any intelligence at all?

Apparently, much more than you.

Does he know what are Constitutional Scholars?

Yes, but I'm not telling.

Oh, also NOTE the name-calling!

SCANDALOUS, isn't it?

Keep it up, Don, Good work!! It is just your types that make our work easy.

That's me, I aim to please. By the way, how do you like that 36% approval rating?

BTW, just got this week's issue of Business Week, cover article "The Future of Outsourcing". This is one megatrend issue, regardless of party, we all need to stay abreast of!

Don, please rethink your approach, this pointless debate is hogging major bandwidth. Thanks

Happy #43,

Who said I was running a "warehouse business" or a "freight forwarder?"

I own one business that uses a warehouse, and another (in the same complex) that acts as a retail business.

As I'm the boss, I can say whatever I please! My customers love me! I don't give a shit whether you believe me or not! And you're still an idiot!

DEN,

Why, that's mighty audacious of you, DEN. You're free to mind your own business. I've been posting here for almost two years now and I believe I'll write whatever and whenever I please until the owner of the blog decides otherwise.

Ciao!

Citizen X:

You know that the Right supports you and your fellow soldiers. But I still want to personally give you my utmost and hearfelt thanks; even those that aren't fully on the same page as our President and much of the Right.

I don't know how my comment will go down w/you but here it goes: You're a 12-year man, I am going to guess that in times of peace, the atmosphere around the military/base is more relaxed and (polite/well-expressed) qustioning of command and control may even be tolerated. But when in times of war, things get quite serious; especially at the `frontline' where lives are at stake. At the front, presumably everybody takes their jobs seriously and follow orders explicitly.

In a very, very real sense, Bush and our country are at the `front', ever since WTC in 1993 and much more dramatically so since 9/11/01. What bothers many of us on the Right (I am a moderate just so you know) is the unwillingness of the Left to recognize the changed reality we all face.

No one can guarantee that there won't be other devastating attacks in the US, but the Amercian people has very clearly indicated its approval of the approach Bush has taken. Personally, I think if other attacks are forthcoming, OBL will seek to up his `shock and awe' inflicted on 9/11! Not a Happy thought!

Don,
I enjoyed that link you posted. I even bookmarked it. Now if more people read content instead of the authors name and background we might actually see monumental achievements.
I'd really like to see this hit the media and let every rabid dog have a bite of it, just to see how it stands up.

Happy,
I appreciate it, but:
You're corect in saying that things do change in a time of war, but not that dramatically for us. In times of peace we always have to be prepared for war. So in reality we try to maintain a consistent standard. Consistency in standards insures morale and dedication. I'm sorry, but Bush isn't at the front line of anything. When he or any pompus, leather-chair-bound-washington-dc-prick picks up a weapon and joins the fight, I'll say he's at the front line. I still believe he lives in a perfectly created Karle Rove bubble. And I dont think he's intelligent enough to lead this country, let alone execute a war.
You and I agree that the Left is out of touch with (wait a minute, the extreme left) how we do need to be focused. The extreme right is just as guilty. But in the words of Benjamin Franklin (and this isnt an exact quote so dont torture me) "Anyone that would surrender liberty for security deserves neither.

Citizen X,

I'm glad you liked Unclaimed Territory. His commentary is excellent. Greenwald also posts occasionally at Crooks and Liars. He takes part in his comments section as well, which is one reason why I recommend it to anyone who is truly serious about debating civil liberties issues. But I doubt that I'll ever see "Bill" or "Happy" there because RNC talking point parrots usually get schooled, sometimes by their own "comrades."

Hey, we know that Hayden was appointed by Clinton in March 1999 -- but keep in mind that the busheviks kept Hayden in the NSA director's position until 2005, and now he serves as the deputy to John Negroponte in the Directorate of National Intelligence. Now that the busheviks have "designed" an intelligencce reorganization that includes a super-bureaucracy above the CIA, HAYDEN is bush's rotten choice, not Clinton's.

Besides, we aren't knee-jerks like you bushbots who would gladly follow your hapless "leaders" over a cliff. Hayden doesn't know jackshit about the Constitution or the law -- but he's good at following orders.

Ask Gerald how good Nazis followed orders, too.

Bill,

Let's turn this around.

Glad you are reading Glenn Grenwald. He is a hard-Left Democrat, opposed to the war, opposed to Iraqi elections.

And what are your objections to his arguments? Your ad hominem is no better than mine.

(By the way, if you could link to something showing that he was opposed to the Iraqi elections, I'd appreciate it.)

Sorry Don no offense intended, just trying to de-troll the place. Do whatever you want, I apologize.

Oh micki, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind (with pardons to Toni Basil):

Now that you have the General Hayden name-calling out of your system, what specific complaints do you have with the logic and legality of General Hayden's presentation about NSA eavesdropping?

Or have you even considered its logic?

I know you're not just a left-wing reactionary robotess, spouting the party line, are you? What do you think of the presentation, specifically?

Jonathan Turley (not exactly a leftie!), a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington
University, said "It was an extraordinary event [Hayden's speech at the National Press Club]. Like President Bush, Gen. Hayden stands accused of committing federal criminal acts. His primary defense is that my lawyers told me I could do it. That is hardly a defense. What he did not address was the clear violation of the exclusivity provision of federal law, where it expressly restricts such surveillance to Title III [the federal wiretap law] and FISA."

Turley said that Hayden's remarks should reaffirm the need for comprehensive congressional hearings, particularly in the House, as soon as possible.

I heard on AM1090, Air America Seattle station, that a bushevik (I didn't catch the name) said that "we are not eavesdropping on innocent Americans, we are conducting terrorist surveillance."

Oh, now I get it.

#55 Mr. Logic Brock -- I stopped addressing you back on arianna's blog a loooooong time ago. Shove it, bucko.

Don,

So we agree that you are posting opinions from hard-left opponents of the war and NSA eavesdropping(Greenwald) , while I am posting opinions from hard-right proponents (Hinderaker).

Neither John Hinderaker nor Glenn Greenwald are what you would call unbiased observers in this mess, although both are eloquent in defense of their positions.

And I think you'd agree with me that it's important to get all sides out there and let the American people make up their own minds.

Just to put a fine point out here, we are not in a 'war' it is just a brain fart of the prez. No declaration of war, just a reaction and not a very focused one either. The invasion of Iraq is a war crime, using war to commit a crime. But remember there was no congressional declaration of war, and without that the war powers don't fall to the president, so whatever he is doing it ain't under the war powers act. You have to have a state to wage war, he is waging war or aggressive manuevering on a tactic, not going to win, ever, but will destroy one nation by doing this. Too early to determine how long the US can withstand this bozo but if it comes down to it, this country won't be converted to a fascist state, there will be no jobs, so no cooperation with the powers that think they run this show. IMagine if people lose hope in our form of government it will fall apart into different areas of loosely allied fiefdoms and not much else. The US needs a unifying feeling and if the central government gets into the personal lives of the citizens then they will react, and there won't be enough troops or storm troopers to control them.

DEN #54,

It's all good. My feathers were already a bit ruffled, so I'm sorry for snapping at you. However, I do think the trolls will continue to post regardless of my reaction.

Bill,

Neither John Hinderaker nor Glenn Greenwald are what you would call unbiased observers in this mess, although both are eloquent in defense of their positions.

Well, unlike Rob Corddry of the Daily Show, I don't believe that facts are biased. Hinderaker has repeatedly demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing that George Bush could do that he wouldn't defend, whereas Greenwald is simply defending his interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution (an interpretation that is shared by many conservatives and libertarians).

Greenwald has dismantled every argument that the Bush administration has used for their spying. You disagree. I would think that this calls for an independent investigation. What do you think?

So we agree that you are posting opinions from hard-left opponents of the war and NSA eavesdropping(Greenwald) , while I am posting opinions from hard-right proponents (Hinderaker).

haha So what, that makes us 'even'?? But wait, which side are these people on?

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.
===================
hit that pretty blue text and read the rest

When SCOTUS rules on this dogpile of presidential abuse of power we will have the final word for our time.

I am more interested in the answer to this question:

Assuming SCOTUS rules that the IV Amendment has been violated will there be any repercussions whatsoever?

If there are no repercusions then Bush and his team are correct: they can indeed do whatever they like. There will be no turning back then. It'll be open season on the Constitution of the United States of America.

Hey micki, Hey micki,

No stomach for political debate? Facts and figures (and opposing opinions) have an ugly way of intruding on life's fantasies, don't they?

And the only Brock I know is some gay guy who wrote a good book on Anital Hill when he was straight.

No, that's wrong. Lou Brock was a great outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals. Stole 118 bases one year, which I think is still a ML record. Do you think I am he?

Nice link, Alan.

Fact-check on the Bush Adminstration's Defense of its Secret Wiretapping Program

"fact check" is just that... a list of what they say, with links to the source... and the facts to show it's wrong, with more links (17 in all).

Don, its hard for me to sit here and watch an otherwise great blog turn into a Reich wing pissing match for PAID OBSTRUCTIONISTS. I am not a purist by any means and have no desire to limit free speech but resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind in a place normally occupied by folks with strong beliefs engaged in meaningfull discussion.

Don,

Absolutely, I think this calls for an independent investigation.

And you are wrong about Hinderaker. He has serious difficulties with the President on several issues. But I would consider him Right, if not hard-Right.

And please don't argue that Greenwald is "simply defending his interpretation". He is a hard-Left opponent of the war, opponent of Iraqi elections, and opponent of the NSA activities.

Let's call both of them what they are. Advocates for their preconceived positions.

#62 was their first report... this link refers to their second, more up-to-date report

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
=========
again, click the pretty blue text (that's for the trolls that can't comprehend) to read the whole article

Alan,

Good post from the Washington Post about the Congressional Research Service.

So, now we have an "opinion" from one branch of government, (the Justice Department in the Executive Branch), that says the wiretapping was legal. We have another branch (the Congressional Research Service of the Legislative Branch) that has a different "opinion".

I think we can both agree that neither of the divergent "opinions" contstitutes a "fact", can't we?

That's why I agree with Don and Citizen X that an independent, bipartisan inquiry needs to be conducted. Lay it all out on the table, behind closed doors for security reasons, if necessary.

But, there has never been an assertion made by anyone, by anyone, that there has been anything but eavesdropping on incoming calls into the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives from outside the United States. If there have been any other "eavesdropping" (not just information gathering that you might find distasteful) assertions made, can you please link me to them/it?

Bill,

He is a hard-Left opponent of the war,

He is indeed an opponent of the war; it is you who characterizes him as "hard-Left."

opponent of Iraqi elections,

Again, please link. I have read nothing showing that he opposed the Iraqi elections, but if you have something, I will look at it.

and opponent of the NSA activities.

Straw man. He opposes wiretaps without warrants; he has never written that he opposes legal NSA "activities."

Godzilla in the Room

Ban a free lunch? You bet, do it, say elected officials of both parties. Cancel those reservations to Scotland? That too, say our lawmakers. But take the big-interest money out of our campaign coffers? ...(silence). It's not the elephant in the room in Washington DC, or the donkey, either. Big money's the 900-ton Godzilla.

Consider this. Senator Rick Santorum, the Senate's self-proclaimed "liaison to K Street" and Majority Leader Bill Frist's point person for crafting the GOP lobbying reform agenda, leads all senators in contributions from lobbyists in the current political cycle. Since 2001, he's received $182,470 from lobbyists. But that's just slightly less than the two percent of the $11.5 million total in campaign cash he collected during that same period. In contrast to his lobbyist totals, Santorum's taken $1.3 million from finance, insurance, and real estate companies -- the kind of high-powered corporate interests that hire the elite "K street" lobbyists. During the 2004 election cycle, Congress as a whole took in $26.9 million from lobbyists, a figure dwarfed by the $1.5 billion contributed by business interests overall. Dealing with this massive political investment will take more than new restrictions on lobbyists. Indeed, it will require an end to the private financing monopoly that Congress has established as the only way candidates can run for the U.S. House or Senate.

Sorry about your hand David. Hopefully not a serious injury. The hearings on Alito today were worth listening to. Senator Lindsey Graham sounded serious when he shared his concerns about the unwarrented searches.

@Bill If they haven't already I do expect them to find evidence of spying on U.S. citizens who are not terrorists. The problem that I see in this particular issue is: who is defining what constitutes a terrorist? Is it Bush, is it the NSA who is conducting the wiretaps? Food for thought.

DEN #67,

Don, its hard for me to sit here and watch an otherwise great blog turn into a Reich wing pissing match for PAID OBSTRUCTIONISTS.

I understand your frustration. They annoy me, too. However, I don't know if they are paid obstructionists or not, but I find that debating on the blogs helps me in real life.

I am not a purist by any means and have no desire to limit free speech but resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind in a place normally occupied by folks with strong beliefs engaged in meaningfull discussion.

Touché. You'll note I've been restraining myself on the more recent posts. But there is a certain amount of emotional satisfaction to be gained from the use of snark, not to mention that many of my fellow regulars here enjoy laughing, so I reserve the right exercise my weak mind at any time. How will I get it any stronger?

Cheers!

Why I Left

Many of you know that I am a recovering republican. What you may also know from reading the trolls' comments how lame and stupid these comments are. Many trolls are paid operatives prowling the websites in order to ruin souls.

What you do not know that before I could become a full fledged repugnant, I would have to undergo a lobotomy. I refused and so I was rift from the party. It was the best decision that I ever made. I did not want someone in control of my thought processes. I did not want to be programmed to hate, murder, and torture any of God's children.

Alberto Gonzalez' defense of the NSA actions this morning at Georgetown Law School, if anyone is interested in opposing views, interested in learning something new.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0601241.html

Don - Greenwald opposition to Iraqi elections:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-exactly-do-iraqi-elections-prove.html

Sorry, didn't mean to infer he opposed all NSA activities - just the ones of which we were talking.

My name is Gerald and I am a recovering Republican. I want to apologize to any Democrat whom I have offended in any way. As a recovering Republican, I can now look at issues more objectively. Looking at how Bush II is destroying the Republican party deeply saddens me.

After returning home from a hate and destroy mission against the Democrats I would read Mattie Stepanek's writings to try and feel better. One of his writings transformed me to take a look at my hate and destroy mentality. His letter, "Dear Mr. Bush," in one of his books changed my life for the better. I do have relapses from time to time but for help I read, Matthew 25:31-46.

In regard to warrentless wiretaps...I keep going back to the John Bolton hearings. When Biden, and Kerry kept demanding Bolton's NSA transcripts. Those requested transcripts were never handed over. There have been so many inferences.... that Bolton may have been intercepting Powell's INternational communications, specifically in regard to Iran.

Gerald,

You might want to rethink that lobotomy thing again.

By the way, not only am I not getting paid, it is costing me a fortune to sit here and debate instead of working.

Such is the cost of freedom.

Dear Mr. Bush by Mattie Stepanek, June, 2002

You said we are caught
Between terrorism and hopelessness.
You said we cannot
Find peace in this situation.
I caught your words, but
I cannot agree with the conclusion.
Clearly,
We cannot perpetuate terrorism.
But perhaps,
If we choose to accept
Hopelessness with a catch,
We will find peace in all situations.
Hope, or lack of hope,
Is an attitude.
And an attitude is a choice.
In this great country,
We do have a choice.
And so, in conclusion,
We cannot get caught
With a bad attitude,
Or we are not choosing peace.

Repugnants' Sins

Repugnants and the Ten Commandments

1. I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange gods before Me. Repugnants have chosen money, nuclear weapons, and bush for their god.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Cannot determine at this time!
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day. Cannot determine ay this time!
4. Honor your father and mother. Cannot determine at this time!
5. You shall not kill. Repugnants are guilty of rape of our planet's land and resources, pollution of the air, land, and sea, murders, and war crimes.
6. You shall not commit adultery. Cannot determine at this time!
7. You shall not steal. Repugnants take away money from the poor and the middle class and oil from the Iraqis and they give it to the rich.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Repugnants say that they are saints and the Democrats are devils. Repugnants say that they are not murderers and war criminals.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Cannot determine at this time!
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. Repugnants take away from the poor, middle class, and Iraqis and they give to the rich.

Repugnants and the Seven Cardinal Sins

1. Pride/Vanity Repugnants say that they are always right. They are our Earth’≥ saints.
2. Lazy/Sloth Cannot determine at this time!
3. Intemperate Repugnants are into pork barreling, quick to murder and commit war crimes, and they lack control in spending money prudently.
4. Anger Repugnants hate anyone who does not agree with their evil ways.
5. Gluttony Repugnants use our beautiful world for personal gain and destruction.
6. Greed Repugnants want more and more money for the rich.
7. Impurity Cannot determine at this time!

But, there has never been an assertion made by anyone, by anyone, that there has been anything but eavesdropping on incoming calls into the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives from outside the United States.

oh yeah?? How 'bout this...

Spying on U.S. Government
"the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices." [5] (http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/2599),[6] (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=562&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
"The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC)."
=============
that's just one example, and you know there's more... there's a Table of Contents on the first link.

I'm glad you've agreed we need an independent investigation though, that was a surprise.

unfathomed dangers in patriot act renewal

Bill,

Your interpretation of Greenwald's post to be "against Iraqi elections" is kind of a stretch. Look at the title of the post: What exactly do the Iraqi elections prove? He writes:

But beyond this gloating self-satisfaction, war bloggers have apparently decided that this election, and the reaction to it by war critics, proves once and for all that war critics realize now that they were wrong. Apparently, war critics didn't say enough about the elections yesterday, and this silence has not gone unnoticed! To the war bloggers, this proves that the war critics have lost the debate over the Iraq War and just can't face up to it, so they are pretending that the proof of their defeat -- this election -- simply doesn't exist.

He is arguing that the election did not prove that Iraq war critics were wrong. Anti-war, certainly, but not anti-election.

You write:

Sorry, didn't mean to infer he opposed all NSA activities - just the ones of which we were talking.

Yes, the illegal ones.

On the subject of impeachment:

I agree with Don that it is unlikely as long as Republicans have a clear majority in both houses. But folks like Bill should know that some Republicans are using the I-word.

Here's an excerpt from Insight magazine, which is referenced (by the Huffington Post) as a "conservative publication:"

--
Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the [planned February Senate] hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome.

"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

----
This passage should also serve as a reminder to the left-of-center folks that not every Republican is a lock-step Bushevik.

You might want to rethink that lobotomy thing again.

Well, so much for "tone" and "civility," eh?

The Difference

Let us take a look at the difference between John Paul II and Bush II.

The war in Iraq remains a defeat for humanity. –†John Paul II

Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. –†John Paul II

Shortly after the death of John Paul II on April 2, 2005, Bush rightly lauded the Holy Father for his WITNESS TO THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE, for the way he showed us that HUMAN LIFE AT ALL ITS STAGES IS REVERED AND TREASURED, he called him ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT MORAL LEADERS.

Sadly, Bush does not fully appreciate the CULTURE OF LIFE to which the Holy Father consistently and relentlessly called us all. Nowhere is this more evident than in Bush's utter disregard of John Paul II's unequivocal opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which he called A DEFEAT FOR HUMANITY.

"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man," says John Paul II.

Rather than listen to ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT MORAL LEADERS, Bush unleashed the very forces of death, destruction, and dislocation that the Pope worked relentlessly to avoid. Instead of building a culture of life, Bush and his administration's policies ARE SOWING THE KILLING FIELDS.

John Paul II has chosen the path of love, mercy, justice, and peace. BUSH II HAS CHOSEN THE PATH OF FEAR, GREED, HATRED, KILLING, AND TORTURE.

eggman wrote:

This passage should also serve as a reminder to the left-of-center folks that not every Republican is a lock-step Bushevik.

Indeed. We've seen guys like Hagel show some spine. And if an investigation into the illegal NSA wiretaps shows that the administration's political enemies were being tapped, there will be few, if any, Republicans who will offer Bush cover.

Bill, did you not see all the posts about the FBI running all over the country chasing dead ends from the sweeping intercepts of NSA?

Are you starting to 'see the light' that what Doofus has been doing is illegal and right up there with Hitler's tactics? Hell, you're so much, I'm betting your name is on their list just like ours. I haven't tried to fly lately, but...

The Bible in today's climate

Arianna was brutally attacked by our Nazi bloggers. The Bible study class may have clarified why she was attacked. During the time of Jesus the son would usually follow in the trade of the father. A brighter son or a son of a rich person would study in the temple. Today the sons and daughters of the rich will go to college and the sons and daughters of the poor such as the 90% of Americans will enter the armed forces to fight the Bush wars. The 21st century will be known as the century of the Father of Wars in Bush's honor. There were slaves during Jesus' time and the Hebrews treated their slaves well and some slaves even became part of the family. The neocons have a close alliance with Israel. It is too bad that they are not going to treat the 90% of Americans in the same way as the Hebrews treated their slaves. American slaves today will have to beg for scraps of food from the neocons. The neocons do not have a heart.

Cheney's energy policy has been kept a secret. Today I had the opportunity to find out what will be America's alternative energy policy for the 21st century. Actually it will be similar to the energy policy around the time of Jesus. Cheney and the neocons have a special place under Cheney's alternative energy policy for our women. One of the jobs that women prepared for during Jesus' time was to collect the animal dung and make cakes out of the dung for fuel. Today's women who are not in the armed services will be dung collectors for Cheney's new and great alternative energy policies. Arianna and other intelligent women are attacked because the neocons want women to be dung collectors.

During Jesus' time war was important because war served as a means of keeping the economy going. Today wars are important because with the military draft sons and some daughters who are not dung collectors can fight in the Bush wars and help keep the economy going. Plus, defense companies can keep the Bush war machine going. Plus, fatherland security will receive money to help keep the American economy going and Cheney’≥ alternative energy policy of dung collectors will also help our economy. The future looks bright for America with regard to wars and dung collecting.

*here so much

You can only give

I have from time to time shared with you that I believe we can only give what we have. America wants to spread her democracy across our planet.

Let us take a good look at the Nazi American people. I am speaking of the majority of Nazi Americans. Democracy is only a word. People are living entities.

When we spread our democracy, we will be spreading corrupt and greedy liars. We will also be spreading our mentality of hatred, killing, torture, and wars.

Is this what we want to spread to other countries so they can emulate the Nazi American way of life?

Gerald wrote:

>John Paul II has chosen the path of love, mercy, justice, and peace. BUSH II HAS CHOSEN THE PATH OF FEAR, GREED, HATRED, KILLING, AND TORTURE.

Preach it, brother. I am not Catholic, but I was a big JPII fan.

One could make an easy case, that George W. Bush is a lot closer to emulating the deeds of the Anti-Christ, than of Christ. Judge a tree by its fruits.

Bob in North Dakota

Alan & Don,
Yes, there was a lot of domestic eavesdropping, but it was all authorized, unless you have some source that says otherwise.

The NSA and CIA were trying to find the traitors who were telling AlQaeda we were intercepting their messages.

And, I'm sorry, but Gerald brought the lobotomy thing up himself. He really needs to consider it. I thought I was being facetious when I said it first, but now I don't know.

Probationary Period

Dear Cornposters:

Our natural life is a probationary period before we are judged for our supernatural life. No one receives a free pass to heaven. There was only one person who stole heaven. He was the thief on the cross, next to Jesus. He defended Jesus by saying that he deserved to die but Jesus was an innocent person.

He said to Jesus, "Remember me!" Jesus turned to him and said, "I say to you that today you will be with me in paradise."

How will we fare in our probationary period to spend or not spend our supernatural life in the Kingdom of Heaven? We are given a free will and we are subject to the consequences of our deeds.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Alan #90,

I linked to that story in a post addressed to Bill on another thread.

Bill is trying to frame the debate over illegal wiretapping into a right vs. left dichotomy, so I'm beginning to think it's pointless. At least he agrees that there should be some sort of investigation, so maybe we should declare victory and go home.

Bill,

Yes, there was a lot of domestic eavesdropping, but it was all authorized, unless you have some source that says otherwise.

Bill, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. I can direct you to several posts in the NYT, the WaPo, hell, I can link you to FISA and, while we're at it, the Constitution if you like. But it would be pointless.

Tell me something. If the eavesdropping was authorized, what did Bush have to fear from the NYT story?

Don,

Right v. Left has now line up as right v. wrong. Most, if not all, of the left-wing pundits and attorneys have lined up to say the NSA spying was illegal. Most of the right-wingers have said it was legal. Depending on what political spectrum you're in, the Left (or the Right) is either right or wrong.

But what we are all quoting are "opinions", not facts.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the one set of opinions is correct, just as you believe another set is correct. But unless and until this matter is adjudicated in some type of tribunal, all either of us has is opinions.

Have to wrap up a few things here, but I'll be back later.

so I'm beginning to think it's pointless. At least he agrees that there should be some sort of investigation, so maybe we should declare victory and go home.

yep, it is pointless
All them posts/links, and he still says they were authorized. *thows up hands*

He says, "show me one, one case of spying that wasn't on a terrorist talking to an American" or words to that effect. When you show him, he changes it to... "but it was all authorized". haha good segue!

Ok, we've both shown him to be wrong again, so I'm going back to "ignore".

*WARNING - corny joke alert

Have you heard of the new coffee drink that's sweeping the country? It's called the Osama bin Latte. You take a half cup of strong, black coffee Add 2 double shots of bourbon Mix in three squares of ex-lax.

After consuming it you will be bombed and run like hell.

Don,
Please link me to the sites saying the domestic eavesdropping was illegal. I'm sorry; I missed them.

And was this "illegality" or "unauthorized" the opinion of some New York Times editor or writer, or found to be illegal or unauthorized by a third party?

David,
When someone says 'Don't Ask' my imagination begins to flare.

Democracy Now has a good show on the wiretapping.

NSA Expert Jim Bamford on Domestic Wiretapping: The Bush Administration Has "Decided Simply to Violate the Law"

and of course the

Former NSA Head Gen. Hayden Grilled by Journalists on NSA Eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens

Alan,

The complaints recently have been against "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA. You were the one who changed the subject by talking about domestic spying. But one has to do with talks between people in the United States. The other has to do with calls from outside the United States.

The only charges of "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA were those originating outside of the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Now, do you think it's alright to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on an incoming call from an AlQaeda operative from outside the United States to a person in the United States? I think it should be allowed.

And, you ask, what did President Bush have to fear by the New York Times story? What he had to fear was a huge intelligence gathering operation being compromised by a newspaper report.

Try this on one for size. What did Roosevelt have to fear by allowing the Germans to know we had broken the Enigma code?

Or, why not let the Germans know about Operation Overlord?

Please link me to the sites saying the domestic eavesdropping was illegal. I'm sorry; I missed them.

haha Try post 62 and 69. You even said yourself that it was a good post. Did you read it???

a'ight, I'm outtie... till later tonight

The complaints recently have been against "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA. You were the one who changed the subject by talking about domestic spying. But one has to do with talks between people in the United States. The other has to do with calls from outside the United States.

Say wha?? You're hopeless Bill. Abso-goshdernit-lutely hopeless.

Don, I would like to respond to you. Yes, if there were 10 Afghans by bin Laden, I would kill all of them! There's no way they wouldn't know who bin Laden is, so they are HARBORING him. I would be happy to kill them.

Now, if my family was there instead, I wouldn't kill them.

Bill, it's obvious to me that these leftists care much more about civil liberties than national security. I mean, it makes them angry that Bush was spying on al Qaeda operatives!! Can you believe that?? I can lol

Alan,

Both posts #62 and #69 talk about the "unauthorized" wiretaps initiated by the NSA on calls from outside the U.S. The only "unauthorized" wiretaps initiated by the NSA were the ones from outside the United States into the United States, not the other direction, and not just in the United States.

Again, unless and until you can direct me to a site showing that domestic spying (U.S. call to U.S. call) was unauthorized, I stand by my statement that the only "unauthorized" eavesdropping were on calls originating outside the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Folks, I think there is a huge distinction that many of you are missing. The eavesdropping conducted by the NSA without benefit of FISA warrants was not between two calls in the United States. It was not for calls from the United States to some other country. It was not for calls from just ordinary citizens in another country to this country.

It was only, only for (1)calls initiating outside the United States into the United States from (2)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Please - anyone here. Which of you would not want this to happen?

Tim L,
I don't even think it's a matter of civil liberties versus security. I don't think they understand that this is not domestic spying. The NSA was trying to catch calls made into the United States by AlQaeda operatives outside the United States.

I don't think I'm endangering my civil liberties by having calls from AlQaeda monitored.

It's exactly analogous to wiretaps placed on organized crime. There is a tap on only one end of the phone. If the gangster calls you, or you call him, the wiretap may not have been authorized against you, but it is not your phone that is tapped - it is the gangster's. But the tap is still legal, even if there is a tap on one end of the phone. Both ends are being recorded.

The exact same is true here. It's not the American's phone that is being tapped; it is the AlQaeda operative's. And it is the AlQaeda operative's call that is being monitored.

Actually, there is even greater safety than taps against organized crime. In that case, calls going both ways are being taped. In the NSA's case, it was only calls being initiated outside the country that were being tapped.

Don, 32, you HAVE to watch the TV drivel and listen on the radio? Why is that? I find both venues very easy to avoid, for the very reason you stated, they are ANNOYING!
Alan, what is it that the trolls don't get about SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT?? Is the constitution just a goddamn piece of paper to them as well? How is it that joe blow can come along and toss out amendments? IT VIOLATES THE F**KING FOURTH AMENDMENT!!!!! GOT IT?? AM I SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH?? GOD, WHAT AN IDIOT!

And as I recall from reading the fourth amendment, it does NOT say, "But in case of the govt. LYING about an attack on US soil by 19 Arabs with box cutters, you may spy on any and all US citizens."

Rather than having free speech as a founding right guaranteed by the Constitution, Bush told the Kansas State University students that there's [paraphrase] "a 'custom' in our country that allows people to say what's on their mind and we're going to keep it that way." Like he called the Constitution "just a damn piece of paper" . . . and who is the "We" he referred to???

A custom? bush is an idiot too! UGH!

Tim, Bill, it's obvious to me that these leftists care much more about civil liberties than national security. I mean, it makes them angry that Bush was spying on al Qaeda operatives!! Can you believe that?? I can lol I know it wasn't addressed to me but I'll respond with the correct quote from Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And one more that I think was written just for this administration: "He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

I went up to Peace Arch Park at Blaine, WA, this afternoon with my husband. Peace Arch Park is at the U.S.-Canadian border. It's a beautiful PNW day, so we went to one of our favorite parks for a walk by the sea.

Then...a car chase, police in pursuit of a medium-sized red car. The red car speeds towards the border crossing, a police vehicle cuts it off, and rams into it, there's gunfire. Additional law enforcement vehicles arrive, including a Medic One because one of the men in the red car has been shot. Unconfiremd reports are that the two men are murder suspects from California, one allegedly from Mexico and one allegedly from Pakistan.

Gee whiz, all I wanted to do was get away from the trolls and look what happens! My husband (just like a newsman) had his camcorder with him to tape some birds, so we got some footage of this instead.

Posner Waiver for Trolls

There are some who say they would sacrifice personal freedom for security from terrorism. To them I say: What's stopping you?

Just sign and date the following Posner Waiver:

I, ___________________,

hereby waive any rights of privacy in my person, property, association, thought and/or expression that I have, had or claim to have under the federal and state constitutions, statutory law or regulation of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, decisional law, common law and/or any other source of authority, real or imagined, to the extent the waiver of such rights is, in the sole judgment of any military, law enforcement or national security employee of the United States, deemed necessary to prosecute the war on terror.

This waiver applies both retroactively and prospectively.

_____________________________
(Signed)

_____________________________
(Dated)
Cut-and-paste the above waiver and e-mail it to comments@whitehouse.gov, or vice_president
@whitehouse.gov. Put "Posner Waiver" in the subject line.

******

Sign it, send it and live in your little cocoon of fear.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

capt

capt -- great idea!

Troll culture

The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the "anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a "culture" consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some do claim it is possible and already occurring.

There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips, and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.

Trolling culture is best observed in users, who do not know each other, working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work. A troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.

Prison time for trolling?

On January 5, 2006, United States president George W. Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting anonymous "annoying Web messages" or sending anonymous "annoying e-mail messages". [4] Criminal penalties include fines and two years in prison. Concern has been raised as to the Constitutional legality of the law, as critics allege that it infringes upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech.

Resolutions and alternatives

In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.

Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.

Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response.

Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
There are those who argue that a lack of response to trolling can also inspire trolling, a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. Particularly fanatical or irrational commentators will respond to a forum that irks them largely independent of responses. Trolls also often continue to post, taking umbrage with peripheral arguments or arguments that were less well-founded, until their positions become untenable, then turning either to insults or moving to another topic. By this logic, relentless confrontation through argument of trolls (when such argument is to be found) can be vital.

Usefulness of trolling

A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.
Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.

Behavioral issues

Precise definitions of "troll" have been difficult because such definitions rely on assumptions about internal motivation, which have been difficult to conculsively prove. Some behaviors, such as "name-calling" are not candidates for a "troll" classification unless their intent is to provoke a reaction, as "name-calling" could be considered more anti-social, perhaps falling under the classification of "flamer" instead.

Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.

*****end of clip*****

Of course in the case of our little troll teenagers they are properly referred to as "Doctor Troll!"

HA! (it gets funnier as the day goes by)

capt

micki, so much excitement! So much for a peaceful interlude at the park.
TRH, I have a story to counter the one you told about the idiot cops and the drunk in Corvallis. This just happened a couple days ago and struck very close to home. My brother, who lives in Portland, was on his way home from work and got off the freeway onto the surface street that would take him ho