| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/12/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41086 Activity:very high |
12/20 Suspicious motd silence on Bush's "It's good to be the king" argument
for his NSA decision^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawbreaking.
\_ I thought we covered this a few days ago. Who exactly are you
suspicious of anyway?
\_ Well, remember that TIA project? Well, #$@#$#$@#132323 NO CARRIER
\_ Ask Bork about his video rentals..
\_ MSNBC covered it. That makes it a lot more mainstream:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek
\_ Hah hah. There's been suspicious silence on the motd on any good
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention of
the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the show
for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one of
those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with "transfer
of soverignty," etc, etc.
news on Iraq, Bush, etc. for quite a while. There was no mention
of the Iraqi election for instance.
\_ having an election is insignificant. It is mainly for the
show for USA domestic audience anyway. It is just another one
of those milestone which doesn't mean squat, along with
"transfer of soverignty," etc, etc.
\_ A free election of a parliment, with roughly 70% turnout is
insignificant. Okay. Thanks for letting us know where you
stand. Please sign your posts in the future so I can know
which ones to ignore. -emarkp
\_ Please don't derail this with an Iraq flamewar. ok tnx.
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a dubious
claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think that any
civil structure that comes to form while we are there will
be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately becomes will
not take shape until/unless we leave. --scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with real
candidates, and the people turned out in droves. The
kind of thing people were saying would never happen.
Yes, the final state of the country won't be known until
they stand on their own, but it is a huge thing that
happened and a great beginning for the newest democracy
on the planet. -emarkp
\_ I'm not the above poster, but "Free election" is a
dubious claim. Iraq is still under occupation. I think
that any civil structure that comes to form while we are
there will be, by design, fragile. What Iraq ultimately
becomes will not take shape until/unless we leave.
--scotsman
\_ Free as in speech. There were real elections with
real candidates, and the people turned out in droves.
The kind of thing people were saying would never
happen. Yes, the final state of the country won't be
known until they stand on their own, but it is a huge
thing that happened and a great beginning for the
newest democracy on the planet. -emarkp
\_ Elections are easy. Governing is hard. -ausman
\_ I don't know... I just think this is so blatent that I am just
want to see how Bush is going to get out of this one.
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of the
US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your definition of
blatant?
\_ So blatant? Wiretaps on conversations with people outside of
the US who are associated with Al Qaeda? That's your
definition of blatant?
\_ With people outside of the US that Bush et al have said are
associated with Al Qaeda.. Do you know the 4th amendment?
Do you know what FISA is? There are legal mechanisms to do
what they wanted to do. They have decided those legal
mechanisms don't apply to them.
Adding to this:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58437
Dem gays is a "credible terrorist threat".. mmhmm...
\_ Between US citizens, in violation of both the Constitution
and the law Congress passed to cover it. Bolton using the
NSA to spy on political opponents inside the State Dept.
The DIA spying on anti-war groups, including The Quakers
and the Catholic Worker. And this is just the stuff that
has come out so far. I am sure there is more.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of your
political opponent's FBI files.
\_ Oh come off it. This is no worse than having ~500 of
your political opponent's FBI files.
\_ You mean that "scandal" that was investigated by an
independent prosecutor that resulted in no charges...
Okay, fine. Join me in a call for an independent
prosecutor here.
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated" is
\_ That depends on what the meaning of "investigated"
is
\_ Yeah, because that's precisely the same as trying to
stop terrorism.
\_ Wow. Way to miss the sarcasm. You must be _this_
tall to post to this thread.
\_ They are both despicable, yes.
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants as
Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ Boalt law Professor John Yoo says Dubya can do whatever he wants
as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Go Dubya!
\_ You're talking about this? http://csua.org/u/edz (LATimes)
"Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the
belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war
before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad."
Prof. Yoo, just because no Congress has taken a President to
task for abusing the War Powers does not grant every Pres. the
right to do so. It's a pretty justification, but it's still not
borne out by the Constitution, which means it's only as good as
your ability to stay ahead of the Congressional lynch mob.
Also, your speculation on the idea of Congress becoming the
initiator of wars is disingenuous-- no one's suggesting that
the Pres. doesn't have the authority to start conflicts, just
that he then must continue to obey the laws of the US even
after the start of conflict. We do not have a military
dictatorship.
\_ http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm
Congressmen calls for investigation and censure.
\- Where is Karl Rove in all this? [re: presidential summons
of nyt editors etc] |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek Jonathan Alter-Between th e Lines Bush's Snoopgate The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times' eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn't just out of concern about national security. President Bush c ame out swinging on Snoopgate-he made it seem as if those who didn't agr ee with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda-but it will not wo rk. 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 s tory on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a c lear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I lear ned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur S ulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futil e attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comm ent on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation. The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national securi ty, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damag ing pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, w hich caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans wi th ties to Muslim extremists-in fact, all American Muslims, period-have long since suspected that the US government might be listening in to t heir conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing t his program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or e ven reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the governm ent who was trying to stop a presidential power grab. No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important stor y-which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year-because he kn ew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal a uthority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution auth orizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president t o obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing " all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference t o 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. Alex Wong / Getty Images (right) Called to the Oval Office: Sulzberger (left) and Keller What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set u p a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if ne cessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a war rant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of tho usands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no in dication the existing system was slow-as the president seemed to claim i n his press conference-or in any way required extra-constitutional actio n This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress , there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974. In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledg e that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba. This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrass ment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason- and less out of genuine concern about national security-that George W B ush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story. |
| releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58437 SLDN Condemns Pentagon S urveillance of Private Groups 12/20/2005 11:13:00 AM To: National Desk Contact: Steve Ralls of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 202-328-324 4 ext. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April prote sts at the 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 LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified a s "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon survei llance and monitoring. "The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitut ion, not turn it upside down," said SLDN executive director C Dixon Osb urn. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans hav e a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutiona l right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chillin g" In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force o fficials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn e nemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in D ayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic) . One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphr odisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." S LDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never int ended to develop the program. "The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to dem ean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Osburn. "First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displ ays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is tim e for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century Amer ica." SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD's total database of info rmation has been made public. |
| csua.org/u/edz -> www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoo20dec20,0,4832707.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions Large Text Size Large Text Size Change text size A president can pull the trigger By John Yoo, JOHN YOO, a UC Berkeley law professor, is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace" (Univ. John McCain's proposal to prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of enemy combatants. President Bush is under fir e for authorizing the NSA's warrantless interception of international ph one calls and e-mails that were linked to possible terrorists and that e nded or originated in the US My name has come up for criticism over these issues because of my service in the Justice Department during Bush's first term. I've defended the a dministration's legal approach to the treatment of Al Qaeda suspects and detainees. I cannot address the National Security Agency's program, whi ch remains classified. But both instances bring up the issue of presiden tial power in times of war, and I can speak directly to that: The Consti tution creates a presidency that is uniquely structured to act forcefull y and independently to repel serious threats to the nation. Liberal intellectuals believe that Bush's exercise of his commander-in-chief power has exceed ed his constitutional authority and led to a quagmire in Iraq. If only C ongress had undertaken the solemn process of declaring war, they have ar gued, faulty intelligence would have been smoked out, the debate would h ave produced consensus, and the American people would have been firmly c ommitted to the ordeal ahead. Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the US can engage i n military hostilities abroad. Although this nation has used force abroa d more than 100 times, it has declared war only five times: the War of 1 812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I an d II. Without declarations of war or any other congressional authorizati on, presidents have sent troops to fight Chinese Communists in Korea, to remove Manuel Noriega from power in Panama and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans. Other conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War, received "authorization" from Congress but not declarations of war. Critics of these wars want to upend this long practice by appeals to an " original understanding" of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, does not set out a clear process for starting war. Congress has the powe r to "declare war," but this clause allows Congress to establish the nat ion's legal status under international law. The framers wouldn't have eq uated "declaring" war with beginning a military conflict indeed, in th e 100 years before the Constitution, the British only once "declared" wa r at the start of a conflict. Further, the Constitution specifies no step-by-step process to govern war -making, yet it is specific every other time it imposes shared power on the executive and legislative branches. Because the framers understood that war would require the speed, decisiveness and secrecy that only the preside ncy could bring. "Energy in the executive," Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, "is a leading character in the definition of goo d government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." And, he continued, "the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qu alities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." Instead of specifying a legalistic process to begin war, the framers wise ly created a fluid political process in which legislators would use thei r funding power to control war. C ongress led us into two bad wars, the 1798 quasi-war with France and the War of 1812. Excessive congressional control can also prevent the US from entering into conflicts that are in the national interest. Most wou ld agree now that congressional isolationism before World War II harmed US interests, and that FDR should have been able to enter the conflict much earlier. We did not win the four-decade Cold War by declarations of war. Rather, w e prevailed through the steady presidential application of the strategy of containment, supported by congressional funding of the necessary mili tary forces. As we confront terrorism, rogue nations and proliferation o f weapons of mass destruction, we should look skeptically at claims that radical changes in the way we make war would solve our problems, even t hose stemming from poor judgment, unforeseen circumstances and bad luck. |
| www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm com Cross Posted at Huffingto n Post and DailyKos Today, I am releasing a staff report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and... com Cross Posted at Huffington Post and DailyKos Today, I am releasing a staff report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisi s: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retr ibution and Coverups in the Iraq War. Before talking about the report, I must express my profound gratitude to the readers of this site, who kept this story alive when no one would co ver it, and continued to talk about it after some in the media moved on. Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful) . I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, w ho have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was de ceived into war. s actions in taking us to war from A to Z The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vic e-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration mi sled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to wa r in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are t rue) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations spa n from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws. The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet p ossible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachme nt are warranted. In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. In Watergate, for example, the Congress did not begin matt ers as an impeachment inquiry, but investigated matters ? and referred impeachable evidence to the Judiciary Commi ttee. Second, I have introduced Resolutions regarding both President Bush (H. As you know, taking these steps means that I am likely to be criticized b y the political and media establishments in Washington and attacked by t he right wing noise machine. There is a school of thought among Washingt on political consultants that criticizing the President about Iraq will make Democrats appear to be weak on national security. There is a media establishment that marginalizes politicians for espousing beliefs held b y the majority of Americans. The right wing noise machine in turn retali ates against the Presidents critics. Be that as it may, I just could not be silent any longer. The title of th e report is exactly right: the Constitution is in Crisis. There are seri ous and well-substantiated allegations that the Executive Branch has usu rped the sole power of the Congress to declare war by deceiving the Cong ress about the evidence for war. There are serious and well-substantiate d allegations that the Executive Branch has deceived the American people to manufacture the peoples consent for war. If you agree with me, I am going to need your help like never before. com, where you will find an action center, including a copy of the Report via Raw Story, and ways you can help. com to join with other activists who wa nt to move this issue forward. There is only one person competent to be the President of the United Stat es of America which could bring your nation back under the rule of law - and it is you Congressman Conyers Jr. I hope the other Democrats and every Republican who cares about the peopl e of the USA and the world will be backing you through this firestorm of right wing noise. Dear Congressman Conyers, I pray that your report will be the "beginning" of what will eventually l ead to Impeachment Proceedings against the Administration! I do want to share my phone conversation with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchiso n's office this morning. I live here in Dallas TX, and called her Washington office. A woman answe red, and I asked her what Senator Hutchison's views were about the "wire tapping" of US Citizens and protecting our Civil Liberties. The woman responded back that Senator Hutchison believes in protecting Texas Citiz ens Civil Liberties but supports the President in what he did with the N SA wiretapping with out court orders as being "right!" Obviously, one does n ot have the right to disagree with Senator Hutchison! Therefore, I think she should be "investigated" as to how far involved she is with the Adm inistration in all of their corruption! THANK YOU SIR FOR BEING ONE OF THE FEW THAT STILL BELIEVES IN DEMOCRACY A ND POSSESSES THE HIGH QUALITIES AND TRAITS OF BEING A PERSON THAT WILL N EVER COMPROMISE HIS "INTEGRITY, HONESTY, AND ETHICS! Sincerely, Charlie C Dallas TX Comment #3: The Forest said on 12/20/05 @ 12:13pm ET... Michigan Representative John Conyers: COURAGE IN ACTION. Just let the establishment media and DC political consultant class elit es TRY to marginalize this leader for espousing and VOICING the FACTS th at a large majority of Americans already are, or soon will be, APPALLED to learn about the arrogance of power exhibited by those who occupy our Executive Branch of government. The democratic process REQUIRES open, inclusive, honest debate to survive . Petty tyrants abhor, to their core, open and honest debate. America mu st stand up and demand an open, honest debate that examines the dictates of our Executive Branch tyrants, wherever they contravene the Constitut ion that the Founders of our Nation so wisely designed, with the prevent ion of just such king-size abuses uppermost in their minds. Thank you Congressman Conyers for your exceptional leadership in defense of our Constitution and the Republic, itself. We will be out there doing everything we can to expand support for holdin g Bush, Cheney and all their neoconster minions (and financial backers) accountable. The time for this is far overdue, and I laud and support your efforts. An interesting aside to this is going to be the exposure of the DEMOCRATS that are willing to accept, abet, and participate in the crim inal endeavors of this TREASONOUS Presidential Administration. I call on ALL of our public servants , at the federal, state, and local levels to support Conyer's efforts in fighting the most important political battle of our Nation's history. I believe that it is possible that the Bush Administration will, if cornered, hand us another "trifecta" that will make 9/11 look l ike a back alley fender bender. DO NOT under-estimate the lengths these people will go to to stay in power. The thought occurs to me that in light of Colin Powell's bela ted and half hearted efforts at redemption through his recent interview with BBC, and the revelations of his prior aide, Wilkerson, that Powell' s participation in your efforts would be invaluable. I implore you to ma ke overtures to both Powell and Wilkerson, if you have not already done so. Congressman Conyers, Thank you for your outstanding leadership in this matter and so many othe rs. We will help in this fight for our Constitution and the soul of America. thanks for making that "one giant step" for the Constitution and those in this country who still have some respect for it and don't wrap themselves in the flag in order to hide their criminal intent. You have done the right thing and I hope your colleagues stand with you. Do your colleagues in Washington fully realize the h ow deepseated the mistrust is that they have fostered? If there were ano ther "fear generating event" such as POA suggests, my first suspicion wo uld be that my own American government did it. An administration that ca n torture knows no boundaries. us/ Comment #13: Genghis Khan said on 12/20/05 @ 2:27pm ET... In fact, we should be agent provo... |