The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I didn't mean we'd all know, or that loads of top secret information would be disclosed -- just that we (or at least the Congress) would have a better idea if there is some investigation of what was done and why.

BTW -- this is hardly breaking as a liberal/conservative issue. The Washington Times today had two more or less opposite opinion pieces on its editorial page.

Bruce Fein -- not my idea of a "Michael Moore liberal" really ripped the President a new asshole. Included a couple of fun inflammatory statements --

"According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties."

and

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses."

also

"The president maintained that, 'As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.' But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

Similar to this Newsweek piece linked on Drudge:

• Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
  
  No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
  but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
  
  The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
  
  No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Similar to this Newsweek piece linked on Drudge:

• Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
  
  No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
  but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
  
  The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
  
  No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

It seems to me that the real danger in letting this story out is that those wire taps are likely going to get even more scrutiny, from more people, than they ever would have if they'd gotten a damned warrant. I can't imagine that this is the sort of thing that can get by without a congressional hearing.

[Replaced_Texan]

And not only for the stupid waste of resources.:

A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Aaron McQuade has the story.

Reporter:

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat.

SLDN Communications Director Steve Ralls calls the surveillance a 'dangerous step.'

. . .

The database indicates that the Pentagon has been collecting information about protesters and their vehicles, looking for what they call a "significant connection" between incidents. Of the four "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests listed, only one - U-C Santa Cruz, where students staged a "gay kissing" demonstration - is classified as a "credible" threat.

[Diane_Keaton]

Graz -- Austrian hometown of the Governator -- gets letter from Gov saying his name must be removed by year end from all buildings and his name can no longer be used by town to help tourism, after councilmen start petition to remove Gov's name from some ampitheatre or something b/c they're upset Gov let Tookie die.

I don't care about the political party, I just love this type of "fuck you" to people who are sweet on raising a ruckus without first weighing the possible consequences. Europeans can be such fools! Let them rename the buildings "Tookie", someone you know they'd never want roaming THEIR little narrow, pristine streets.

The letter supposedly started "Dear Mister Mayor". Damn, couldn't Arnold in a nod to the season have said

"Dear Burgemeister Burger:"

Bah Humbug.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

I haven't been following this. Is this a joke? I assume Bin Ladin is not in the United States. The NSA only needs to get warrants for phone calls within the US. If it outside the US (or an international call) they can listen in on anyone they want. Correct?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
[url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/19/D8EJKF48B.html]

Bah Humbug.

I believe that this gentleman is "Burghermeister Meisterburgher."

And I agree.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I question whether Nixon could have gotten a warrant for everyone on his "enemies" list.

Given Bush's view that everyone who questions him, or any aspect of his tactics or his execution of the plan for postwar Iraq (assuming there ever was a plan, beyond sweets and flowers), is "with the terrorists", I have similar questions about him.

If what you are asserting is true there is no doubt my phone is tapped. I feel sorry for the schlep from the NSA that has to listen to my boring phone calls.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I haven't been following this. Is this a joke? I assume Bin Ladin is not in the United States. The NSA only needs to get warrants for phone calls within the US. If it outside the US (or an international call) they can listen in on anyone they want. Correct?

Spanky --

Balt was mistaken. The President was using a rhetorical device called an analogy. The Osama bin Laden calls were not related to this issue at all.

P.S. I think that the NSA needs to get warrants to monitor phone calls beginning or ending in the United States, even if those calls are going to or coming from overseas.

The FISA, etc. does not apply to calls taking place entirely outside the U.S.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If what you are asserting is true there is no doubt my phone is tapped. I feel sorry for the schlep from the NSA that has to listen to my boring phone calls.

Well, you have traveled extensively overseas, haven't you? Ansd you definitely hate America.

But we'll never know . . .

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant.

See I thought they only needed to get a warrant if both callers where in the US. Once one part of the communiation is outside they US then they don't need a warrant. I think the same is true of international mail.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I believe that this gentleman is "Burghermeister Meisterburgher."

And I agree.

S_A_M

Oh wait. You know what? I totally take back what I said!! I feel bad for the Burghermeister of Graz. In fact to celebrate the caring christmas season, I will be volunteering to tear off his lederhosen and fuck him two ways to Sunday. Oh Tannenbaum!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh wait. You know what? I totally take back what I said!! I feel bad for the Burghermeister of Graz. In fact to celebrate the caring christmas season, I will be volunteering to fuck him two ways to Sunday. Oh Tannenbaum!

Mmmmmm, fucking.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Mmmmmm, fucking.

Mmmmmmm, men in lederhosen.

[Spanky]

The issue seems pretty simple to me.

1) The NSA can tap all the calls they want outside of the United States.

2) The NSA can tap any calls that originate outside of the United States or end outside the United States. If you, or your packages have no rights when entering or exiting the United States, why should your communication? If people are getting upset about eavesdropping on such calls they are making mountain out of molehills.

3) If the NSA is tapping phone calls the orginate and end in the United States (and there are no exigent circumstances - mainly they don't have time to get a warrant - but that shouldn't prevent them from getting a warrant if the tap continues) then the NSA and the Bush Administration are out of line. As far as I am aware, there is no national security exception to the Bill of Rights. If the New York times new of such violations and took a year to report it, that is a little scary. If this is what is happening the New York Times should have exposed it and the administration needs to be stopped. There is no excuse for domestic phone taps without warrants.

Is it more complicated than that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
The issue seems pretty simple to me.

1) The NSA can tap all the calls they want outside of the United States.

2) The NSA can tap any calls that originate outside of the United States or end outside the United States. If you, or your packages have no rights when entering or exiting the United States, why should your communication? If people are getting upset about eavesdropping on such calls they are making mountain out of molehills.

3) If the NSA is tapping phone calls the orginate and end in the United States (and there are no exigent circumstances - mainly they don't have time to get a warrant - but that shouldn't prevent them from getting a warrant if the tap continues) then the NSA and the Bush Administration are out of line. As far as I am aware, there is no national security exception to the Bill of Rights. If the New York times new of such violations and took a year to report it, that is a little scary. If this is what is happening the New York Times should have exposed it and the administration needs to be stopped. There is no excuse for domestic phone taps without warrants.

Is it more complicated than that?

Not really, except I'm not sure you're completely right on #2--Ithink they can tap it, but not record/transcribe the U.S. caller's part of the conversation. And on 3, the argument is that there is a national security exception that makes the taps reasonable in a post-9/11 world. Not saying they're right, just that the argument may be more nuanced than there's no exception to the bill of rights--obviously there are limits when there is a clear and present danger, or an imminent threat, and so forth.