Quote :

"By Bruce Fein Published December 20, 2005 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. Last Saturday, he thus aggressively defended the constitutionality of his secret order to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans whom the executive branch speculates might be tied to terrorists. Authorized after the September 11, 2001 abominations, the eavesdropping clashes with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), excludes judicial or legislative oversight, and circumvented public accountability for four years until disclosed by the New York Times last Friday. Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so. 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. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms. The war against global terrorism is serious business. The enemy has placed every American at risk, a tactic that justifies altering the customary balance between liberty and security. But like all other constitutional authorities, the war powers of the president are a matter of degree. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court denied President Harry Truman's claim of inherent constitutional power to seize a steel mill threatened with a strike to avert a steel shortage that might have impaired the war effort in Korea. A strike occurred, but Truman's fear proved unfounded. Neither President Richard Nixon nor Gerald Ford was empowered to suspend Congress for failing to appropriate funds they requested to fight in Cambodia or South Vietnam. And the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim of inherent power to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War in New York Times v. United States (1971). Mr. Bush insisted in his radio address that the NSA targets only citizens "with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist organizations." But there are no checks on NSA errors or abuses, the hallmark of a rule of law as opposed to a rule of men. Truth and accuracy are the first casualties of war. President Bush assured the world Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He was wrong. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared Americans of Japanese ancestry were security threats to justify interning them in concentration camps during World War II. He was wrong. President Lyndon Johnson maintained communists masterminded and funded the massive Vietnam War protests in the United States. He was wrong. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan's remark to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, President Bush can be trusted in wartime, but only with independent verification. The NSA eavesdropping is further troublesome because it easily evades judicial review. Targeted citizens are never informed their international communications have been intercepted. Unless a criminal prosecution is forthcoming (which seems unlikely), the citizen has no forum to test the government's claim the interceptions were triggered by known links to a terrorist organization. Mr. Bush acclaimed the secret surveillance as "crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies." But if that were justified, why was Congress not asked for legislative authorization in light of the legal cloud created by FISA and the legislative branch's sympathies shown in the Patriot Act and joint resolution for war? FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute." Mr. Bush cited the disruptions of "terrorist" cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a pronounced domestic threat that compelled unilateral and secret action. But he failed to demonstrate those cells could not have been equally penetrated with customary legislative and judicial checks on executive overreaching. 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? Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20051219-091756-7399r

1/5/2006 7:21:46 AM

infringing on constitutional rights? Not our bushie!

1/5/2006 8:33:29 AM

DON'T YOU TALK BAD ABOUT DUBYA! HE'S OUR LEADER BOY. HE'S GOIN AFTER DEM TURRISTS AND HE'S A GOOD MAN. HE'S DELIVERING DA FREEDOM ALL AROUNDS THE WORLD TOO. YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU'RE AGAINST US.

1/5/2006 8:36:13 AM

does anyone else find it funny that a guy named "salisburyboy" is making fun of rednecks?

i mean, I'm right here with ya, salisbury, it's just... the irony...

1/5/2006 8:48:11 AM

Actually, I love rednecks. I consider myself "country." I like most everything about country/redneck folks with a few exceptions. I guess it's just hard to poke fun at bush supporters without adopting a redneck persona.

1/5/2006 8:57:45 AM

What about a redneck that is a jew?

1/5/2006 12:46:37 PM

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/13564370.htm

Quote :

"Bush taking on king-like powers President Bush has publicly admitted giving approval to the National Security Agency for domestic spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant from a secret court for such activities, “except as authorized by statute.” The administration, while citing no such statute, claims that a new exception was created “implicitly” when Congress authorized the use of military force after 9/11. While legal scholars debate whether such loopholes are sufficient to avoid breaking the letter of the law, Bush is breaking the spirit of the law – a law intended to provide one small check on an otherwise unlimited government power to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime. FISA allows retroactive court approval in time-critical situations, so there is no credible excuse not to get a warrant. Bush makes no apology for ignoring the court and says he will continue to do so. We are fed the usual excuses of terrorism and 9/11 – the same ones used to justify torture, secret prisons and an unrelated war. In one respect, Bush is right: Living in a police state would make us safer from terrorists. North Korea is probably the most difficult place on Earth for terrorists to operate. Does anyone want to make that trade-off? As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Bush is making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. If we let him get away with that, he is no longer merely our president. If our “guaranteed” rights are only as good as Bush’s opinion of them, he is our king. ROBERT J. UECKER Fort Wayne "

BUT WE HAVE TO TURN THE COUNTRY INTO A NAZI-STYLE POLICE STATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT US FROM AL-CIA-DUH. JUST TRUST DUBYA. HE'LL LEAD US TO VICTORY IN TEH WAR ON TERROR.

HEIL BUSH!



[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 10:46 AM. Reason : `]

1/6/2006 10:44:56 AM

1/11/2006 9:31:00 AM

Bush likes cooler movies than pryderi...I bet he also likes Patriot Games and Hunt for Red October

1/11/2006 9:56:04 AM

ya know clinton did some under handed shit too

1/11/2006 10:34:44 AM

Clinton is not the current sitting president.

Besides, why not raise the bar a smidge?

1/11/2006 10:38:05 AM

Quote :

"ya know clinton did some under handed shit too"

of course he did. but does that makes it ok for bush to violate our rights and trick us into war, etc?

they're both scumbags. both parties are bad for america. it's not an either or choice. that's a false choice fallacy. the lesser of two evils is not a "good"

[Edited on January 11, 2006 at 10:45 AM. Reason : `]

1/11/2006 10:44:58 AM

just a few more stories to defame bush and your internet campaign for impeachment will be a success! you will get bush impeached just like clinton was impeached just because of your internet rumors!

1/11/2006 10:50:22 AM

Quote :

"they're both scumbags. both parties are bad for america. it's not an either or choice. that's a false choice fallacy. the lesser of two evils is not a "good""

holy shit man, you actually said something i can agree with

1/11/2006 11:19:41 AM

Quote :

"ya know clinton did some under handed shit too"

Clinton didn't spy on americans with wiretaps without warrants.

1/11/2006 11:27:12 AM

Quote :

"ya know clinton did some under handed the desk blowjob shit too"

1/11/2006 11:57:09 AM

Quote :

"Clinton didn't spy on americans with wiretaps without warrants."

actually he did do shit like that

1/11/2006 3:26:43 PM

Domestic spying has been going on for decades, uhcer the ECHELON program and others. The elite via the NY Times and the MSM just thought the time was right to finally admit it to the pubic.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/191205spying.htm

Quote :

"Under the Clinton Administration Echelon certainly turned its attention to citizens of countries everywhere and monitored millions of calls and other communications. Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told CBS's "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs." Domestic spying is nothing new, there has been at least half a century of such activity in America. The naïveté of the public is at an all time high as they would rather switch off than engage in the mess that is modern day politics in America. The general public will believe that government spying on them is new, and secondly, they will just accept it because they are being told in a very unsophisticated fashion, that it is keeping them safe."

1/11/2006 3:48:25 PM

Quote :

"The naïveté of the public is at an all time high"

Quote :

"The general public will believe that government spying on them is new"

so true

1/11/2006 4:42:55 PM

not takin sides here but Clinton did have Vince Foster killed, he did other shit besides getting BJs

1/11/2006 6:00:00 PM

Quote :

"Under the Clinton Administration Echelon certainly turned its attention to citizens of countries everywhere and monitored millions of calls and other communications. Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told CBS's "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs." Domestic spying is nothing new, there has been at least half a century of such activity in America. The naïveté of the public is at an all time high as they would rather switch off than engage in the mess that is modern day politics in America. The general public will believe that government spying on them is new, and secondly, they will just accept it because they are being told in a very unsophisticated fashion, that it is keeping them safe."

Canada spied on us, Clinton didn't.

1/12/2006 2:02:20 AM

Quote :

" actually he did do shit like that"

Please tell me when Clinton wiretapped americans without warrants. I'd appreciate a cited source.

1/12/2006 2:04:47 AM

i dont have any sources but i think its kind of intuitive that the govt in general has been doing deceitful things like that for many decades and administrations

1/12/2006 2:09:00 AM

Got this from the infowars.net article above:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

Quote :

"Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon. On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants." But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

1/12/2006 8:04:09 AM

newmax.com is not a reliable news source.

Quote :

"newsmax Editor's note: Check out President Reagan – the Oval Office Photo – Click Here Now Get the Picture That Made America Proud on 9/11 – Click Here New book details al-Qaida’s plans for nuclear terror – Get it FREE – Click Here"

Get off Clinton's nuts.



[Edited on January 12, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2006 1:19:37 PM

There's probably a line to get to them in the first place.

1/12/2006 2:27:15 PM

^^sounds to me like you're the one on his nuts

1/12/2006 4:47:35 PM

LOL

1/12/2006 4:57:01 PM

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7986.shtml

Quote :

"Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government By DOUG THOMPSON Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue Jan 13, 2006, 07:42 President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances. Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President. John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office. Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement. Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and maintain the peace.” Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”"

Dozens of such "internment" camps currently exist in the United States. Only those that will be put in the camps aren't merely "African Americans" (as the plan was once sold)---but rather all those who resist the implementation of martial law and the scrapping of constitutional rights.

1/13/2006 12:45:14 PM

^ holy crap

1/13/2006 12:52:43 PM

Quote :

"all of it done without a court order,"

I hate to criticize the paramount of journalism standards known as Newsmax, but what Clinton did--while I agree it was shady, distressing, and worth getting very pissed over, it was done with a warrant.

1/13/2006 7:23:31 PM

Credible!

1/14/2006 2:36:45 PM

what are yall gonna do in 09 when bush term is over and he just leaves....youre all gonna feel pretty stupid then

1/14/2006 3:10:52 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/160106impeachbush.htm

Quote :

"52% of Americans: Impeach Bush on wiretaps Zogby poll: Most want action if U.S. citizens monitored without judge's OK World Net Daily | January 16 2006 A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval. Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.""

1/17/2006 8:16:43 AM

let's go ahead and get htis out of the way...

prisonplanet = unreliable
zogby = unreliable

impeach bush? yeah, if he did something illegal, but that still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

1/17/2006 8:19:01 AM

I'm willing to go out on a limb here and claim that 50% of americans have no fucking clue what "impeach" means, leaving 2% who really support it

1/17/2006 8:31:11 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/160106bushcrossed.htm

Quote :

"Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon Paul Craig Roberts | January 16 2006 [...] Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the president in his role as commander-in-chief. Thus, once the president is at war – even a vague open-ended "war on terror" – Bush’s Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and indefinite detention of American citizens. The commander-in-chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to any crisis, whether real or fabricated. Thus has the US arrived at the verge of dictatorship. [...] There is today no constitutional party. Both political parties, most constitutional lawyers, and the bar associations are willing to set aside the Constitution whenever it interferes with their agendas. Americans have forgotten the prerequisites for freedom, and those pursuing power have forgotten what it means when it falls into other hands. Americans are very close to losing their constitutional system and civil liberties. It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy."

We're at war people. Silly little things like the Bill of Rights don't apply in times of war. Bush has to be able to do anything--including spying on us and searching us in violation of the 4th Amendment, infinite detention without trial, and torturing people--to protect us from the all-powerful al-CIA-duh. You have to give up your liberty in order to get security. Just obey Bush and don't ask any more questions. If you do that and allow the government to take away our freedoms, al-CIA-duh won't have to attack us anymore.

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 9:00 AM. Reason : `]

1/17/2006 8:52:26 AM

Obviously calls to terrorist organizations oversees should be protected, just like we let all the Nazi spies have their unmonitored phone call back to Hitler before we hanged them back in WWII. After all the enemies of America should be given safehaven once they're here. It only makes sense. Every one has the right to privacy always even if it endangers the lifes of American citizens. After all it's not like the congress just authorized the president to take action to help another 9-11 from happening, or like two-months ago we were all up in arms about poor intelligence. Anyway, monitoring phone calls to terroists could not possibly help our intelligence anyway, it's just the evil crazy W with his power hungry crazy neanderthal tactics. Remember, the terrorists will leave us alone if we'll just ignore them and be nice. It worked with Hitler. Appeasement is always the way to go, go Democrats!

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2006 5:16:24 PM

The government are the terrorists, not the mythical "al-Qaeda" (ie, al-CIA-duh). There is a mountain of evidence proving government involvement and a cover-up regarding 9/11--from the stand-down of the airforce on the morning of 9/11, to the lies and cover-up of the fact that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives, to the fake bin Laden tapes. Do a little research.

And if there was really a threat from "al-Qaeda", then wouldn't the government do something about our borders? If tens of millions of illegals can make it in the country this easily, how difficult could it be for "al-Qaeda" terrorists (if they really existed) to just walk accross the border like the rest. But the government has done virtually nothing, and the border remains virtually wide open. That alone is conclusive proof that the "al-Qaeda" threat doesn't really exist.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 8:06 AM. Reason : `]

1/18/2006 8:05:45 AM

What's that thing about using Hitler in an argument and always losing? And we already have a math in here (the freak). We really don't need another.

1/18/2006 8:19:07 AM

Quote :

"But the government has done virtually nothing, and the border remains virtually wide open. That alone is conclusive proof that the "al-Qaeda" threat doesn't really exist."

That is without a doubt the most horrible logic that I have ever heard. By that rationale, mexicans don't exist either.

1/18/2006 1:19:55 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 3:57:41 PM