Is this enough for impeachment? - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-21-2005, 07:24 PM   #196
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Watching Joe Biden on Hardball right now talking about it...he's saying good stuff. I'll post a video or transcript of it later when MSNBC.com has it up.
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:21 PM   #197
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:42 PM
if you see something, GAY something ...



[q]Pentagon spied on gay student groups, report says
Gay kiss-in labeled 'credible threat'
By ANDREW KEEGAN | Dec 20, 5:38 PM

Pentagon officials have spied on student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay military personnel, according to media reports.

A February protest at New York University was one of the events under government surveillance, NBC News reported last week.

The network reported that the law school’s gay advocacy group, OUTlaw, was classified as "potentially violent" by the Pentagon.

"I was shocked to read that OUTLaw was classified as a threat and investigated," OUTlaw Co-chair Rebecca Fisher said in a telephone interview on Monday. "Since we still don't know how the Pentagon went about investigating us, I'm wondering how far they went in invading our personal privacy to make their determination. Did they read our e-mail? Monitor our meetings?”

Ellen Kranke, a Department of Defense spokesperson who handles issues regarding sexual orientation at the Pentagon, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Fisher said the Bush administration continues to display an attitude that is anything but democratic.

"For all its talk about democracy and free speech, this administration seems to feel very threatened by our peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights," Fisher said. "This does not reflect the values of our Constitution. It's what you'd expect to see in a totalitarian police state, not in a country founded on freedom of conscience."

NBC also reported that a "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" protest at University of California Santa Cruz, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism by the Pentagon.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group dedicated to helping military members affected by the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring.

"The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," Dixon Osburn, SLDN executive director, said in a statement released Dec. 20. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy."

SLDN said it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if other gay organizations have also been monitored by the government.

"To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational," Osburn said. "To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

http://www.newyorkblade.com/thelates...m?blog_id=4146

[/q]



it's so hard not to giggle uncontrolably.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:25 PM   #198
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:42 PM
It's like the worst aspects of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations wrapped in one. Lucky us!

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 09:18 PM   #199
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
Can someone please point out the exact line in the Patriot Act/FISA law whatever that gives the President the right to wiretap without a warrent? They say it's in the Patriot Act but no one has come out and said "Yes here's the line that gives the president such power." Does that not say something?
FISA is different from the Patriot Act.....

Go to the FISA thread...maybe that will help disseminate the Patriot Act and its effects on FISA.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 09:40 PM   #200
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 12:42 PM
irvine, was that one of the NSA surveillance instances without a warrant? I can't imagine what court would find that to be a possible threat to national security.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:13 PM   #201
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
irvine, was that one of the NSA surveillance instances without a warrant? I can't imagine what court would find that to be a possible threat to national security.
Is Greenpeace?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:18 PM   #202
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Vertigo Gal

They were spied on supposedly legally by the FBI as was Greenpeace. not the NSA (that we know of).
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:21 PM   #203
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Here is a SCATHING article....with MANY CONSERVATIVES up in arms.

Bob Barr....of the Clinton Impeachment is livid after seeing him on CNN tonight...

The FISHA Court asked for a certified letter from the Administration in 2004 to declare that they were not doing wiretaps without warrents.

[Q]POLITICS-US:
Congress to Probe Domestic Spying
William Fisher

NEW YORK, Dec 21 (IPS) - As those loyal to Pres. George W. Bush circle the wagons to aggressively defend his programme of conducting surveillance of phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens, a judge on the court set up to review requests for such actions has resigned, apparently in protest.

At the same time, a prominent Republican senator promised to hold public hearings, the House of Representatives Democratic leader and the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said they had objected to the programme, and a California Democratic Senator said a number of legal authorities had told her that the president's actions rose to the level of impeachable offences.

The Californian, Sen. Barbara Boxer, was the first to use the "I" word (impeachment) in the political firestorm started by revelations in the New York Times earlier this week that, following the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Pres. Bush authorised the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept phone calls and emails without warrants between U.S. citizens and what the administration said were foreigners with known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

The administration said today that some internal U.S. communications might also have been intercepted by mistake.

The president, in a press conference on Monday following The Times' disclosures, defended the legality of the programme, saying that he had to move too quickly to go to court for warrants and that he had both Constitutional and statutory authority to use warrantless wiretaps to protect U.S. citizens.

Bush based his position on his inherent powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, his Constitutional obligation to protect the U.S. people, and the post-9/11 Congressional resolution that authorised him to wage war.

The president's position drew strong endorsements from Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, who was the chief White House lawyer at the time the programme was started, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Richard Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who was National Security Advisor at the time, and numerous other administration and congressional officials.

However, the president's critics and a number of legal authorities disagreed. They pointed out that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. They also noted that the law establishing the court authorised to issue such warrants would have been able to act quickly on any request from the administration, adding that the law also permitted the president to act first and seek court authority after the fact.

The court being referred to is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in the post-Watergate era of the 1970s, as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The highly secret 11-member Court is located in the Department of Justice (DOD) and its members are federal judges appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. The USA Patriot Act designates the FISA court as the only judicial body authorised to issue surveillance orders in terror-related investigations. Of the 5,000-odd requests it has received from the Justice Department, it is believed to have denied only a handful.

The controversy over the president's actions reportedly triggered the resignation of FISA judge James Robertson. Judge Robertson, a U.S. District Judge, notified Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of his decision late Monday without providing an explanation.

But the Washington Post newspaper reported today that two associates familiar with his decision said Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorised by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

The FISA court's presiding judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying programme by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine -- called for congressional investigations. They questioned whether the programme was carried out within the law and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl M. Levin of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified programme.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, promised hearings in the new year.

But not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the programme is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," said Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri. .

While Pres. Bush said at his Monday press conference that the White House had briefed Congress more than a dozen times, briefings were conducted for only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said on Monday that he had written to Vice Pres. Cheney the day he was first briefed on the programme in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney. She did not make the letter public.

Rockefeller said the secrecy of the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, criticised Rockefeller for making his letter public.

Scepticism about Rockefeller's letter was echoed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

During his 2000 campaign for the presidency, candidate Bush gave assurances that no surveillance of U.S. citizens would be conducted unless warrants had been obtained.

The NSA contretemps came just days after revelations that FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged as it released new FBI records.

"Our government is spying on Americans -- unapologetically, unnecessarily and with no regard for the Constitution," the group said, urging its members to "Hold the Bush administration accountable for secretly authorising the eavesdropping of Americans and others in the U.S., continue our nationwide efforts to expose and end unwarranted political spying and the criminalising of dissent by the FBI, and oppose Patriot Act abuses of freedom in the courts, in Congress, and in the court of public opinion."

The ACLU documents, disclosed as part of a lawsuit that challenges FBI treatment of groups that planned demonstrations at last year's political conventions, show the bureau has opened a preliminary terrorism investigation into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a well-known animal rights group.

The FBI has also been charged with carrying out "anti-terrorist" investigations against peaceful anti-war, environmental and other dissident groups.

In an email to IPS, Bob Barr, a former conservative Republican congressman from Georgia, quoted Gen. Michael Hayden, then the head of the NSA and now the deputy director of national intelligence, telling a congressional hearing regarding wiretap targets in 2000, "If that American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection against him or her."

Barr added, "If the president doesn't like the law, the solution should be to amend, not violate it." (END/2005) [/Q]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31530
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:24 PM   #204
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:42 AM
I wonder if any pro-life groups showed up on that list?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:26 PM   #205
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Vertigo Gal

They were spied on supposedly legally by the FBI as was Greenpeace. not the NSA (that we know of).
meaning they'd need even more in the way of probable cause than through FISA to get a warrant, right? I seriously wonder how that happened.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:55 PM   #206
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Right

The latest explanation is that it's too much paperwork to go to the court after the fact.

1st - it legal
2nd - we told congress
3rd - the war authorized it
4th - we're lazy and we don't need to ask nohow

part from = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121900211.html

Bush's NSA director Michael Hayden: We didn't seek retroactive warrants because it involved "paperwork"
by John in DC - 12/21/2005 08:54:00 AM


I'm not kidding. This is the reason given by this two-bit un-American generalissimo who deserves to be fired and thrown in jail for life:
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.

"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
Oh, well a big fat general thinks the current law is "inefficient" because it would require him to write down a few things and actually explain why he wants to invade the privacy of innocent Americans in violation of the law. Gosh, life must be really tough for General Hayden now that he no longer has Soviet dictators to emulate.

Then there's this little bit of illogic from Gonzales, who also needs to spend a few years standing on a box with a block hood on his head:
"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.
Did you get that? Gonzales claims Bush believed that Congress authorized the domestic spying. Then Gonzales says Bush didn't want to ask Congress directly to authorize the spying because he thought Congress would never approve of it. That means Gonzales and Bush knew that Congress opposed legislation permitting domestic spying without a warrant, so they also obviously knew Congress never intended to include such an authorization in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

So basically, our Attorney General is now lying to us about why he massively violated the civil liberties of American citizens.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:06 PM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 12:42 PM
So now NOT revealing highly classified info constitutes full consent on the part of the members of Congress who were informed? Haven't they basically called whoever leaked this a traitor? It seems like many of the congressmen who knew about this had serious misgivings about it, but apparently thought bringing it up may actually compromise security.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:10 PM   #208
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


FISA is different from the Patriot Act.....

Go to the FISA thread...maybe that will help disseminate the Patriot Act and its effects on FISA.
Ah thanks
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:15 PM   #209
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
So now NOT revealing highly classified info constitutes full consent on the part of the members of Congress who were informed? Haven't they basically called whoever leaked this a traitor? It seems like many of the congressmen who knew about this had serious misgivings about it, but apparently thought bringing it up may actually compromise security.
And the administration would love for us to think that Congress is in charge of the oversight of this....

they are not...

FISA is....

So telling Congress means JACK SHITE>
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:16 PM   #210
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:42 PM
It's really time for congress to boost their approval ratings, step up to the plate and take on the administration.
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com