Setting the Record Straight on FISA
In recent weeks, there has been lot of conflicting information floating around about efforts by House Democrats to protect the country by adopting rules for intelligence gathering that are both flexible and constitutional. This week, President Bush suggested that my legislative alternative to this summer's hastily-enacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the "Protect America Act," would take away important tools from our intelligence community. He characterized as "obstruction" the skepticism that many of us have about granting amnesty to telecommunications carriers who may have cooperated in warrantless surveillance. I was disappointed that the President did not propose any concrete steps to improve our capabilities or protect our freedoms -- he just repeated his demand for immunity.
This comes close on the heels of a recent controversy concerning the House Democrats' FISA legislation stemming from Joe Klein's column in Time Magazine on November 21st, in which his Republican sources seem to have spun a tale that led Mr. Klein to characterize our efforts as "more than stupid."
I believe that it is time for a comprehensive and detailed response to the President's accusations of obstruction, the misinformation in the Time Magazine column, and the debate over warrantless surveillance. Below is that response. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to pass along to your friends and colleagues.
Joe Klein's
recent column deriding the House-passed FISA legislation, along with his subsequent stumbling efforts
to clarify its intent, and Time Magazine's failure to publish the protests my Democratic colleagues and I had regarding its many inaccuracies are only the most recent manifestation of disinformation
put forth concerning the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program and legislative efforts to modify the law. As the lead author, along with Silvestre Reyes, of the RESTORE Act, allow me to set the record straight once and for all.
First, contrary to GOP and media spin, the RESTORE Act does not grant "terrorists the same rights as Americans." Section 105A of the RESTORE Act explicitly provides that foreign-to-foreign communications are totally exempt from FISA – clearly, this exception for foreigners such as members of Al Qaeda does not apply to Americans. In cases involving foreign agents where communications with Americans could be picked up,
Section 105B of the legislation provides for liberalized "basket
warrant" procedures by which entire terrorist organizations can be
surveilled without the need to obtain individual warrants from the FISA
court. Again, this new authority is aimed at foreign terrorists, not
Americans.
Mr. Klein appears to base much of his criticism of our bill on
our use of the term "person" to describe who may be surveilled, based on the suggestion of a Republican "source" that this risks an
interpretation that terrorist groups would not be covered. The truth
is that under FISA the term person has been clearly defined for almost
thirty years to include "any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power." It is also notable that both the RESTORE Act, and the Administration's bill passed this summer, contain the exact same
language that Mr. Klein questions, yet we've never heard an objection
to the Administration's bill on this score.
Second, I must strongly disagree with Mr. Klein's assertion that the Speaker "quashed ... a bipartisan [compromise] effort." As
the Chairman of the Committee with principal jurisdiction over FISA,
the House Judiciary Committee, I am aware of no effort to prevent
bipartisan compromise on this issue. As a matter of fact, last summer,
beginning in July, Democrats tirelessly negotiated with Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell, to develop consensus
legislation to address the Administration's stated concerns about our intelligence capability.
We addressed every one of the concerns Mr. McConnell raised. He said he needed to clarify that a court order was not required for foreign-to-foreign communications -- our bill did just that. McConnell
said he needed an assurance that telecommunications companies would be compelled to assist in gathering of national security information – our bill did that. The DNI said he needed provisions to extend FISA to foreign intelligence in addition to terrorism – the bill did that. He asked us to eliminate the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how recurring communications to the United States from foreign targets would be handled – the bill did that. McConnell insisted that basket warrants be structured to allow additional targets to be added after the warrant was initially approved – again, the bill did that. When this legislation was described to DNI McConnell, he acknowledged that "it significantly enhances America's security.''
Yet, suddenly, on the eve of the vote, Director McConnell
withdrew his support after consultation with the White House. If the media wanted to identify over-the-top partisanship, they could begin by citing the declaration of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, that "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious FISA Court," and DNI McConnell's assertion that by merely having an open debate on surveillance, "some Americans are going to die."
Third, the RESTORE Act legislation is badly needed to provide
accountability to the Bush Administration's unilateral approach to surveillance. The warrantless surveillance program has been riddled with deceptions that only began to come to light when The New York Times first disclosed the existence of the program in 2005. The program itself appears to directly violate FISA and the Fourth Amendment, as a federal court, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, numerous Republican legislators, and independent legal scholars have found.
The
Administration has also mischaracterized the existence, degree, extent and nature of the program itself as well as how much information it has shared with Congress. For instance, compare the President's speech in 2004 with his admission that there was indeed a
program of warrantless surveillance.
When high-ranking DOJ officials found the program lacking, the White
House went to absurd, if not comical lengths, to convince a dangerously
ill and hospitalized Attorney General Ashcroft to
overrule them.
Even today, the Administration continues to obscure its own past
misconduct with extravagant claims that the "state secrets" doctrine bars any legal challenges whatsoever - a position that has been
rejected by the Court of Appeals.
The Administration's hastily enacted legislation, signed this summer, is little better. Instead of being limited to the stated problem of
foreign-to-foreign electronic surveillance,
it could apply to domestic business records, library files, personal mail, and even searches of our homes.
Against
that backdrop, it is clear we need a new law with the critical oversight provisions included in the RESTORE Act, such as requiring the
Administration to turn over relevant documents to Congress, mandating
periodic Inspector General reports, and acknowledging that the
Administration is indeed bound by FISA.
Finally, the Administration has yet to explain why offering retroactive immunity to telephone giants who may have participated in an unlawful program is vital to our national security. Under current law, the phone companies can easily avoid liability if they can
establish they received either an appropriate court order or legal
certification from the Attorney General. Asking Congress to grant
legal immunity at a time when the Administration has refused to provide
the House of Representatives with relevant legal documents for more
than eleven months is not only unreasonable, it is irresponsible.
Civil liberties and national security need not be contradictory policies, rather they are inexorably linked. Perhaps nowhere is this interrelationship more true than in intelligence gathering, where information must be reliable and untainted by abuse to be useful. So when we discuss FISA, the first thing we need to do is drop the partisan rhetoric, and stick to the actual record. Under the RESTORE Act, the intelligence community has the flexibility to intercept communications by foreign terrorists without obtaining
individual warrants, and the Court and Congress are given the authority
to perform their constitutional oversight roles. The only parties who
lose in this process are the terrorists, and those who want the executive branch to have absolute and unreviewable power.
Rather than being, in Mr. Klein's words, "well beyond stupid," the RESTORE Act offers a smart and well balanced approach to updating FISA and reining in the excesses of an unchecked executive branch.
Setting the record straight on FISA
While I appreciate the need to set the record straight of FISA, and your response does it well, cut through all the diversions being thrown at you, and eliminate the source of all the crap. Hold the hearings on the impeachment of Cheney.
Thank you
Thank you for your lengthy explanation of the goings on and the deceptions at play. However I have a question about something you did write. What do you mean when you wrote,
Why are you reinventing new laws because the old ones got broken? You clearly stated that the president's Administration engaged in warrantless surveillance that VIOLATED FISA and THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
WHY HAVE FISA LAWS AT ALL if they can be broken at will and do-overs condoned through your seat?
WHEN HAS WARRANTLESS EVER BEEN LEGAL?
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES for breaking the laws others have sworn to uphold?
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
Reposted from last thread!
John Conyers: Setting the Record Straight on FISA
And then there is this::
After this collection of events and developments it is clearer than ever that Bush and Cheney must be impeached. Their disregard for intelligence, for reality, for facts, their willingness to lie and deceive, make them dangerous, immediate threats to the safety and continued survival of not just the US but the planet. With more than a year remaining on their terms of office, the damage they can still wreak is unimaginable.MORE HERE
Max1
My thoughts exactly.
The letter was in my email and this quote was on my clipboard.
Seems to me like a written indictment indicating Mens Rea for aiding and abetting White House criminals if impeachment investigations are not followed through with on the bill thats sitting in committee.
Ummm, HELLO?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW?
WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMUNICATING THIS INFORMATION TO HIM?
Setting the Record Straight on FISA
Dear Congressman Conyers
You asked for our opinions, so here is mine. Basically, I believe your reply is factually accurate and objective (except that in order to be completely accurate, the words "and those" should be deleted from the last sentence of the next to last paragraph). The logic is irrefutable. And that is why it will be totally ignored by the current administration who do not care in the least about truth, accuracy, justice or logic. All they want is more and more dictatorial powers. That is why impeachment is the only answer.
Brian Perkins
Depoe Bay, Oregon
Hi Peacemonger.
Hi Peacemonger and All.
No, FISA isn't even Constitutional. It's a lot closer than what Bush wanted to do, and at least there's something that could be sanely argued about but let's face it, we are a bit beyond the pale, as they say, when it comes to issues of Constitutionality.
Let me demonstrate. Let's take the issue of torture as an example. It is UNBELIEVABLE that we even need to discuss this as though torture could EVER be justified under the US Constitution.
Starting in the 1970s, but especially in 1980s the executive branch's secret arm had to hide their brutal tortures and teaching torture as it was applied to the Spanish speaking peoples of this continent. School of the Americas (now called WHISC) is the tip of the iceberg but would suffice as an introduction to this beastly policy.
A mere generation later the older generation has been ignored to death by a gradually deteriorating Congress and the younger generation is not on their guard for executive abuse of authority, and we have as a nation, been gulled, desensitized, and ignored, and trained !! to think this is OK.
But how did they do that?
Well, we let them. Not convinced? This should be interesting then. BEHOLD!
punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
See anything about "citizenship" up there? Nope. That's just plain common sense. You don't want a Nazi-like government let loose on others because you don't want it let loose on you. That's just plain common sense, as most of the Constitution is.
See anything about "citizen" down here?
Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
No, and the word "privacy" doesn't show up either. But one of the words ("citizen" or "privacy") can be inferred from the context while the other cannot.
See the word citizen in the next one?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The two items above pertain to the NSA wiretapping as well as to the general obliteration of the Constitution by the wacko war-niks.
If we can't get compulsory process to get the NSA spies and their NARUS STA 6400 records for our defense, how in the world could they be legitimate? Is this not the Constitution they are preserving and protecting and defending (speaking of these articles and amendments I am posting) ?
If not what the hell do THEY mean by national security? I'm sure it has nothing to do with levees in New Orleans.
And how about this.
That's part of the DEFINITION of the United States in Article 6, here.
http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6
What kind of dimwit could read that and say even FISA is ok? Well, a lawyer with more money on his mind than sense could say that the federal judges are not judges "of any state", per se, and so they are not bound to the wording of the 4th Amendment.
But consider their oaths of office. When these geniuses were finished with their wand waving and hurling balls of fire and the smoke cleared, either FISA or the 4th Amendment was NONSENSE.
They are mutually exclusive and therefor cannot both be binding law.
Duh, my fellow Americans.
Oh, what to do. This is so complicated, law school, law libraries the size of a city block, tons of study and then a grueling bar exam...
Waaaaaaait a sec.
Maybe the solution isn't the haystack. What if it's this little needle.
The Constitution that every soldier, every fireman, every cop, every school teacher and librarian has taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend says in no uncertain terms that the Constitution, not FISA, is the "Supreme Law of the Land".
This is THE Contract With America. http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
We agreed to it. Our government agreed to it. And if anyone wants to change it, they may, but it must be amended, not ignored.
That Constitution is the only enforcible agreement between all Americans and between the People and their government. By outsmarting ourselves we have created this idiotic division and allowed very dangerous and irresponsible arguments to be discussed as though they could ever be the truth.
Oxymorons are being honored as valid law.
Duh, my fellow Americans.
THE TRUTH IS that in the United States of America (wherever that is) cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. And that holds even if a ethically challenged politician or lawyer would like to pretend it's not technically being used for "punishment".
Because,
"Within it's jurisdiction". "Protection of laws". Those phrases are both perfectly visible in the text, are they not? And again no mention of "citizen" in this part of the 14th Amendment.
As if that weren't enough, though I'm sure Congress would like to let the executive take the blame while they continue to receive paychecks for NOT doing their job, here's another property of the Real United States of America, wherever that may be!
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
That's the authority of legislative branch. Not the executive branch.
And the reason it's within the authority of legislative branch, comprised of the People's House and the Senate is presumably because the USA is not a monarchy.
Or if it is one then that "goddamn piece of paper", as Mr. Bush called it, is that monarch, not our coke-brained bully boy or his sharp shootin' side kick.
Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’
By By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 5, 2005, 07:53
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
More here.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Why can't Congress impeach him?
Theres' only one possible reason. Congress agrees with Bush.
Anyway, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we are now struggling to maintain a FISA law, grasping at straws, a constitutional (?) protection that was already in freefall over the cliff of executive abuse of authority.
http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
It’s Time for Congressional Hearings says Pat Buchanan (?) (!)
Congressman Conyers:
(note: Reposted from end of previous thread, when comments on this thread were not yet enabled.)
I have no doubt that the President's version of the issue as well as Joe Klein's spin are, to put it bluntly: LIES. It is something they do often and they do well. Sir, I respectfully submit that your written responses to the LIES reaches basically only two audiences: One audience (the Administration) will ignore it and/or answer with more lies, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing. The Second audience that will bother to read the response already knows you are telling the truth and that Bush and the Administration are the liars.
So, I would respectfully suggest that you follow a different track to expose the President, members of his Administration, and their spinmiesters as the liars that they are-- to a wider audience, in a forum where all the world can see: This diary reports that:
Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have just publicly stated they doubt the President’s veracity. Mr. Buchanan went even a step further and “called for Joe Biden to hold hearings”:
“…So this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough had Pat Buchanan on the phone to discuss the recent NIE revelations about Iran, and Bush's pathetic performance yesterday in saying that he didn't find out about it until just now. Both Pat and Joe were absolutely incredulous at that statement.”
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Buchanan on anything, but IMHO, in this instance he's right:
“…Buchanan went one step further. He said Joe Biden needs to get back to Washington and HOLD HEARINGS on who knew what, and when. He actually called on Biden to haul Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them if they knew about the NIE report, and if they had ever told Bush. Pat and Joe were both adamant that if either of those two knew about this report, and didn't let the President know about it, they should be fired immediately. And if they DID tell Bush, and yet Bush still went on warmongering with the knowledge that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003, then, well... they didn't exactly define what the consequence should be then… ‘I about fell out of my chair when Buchanan actually mentioned the Downing Street memos on the air.’…
There you have it, Chairman Conyers: When Conservatives are publicly calling for hearings about getting to the truth, the time has come to have those hearings. Sir, that is the heart of the issue:
The country and the world has the RIGHT to know if their President deliberately lied them into one war, and has been attempting to lie them into a second one.
WE have the RIGHT to know, and to have the world know, if the President has been utilizing fear and lies to take away our Civil Liberties. We have a right to know if the President is lying about how he has used, and how he plans to continue to use FISA in direct contravention to the Fourth Amendment. We have the right to know if the Administration has used/ is using/will use FISA obtained information to spy on Americans for possibly political reasons, under the guise of “national security”.
Respectfully, Chairman Conyers—That is why I voted Democratic in November, 2006: Even then I was sick of the lies, I was sick at heart over every death in Iraq, and in Afghanistan (which could have been pacified and well on the way to being rebuilt, IMHO—if the President hadn’t lied the country into the war in Iraq). Sir, the lies have had far too many consequences, have caused far too many deaths, injuries and cost the treasury far too much money for the Congress to continue allowing more lies to go unchallenged—and the Challenge must be in a highly publicized forum like Congressional Hearings.
The time for polite letters refuting insidious lies should be coming to an end. The Administration has shown it’s utter contempt and disregard for polite rebukes. They no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt—there are too many doubts, and too many consequences for their lies. If their lies are not exposed for all the world to see, there may be even more horrific consequences—and Congress will share the blame for refusing to actively intervene and provide oversight.
Memorex...
Max, Thanks for the Memorex...
They have given YOU a short window of opportunity—before the neocon warmongering spin machine manages to discredit the latest NIE and pressure the intelligence community to once again fix intelligence around their policy to take us into war yet again.
I’ve transcribed most of it below, it is absolutely mindblowing that these two conservative commentators “get it”—that Congress MUST hold hearings to get to the truth AND to prevent the Administration from continuing to fix intelligence around policy to “stampede us into war” with Iran.
Here is a transcript of the video Max linked above:
Pat Buchanon: … “as has the President of the United States, the Republican Candidates, including Guiliani and the others, have been talking about using nuclear weapons…on Iran, to rip it of nuclear weapons, when it stopped its own program Four Years Ago. This is incredible.”
Joe Scarborough.: “…Does Congress need to subpoena Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the director of the CIA and the Secretary of Defense, and ask them what they knew and when they knew it?”
PB: “…Exactly, and the President of the United States should tell us what he knew and when he knew it. What he said yesterday is non-credible. That the head of the CIA walks in and said that “We’ve got new intelligence on Iran, and bush doesn’t ask him “what exactly are you talking about—“new intelligence”? That’s not credible.”
PB… “Biden ought to get off the campaign trail , get back here, chair that committee and say “Look, what exactly were you told? And bring up the CIA and bring up Negroponte. He was the number one guy in intelligence. Look, We are being stampeded toward war with Iran-- the second war in this administration—on the basis of intelligence which was false. And that is incredible.”
PB: “…It looks as though the Iranians when they said, this may be a peaceful nuclear program, may have been telling the truth.”
J.S. “If Stephen Hadley and Condelezza Rice, and Gates and all these other people knew then, while the president was ramping us up to war, and talking about the possibility of WWIII, and allowing our allies in Europe to climb back on board with America--finally, but allowed him to do that and didn’t say anything, do you think that they should be fired today?”
P.B.: “…No, I’m not gonna fire anybody today. I want the entire truth of what these people knew and when they knew it. It suggests to me that Gates, the “Fox” Fallon group, and the Pentagon generals and the others basically are against a war, and they said “this guy is driving us to war” and somebody said, “let’s get this intelligence out and blow a hole in the policy of our Administration which is to go toward war.”
P.B. “…But that raises another question: “Why is the President, and why is Cheney, and why are the neocons and why are all the others driving us to war if they knew that Iran had stopped this program four years ago. This is incredible.”
J.S. “…you’ve served more time in the WH in times of crisis than anybody I know: WHY? Why drive us to war?”
P.S.: “I think there has been an agenda of war on Iraq and Iran which predated this administration, into which George Bush bought, sometime after 9/11, and after the Afghan trial. it is ideologically driven. It is driven by strategic reasons. And as that British Memo, The Downing Street Memo, says, they fixed the intelligence around the policy. (They) cherry picked the intelligence. It makes the policy credible. Then you stampede the American people into war. It happened once and it almost was about to happen again….”
J.S. “…If not for…Robert Gates and some other people that said, “Not a Second time”.
P.B: “Exactly…You saw about a month ago, “Fox” Fallon--he said the people screaming for war" ….(can’t make this part out—may be ‘do us no’) "service... He was talking about the President and Vice President of the United States."
Congressman Conyers, as Mr. Buchanon said: “…It happened once and it almost was about to happen again….” Sir, as you well know, it can still happen if the Congress does not hold hearings, demand the truth, and hold responsible those guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
IMHO: Lying to the Congress, the world and the US citizens about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, costing Almost 4,000 unnecessary US troop deaths, and 10,000’s to 100,000’s of thousands of unnecessary Iraqi civilian deaths—and now attempting to repeat the lies to enable yet another unnecessary war—these are things that without a shadow of a doubt constitute high crimes.
Time For Pat Buchannan Fodder
Buchannan also covertly called for restarting the "culture war", i.e., the open season on liberals on McLaughlin Report last night.
These conservatives are borderline sociopaths as you can see from this checklist. Amazing!
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
I Don't Dispute your Assertions Re: Buchanon-But
that doesn't mean he's wrong about the fact that the Democrats should hold hearings about the Administration's trying to lie us into war with Iran.
I personally do not like
or support all of his views, but I do respect him in some respects: he says exactly what is on his mind, regardless of what the neocons believe or want him to say.
For example:
1. He has opposed the war in Iraq forever.
2. He flat out stated in the 2000 elections that he did not believe all those people intentionally voted for him and that they were probably voting for Gore.
3. He thinks these White House creeps need to be investigated for lying us into war.
He might be an overt religious zealot, but he is honest about that. Okay I don't like what he stands for, but you always know what to expect from him because he's honest about it and I can respect that.
Are you ready?
Food prices are just starting to take off.
The article states that this is, and will be, due to higher demand for grain. However, not mentioned in the article, are the costs associated with farming which are also influencing price. The rising costs of energy (ie oil &natural gas) will eventually get passed on to the consumer. But only after it takes a toll on more family run farms.
Too bad Congress is not in a position to address the economy in a way that it should. By ballroom dancing with criminals and ignoring the root cause of the dire problems we face today (both local and global), Congress has placed itself into position where they are too busy trying to remove the original roadblocks they were faced with at the beginning of the term. If they had used a bulldozer to remove the the roadblocks like they should have in the first place, instead of the plastic shovel Nancy Pelosi gave them, perhaps the looming depression could of had a softer landing.
Well, I guess you guys were just too busy focusing on much needed legislation (ie gaining political fodder so you could whine about Bush's vetoes) to worry about the need to address much needed legislation and policies.
Thanks guys, you could have been heroes, but alas, you are do nothing windbags.
If something does not change soon, we (civilization) will be walking down the path to a new dark Medieval era.
Good letter - but -
when are you going to start taking Bu$h and Cheney to task in a forum on Dennis' resolution? Seems to me that just amiably calling the Administration a pack of liars is insufficient. It has to be PROVED even to the satisfaction of enough Senators to remove the pair of them; actually, I would think the theft of two consecutive elections was enough of a crime to call for removal, never mind the disastrous course they have forced on the Nation as a result of the Congress supinely allowing the theft, Time for HEARINGS! Let them defend their lies - if they can - and show cause why they should not be removed by an awakened Public! Please - start doing your duty. I realize that Felix Rohatyn does not want to see Bu$h and/or Cheney impeached - but remember - Felix was one of the backers of Pinochet! It is an open secret that the Bu$h gang intends to use some kind of excuse to implement #51, declare martial law, and rule by decree. ARE YOU GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN? It will, if you don't take steps to stop it.
Good news
Kucinich is a clear winner amongst Dems.
I wonder what Nancy thinks of that? Perhaps she should have invited him to Iowa for the annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
That's 32% from Iowa Dems voting in the straw poll: a state where there is no active campaign and where they have a choice of 8 candidates.
Think Bush is stupid? Guess again. We elected him twice.
Think Bush is stupid? Guess again. We elected him twice.
Right John? We DID elect him, right?
And then there's Pelosi. We made her our leader, right?
Hey wait a sec! Did we make her our leader? I don't recall doing that. Was this a democracy? And Hoyer, sitting there trying to remove term limits for the President (what was Chavez reviled for?).
Talk to me, John. Was this a constitutional democratic republic? I'm SURE that's what the founding fathers intended it to be.
So it appears that the donkey is exactly perfect as a mascot for the Democrats. No worse than GOP-4-Brains, but being only a hair better than the party of verifiable sociopaths is not much of a consolation.
But if this wasn't bad enough how about our outsourcing our national security?
What consolation will it be when the CIA explains why they were asleep at the wheel again? They need a raise? Of course. Who could have guessed that they didn't have enough money to read their own PDB's or NSA intercepts (both legal and illegal since Feb 2001), or whatever nonsense they come up with to explain how their guys couldn't find 110,000 AK-47s that their own guys had.
Well, I believe James Traficant said it best. Something about firing the CIA and hiring CNN, or something. Woops. Wasn't long after that people started lying to save their own assets by tossing James into the fire.
But that doesn't change the facts. There's a definite "family values" connection between the State Department and Blackwater and a connection between these brothers and the CIA.
WASHINGTON — Embattled State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard submitted his resignation Friday, forced out for allegedly impeding ongoing criminal investigations into the construction of a new, $740 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and security firm Blackwater Worldwide.
A State Department official said that Krongard had become a political liability, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, through aides, asked him this week to leave. The official insisted on anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak about personnel matters.
An abrasive attorney who once reportedly referred to himself as an "equal-opportunity abuser," Krongard came under fire from his own investigators and from a congressional panel for allegedly blocking probes into serious claims of wrongdoing in Iraq.
Those allegations include contract fraud and shoddy workmanship in the troubled Baghdad embassy and arms smuggling by North Carolina-based Blackwater.
Blackwater advisory board. Krongard first denounced what he said were "ugly rumors," then, after telephoning his brother, reversed himself.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22736.html
And we hope this is the same gun running scam or else we have really big trouble.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/index.html
It probably is, due to the similarity of the booty.
But put on your tin foil thinking caps and read this, America.
Our Constitution is here. http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
But before we start thinking we're so smart, who elected Bush twice?
How stupid is outsourcing our national security?
How stupid was it to recruit Nazis into the CIA?
What villainy is the CIA NOT mixed up in anymore?
And as The NSA Is My Witness, the only way FISA could be constitutional is if a person had "compulsory process" to get narus sta 6400 records for their defense, which you know the neo-Americans won't let us do.
Right?
Another Homeland Run...
So,
If I can't have access to the machinery that eats the words I say and type for evidentiary review in my defense, as an American, what defense Rights do I have?
Got Habeas Corpus?
What's Due Process?
Congressman,
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush was told in August that Iran's nuclear weapons program "may be suspended," the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.
...
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
What?
"the RESTORE Act offers a smart and well balanced approach to updating FISA and reining in the excesses of an unchecked executive branch."
John, Tell me, please!, Why is this branch unchecked? And why won't this festering branch just veto or signing statement away any legislation you happen to get passed the republicon roadblocks, conmen complicit in the criminality of bushcheney? No reason. They've been doing it and will continue to do it because you and Nancy won't impeach them. It's simple, John. Step in front of the people. The majority, I might add. And we love a twofer! Impeach 'em!
Take care, J. C.
P.S. Unless there are death threats against your loved ones and then it's not so simple but otherwise......
Ain't no one in this government gonna' tell me what to do!
I'm the Decider!
And so Bush has gone about to establish a new government spy agency to spy on Americans "relying heavily" on private security contractors.
'Cause ya' see, Ms. Pelosi told me I kin do whatever I want and nuttin' will happen to me and anyway, I'm da Decider!!!!!
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Good find T,
This is priceless.
R James Woolsey has his fingers all over this one.
Because of your failure John, this is now coming to pass. Yes, your failure. Congress would have never voted for this piece of crap legislation had you done the right thing at the right time. Instead we go backward and now we need more 'much needed legislation' to undo the 'much needed legislation' that we could have done without.
Here he is cooking the books on the Downing Street Memos. (Remember those John?)
Unbelievable...No sadly, I believe bush will do as he pleases
because, who's going to stop him? Apparently he pleases to spy on Americans and he pleases to enrich private contractors, and he pleases to gut government agencies so that he and his contractors will not have to be accountable to any last vestiges of oversight that govern federal agencies.
And: He's using our tax dollar to do it all. Meanwhile, Congress just allows the looting and burning of the government as they patiently wait for the next election.
I gotta' thank Ms. Pelosi and, oh, that guy John Conyers, too!
They've made my hard werk much easier for me these days. Oh, and I forgot to thank my Daddy, too, for giving me the world for a playground -- he's the best!
See the rest of the story for the list of reasons, i.e., excuses!
There are NO sufficient reasons (excuses) not to start Impeachment. Survival of this country is more important than ANYTHING ELSE!
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reed ,Hi Tahoe,
I,v come to the conclusion that we, are either to stupid to actually see what the hell is going on,or they ,the abusers just don't give a damn what we say!
They say no time
Tell that to the relatives of those K I A !
John hasn't come up with ONE SINGLE VALID ANSWER to any of our questions,YET.
What makes you think that he will suddenly change::::::::::::: back?!!!!
Suka went blind,sumwers down da pat,ain't gona com back! Way too ol ta change. dam shame ,dam shame it is!1
He utabe a good guy!! Wunna wat happened.
Stop laughing damn it,it ain't funny,!!
Laughing not, Ron!!!!!!!
There ain't nothing to laugh about!
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
WHAT... CONyer's a Progressive?
Correct, there is less time now than a year ago. And there will be less time tomorrow. The Congressman seems to be making sure of that excuse.
Correct, there aren't the votes needed...
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE CONGRESS TO VOTE ON!
Correct, the 29% would poor their sympathies upon Bush if Conyers were to fail. Such mental reservations should be reserved for choosing menu items, NOT supporting and defending the Constitution,
Correct, chewing bubble gum and walking may be difficult for some, but to claim Congress can only stay focused on one item at a time is a bold face LIE! And to assert the public would be distracted from the presidential race assumes that "WE THE PEOPLE" are just as shallow as Congress. Personally, I find that insulting. I don't know about the rest of America.
Think of wiretapping the American people, John, not just the Supreme Court. WHEN WAS WARRANTLESS EVER LEGAL? Failure to address that simple question IS a failure to support and defend OUR FOURTH AMENDMANT! That's just one aspect of our Constitution that requires your full attention.
John,
What do they call a man who gets wild and bat-shit crazy drunk on the power he holds and does as he wishes? Correct, being capable of supporting and defending the Constitution is some awesome power, FAILING TO DO SO is just plain irresponsible, NO? However, I don't think doing as you wish is the wisest decision that you can make... "WITHOUT MENTAL RESERVATION".
Progressives move the Nation forward, NOT hold it back, John. I'll overlook who you support in the presidential race, a warmonger and non-progressive and all, but I CAN NOT overlook the FACT that NOT supporting and defending the Constitution of the U.S.A. has been over looked, excused, and tolerated even by you.
What does "Purpose of evasion" mean?
But excuses to NOT carry out one's duty.
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
So help us all!
You were for impeachment
before you were against it?
What are we stupid?
From the link above:
You mean the rule of law and the Constitution is still standing? Civil liberties? Warrantless wiretapping? Yeah right, like we haven't lost any of those things already. I love to hear the blip, blip blip when using a cell phone and then afterwards I hear an echo of myself talking. I love the fact that corporations can change rules and policies at a whim or lay off thousands of workers without hesitation.
There were public impeachment investigations and all those representatives had to explain to their constituencies why they were against impeachment after they voted No??
Yeah right.
Look what the NIE did and that is only one small piece of the puzzle. Perhaps this story is linked to the real reason Pelosi canned impeachment.
Here is a brave and committed soul!
December 3rd, 2007 1:23 am
March In My Name
This is a wonderful effort by this man. Call Pelosi's office and back him up! (202)-225-5126
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Record Straight On FISA
The Record Straight On FISA
The problem with FISA is that it wasn't constitutional in the first place. You can't make a change like this without an amendment to the Constitution. Let's take a look at the currently operatice Supreme Law of the Land.
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.
So you have the Supreme Law of the Land, which our troops are off preserving protecting and defending somewhere and we have FISA. Once says you must have probable cause AND a sworn or affirmed affidavit and the other says you don't.
While Congress might be commended for hanging onto it's authority to make laws rather than to simply pass all authority to the executive branch, this is one law even Congress doesn't have authority to change.
Because?
BECAUSE THEY OPPOSE ONE ANOTHER. FISA either makes the Constitution meangless or the Constitution makes FISA meaningless.
John, take it from here. Explain how the Constitution got into the current crisis.
Question for thinkers:
Imagine the Supreme Court makes a decision on Habeas Corpus that limits the executive branch's authority in Guantanamo based on the Magna Carta.
The decision ends up being correct but based on the wrong argument.
Would anyone appeal that decision? No. But then what happens to the authority of the Constitution and Congress as a result.
Behold! The Powers of Congress (not the unitary exectutive).
The Constitution: Now Available IN ENGLISH!
Congress shall
have power
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
qUESTION FOr nOn-tHInKErS.
Democrats are busy asking the President for permission to avoid another dictatorial takeover of the federal government.
WTF?
...
Thank you Sally,
FISA was the first wheel replacement.
Amending it was just the changing of it's tread.
And now John is busy reinventing another wheel.
Yet, John refuses to explain how the Founders got it wrong in the first place. Was their wheel not square with the law?
The first time the law was broken, Nixon, Congress made up a new law.
This time, they're doing it all over AGAIN, less the heavy handed consequences for having violated the first law, that pesky Forth Amendment that John isn't acknowledging exists.
So, when the president orders/authorizes OUR BILL OF RIGHTS to be violated (a wilful act against the people) that means it's legal enough to NOT warrant consequences for such actions?
CHOOSING WHICH LAWS TO OBSERVE
FOR POLITICAL CONVIENIENCE IS AN
ACT OF PURPOSFUL EVASION... NO?
HELLO?
WHY THE OBSTRUCTION JOHN?
Why BE the obstruction to the people's Justice?
Impeachment off the Table = selectively ignoring aspects of the Constitution for political purposes. An echo of the DOJ... well emulated I must say. Doing a heck of a job, Johnie.
Congressman,
You've wasted almost one full year. Nay, you've squandered it... for a political agenda.
Which is it, that keeps you from moving on THE-MOST-CRITICAL-ISSUE this Nation has EVER faced, short of our own Civil War:
#1 - A loyalty Oath? I've been wondering why taking oaths to the president are acceptable and why Sarah's still not before Congress to explain why she was even offered this sort of oath. Is it THAT common?
#2 - FEAR? Has someone threatened you, your family, your peace of mind? Like we've exposed here, the Bush Administration has been adept at using coercive techniques so as to influence political outcomes... TERRORISM, of sorts. Have you been a target?
#3 - Collusion? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, NO? I mean, Bush didn't remove Habeas Corpus Rights, CONGRESS DID. No one obstructed then, why obstruct resolution now. The terrorists aren't performing warrantless wire taps, CONGRESS allowed Bush to. In fact, many argued for amnesty of criminal activity. All because the Good(?) members of Congress obeyed and didn't seek to find out the truth when it mattered. The AUMF of 2001 AND 2002 OBEYED by Congress. The Patriot Act, OBEYED BY CONGRESS! The MCA of 2006, OBEYED BY CONGRESS!
#4 - You don't care.
Do America a favor, move on impeachment or resign.
SAVE YOUR LEGACY WHILE YOU CAN!
It's writing itself:
Conyers fought for the Rights of minorities while IGNORING the Rights of Americans.
=====================
I M P E A C H M E N T
IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL !!
TODAY...
GOT HABEAS CORPUS?
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
WHAT IS GOING ON?
Destroying evidence of interrogation techniques? Because the techniques were legal? Or to protect the identity of the torturer/tortured and/or it's results? Most certainly NOT to protect the CIA agents assigned to follow orders, after all, a black bar or some fuzzing out would do, NO?
Missing tapes, destroyed evidence, an informed AND compliant Congress.
Since when did torture become LEGAL?
Wouldn the 9/11 commission have found those tapes useful?
Why were they with held from the commission?
And Plame doesn't matter because... ?
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
Larry Johnson's Take on Why Tapes Were Destroyed
Ex-CIA employee, Larry Johnson had this to say about why he believes the tapes were destroyed:
"...Let's be clear why these were destroyed--the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture..."
"...Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance. If, for example, one of the tortured victims had spilled the beans about an impending attack on the White House or the financial towers of New York City you can be sure that evidence would be preserved and shared. At least those involved in this tawdry affair could justify violating international conventions by demonstrating that "lives were saved". But that did not happen..."
They were destroyed, purely and simply so that the guilty could escape punishment for their crimes. It has nothing to do with "national security". IIt has nothing to do with "protecting operatives"--the administration doesn't care about the safety of its operatives, as Valerie Wilson can verify.
And, as long as they can get away with obstruction of justice, they will continue to do so.
Out of Sight...
... Out of mind.
See, how can any prove or disprove what was or wasn't on the tapes?
Was it torture?
Was it valuable information?
We'll never know. But what we do know is that the Administration will soon be employing the "TRUST-US" model, no doubt. Especially since Bush doesn't recall anything happening from his Administration over the last year.
Seems like the only way to find out what happened on those tapes IS to call in the CIA agents to testify. LOL... Go figure.
I am so outraged, I can barely speak at this point!
Does Congress, Pelosi, et al, think of us as complete idiots?
One of the reasons given by both Pelosi and Conyers for not impeaching is because of the need of much legislation and "ending the war." Ms. Pelosi has stated that as a cause enumerable times.
Well, we all know that Congress caved in before and went right along with the funding for Bush.
Now, tomorrow, the Iraq funding bill will come alive again:
How do you END A WAR if you continue to fund it?
We just keep getting spin from every direction. I have great disdain for people who speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Next, we know that the CIA destroyed two tapes pertaining to torture. We know the excuses that were given for destroying them. There is ONLY one reason for destroying those tapes, that being to be rid of damning evidence of our torture, maybe, even death caused by torture.
Next!
We all know that Bush/Cheney have never cared about truth or validity of anything, just as in their lies as a run up and reason to attack and invade Iraq. All lies – but truth means nothing to them, so long as they can pull off whatever is on their "agenda." We have, for a long time now, been hearing the build-up on Iran, so similar in rhetoric as that to Iraq. I think very few of us have been buying it and recognize the propaganda all too well! Apparently (as posted earlier herein), Bush had been advised as early as August, 2007, that there were probably no nuclear weapons program going on in Iran. But, as you know, that didn't stop their ongoing and constant effort to build a case against Iran. Now, we learn that some brave through the NIE have stated that Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program four years ago. This is absolute PROOF that they were trying to lie us into war once again.
Are you, JC, and Ms. Pelosi under some sort of hypnosis? Your reasons/excuses for not impeaching have run out.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
FOR THE RECORD...
Part I
Part II
Part III
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!
Post election activism.
Most of the topics written about by Mr. Conyers, can be used against him in a court of law after the 2008 cycle.
With most of the Dems who were informed of these violations, and did nothing substantial to stop them, in charge of investigating their own lack of action, it is apparent to most uneducated citizens that the BushCo organized crime ring extends into the highest levels of the Democratic party.
From Biden to Rockefeller, those who knew of these violations, are incompetantly leading the charge in search of what was known. Probably a good thing, eh Mr. Gonzales or Conyers or whatever your name is?
Can you imagine if a true American who understood the necessity of arresting peer group members who break the law, were in a position to prosecute the poitical operatives who're establishing new precedent, through the non-enforcement of existing laws?
If the ruling elite, were subjected to the same standards as the victim class, Mr. Conyers and the whole DLC would be sitting in prison. They might have to release a few teenage potheads to make room for the traitors, but we can always arrest them again later. They're so stupid they don't realise that the partisan nature of law enforcment has turned the war on drugs into a political tool to disenfranchise the liberal base.
These rat bastard cowards, Conyers included, don't care about anything other than protecting their own criminal enterprise.
Ther Democratic Party will do nothing to restore the constitution, because to do so would make it apparent to everyone, that they are criminal co-conspirators.
John can say what he wants, but until there is an accounting of exactly who knew what and when they knew it, as any impeachment process would reveal, we won't know if he should be prosecuted for the same crimes.
The best way to stay away from prison, is to take charge of any investigations into the alleged criminal conduct. Just as Mr. Conyers has demonstrated.
Letters to the editors should be sent to every newspaper in America, demanding the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of anyone who decides to choose political expediency over enforcment.
How can we trust the biggest prison industrial complex in the world, if people like Mr. Conyers have the prosecutorial discretion to imprison any citizen for a plant that can't be eradicated, as they forgive crimes that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands?
Regardless of who wins in 2008, those who refuse to impeach, in the face of so much acknowledged criminal activity, should go to jail.
Mitigating circumstances are for sentencing time, and I don't think allowing the nation's most prescious document to atrophy, for partisan political gain, is a valid legal defense.
It wouldn't work for the victim class, it shouldn't work for fortunates. Otherwise my local DA could allow his peer group to import as much cocaine as they want, as he focuses on arresting the competition.
At least if we had a GOP Judiciary Chairman, half the criminals would be arrested instead of none.
I have nothing to add to this article -- it speaks for itself!
also headlined at: AfterDowningStreet
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
This video hits the nail on the head -- there is only one
progressive candidate, only one candidate who clearly sees the issues, only one candidate who truly speaks his mind -- Dennis Kucinich!
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Off topic, on topic, off topic again.
The CIA destroyed two tapes? (To prevent YOU identifying your employees) Where are the rest of the tapes?
On topic : "Perhaps nowhere is this interrelationship more true than in intelligence gathering, where information must be reliable and untainted by abuse to be useful."
Ummm...how about oversight, is it not even more important to civil liberties that information be reliable and untainted by abuse to be useful? You see, Sir, if the information provided you is not reliable, untainted and AVAILABLE, then you are being manipulated. In the vernacular, that would read, "Played for a fool." In the final analysis, the President and his men are either with Us or against Us. This is why The Congress is delegated the power of Impeachment. I am confused as to why you insist on failing to use the tools needed to do your job. Consider how well I would do flipping burgers, if I refused to use the spatula.
Off topic again : I enjoyed the passage of the energy bill, and wrote my Senate delegation in support. For review, I post here that letter. Feel free to disregard.
============================
It was a warm wind. The thermometer said 62, and the gusts felt warmer than that. Gusts straight off the ocean, which begins where my property ends. Usually, a December storm is a cold wind. It is anecdotal, naturally. But all data is, taken in isolation, and it remains anecdotal until it attains currency. Then it is called common sense.
I lost a couple dozen large trees, merchantable size, but the biggest made it through. Perhaps because they are in protected areas, folds in the earth, this may be why they have survived long enough to become Giants. Giant meaning four feet thick. So perhaps the comparison is not a fair one. But it remains, this storm snapped trees of mine fully two foot thick. That is a thing to see. Far more than seeing the result afterward, experiencing the majestic and amoral power that is Nature, being there as full size trees dance as if grass in the wind, occasionally bursting to flinders under the touch of a hand not present, shuddering the ground upon taking final rest there...it is nearly a religious experience, It would be a religious experience...if I did not understand what was happening and why. As things are, seeing this show brings me to tap my foot with impatience.
Late, You say? Should have said this days ago? True. I have been busy playing lumberjack. Plus, I saw another show also, really the same show, because it was a big show. The other show was a 450 mile trip to go buy a Jeep. In the mountains, of course. I could have picked a better time. But then again, maybe not. Klamath Falls lies at 4150 feet. And it didn't have One Damned Snowman. I didn't see one damned snowman the whole trip. There ain't enough snow on the pass to roll up and throw at someone. Not enough to even make yellow. The locals said the snow was six weeks late, if it wasn't two months. Instead there is rain and fog. In December, above 4000 feet.
(Mental Note : Hydropower Relies On Snowpack (!!!) So does our Drinking Water (!!!) And our Irrigation (!!!))
And still there is the refrain "There is no proof man has caused Global warming!" For some, there will NEVER be sufficient proof. Nor will they entertain the obvious question, "Is proof necessary? Or desirable?". Do you need proof your house will burn, before you will buy fire insurance? Proof that Florida will be covered by the ocean, before buying flood insurance? And would it not be too late, by the time that proof manifests? Is this not a plan to be homeless AND broke? Is there anything about this metaphor that does not apply to global warming? Have we not already had Global WARNING?
If you insist, I can come up with a better metaphor.
In '85, I was riding a school bus to a fire camp east of Santa Barbra, to work the Wheeler Fire. Everything was going fine, until we came to Canyon Country. At that point, our driver turned her head to the left, and kept it there. After several (astonished) minutes, I had to speak up for myself.
"Ma'am," I said, "what are you looking at?
She was looking at the rock face the road had been blasted out of. I inquired, and come to find out, she was afraid of heights, so did not want to see the precipice on the right side of the road, so looked left. I could not believe this. This nice lady was not afraid to drive along a precipice without looking where she was going, but she WAS afraid to drive along a precipice WHILE looking were she was going. At this point, certain that every one aboard was well aware of what was up, I turned to my Boss, Ed Brown, and asked him if, in light of this new information, was it not his place, as the man officially responsible for all of our lives, to tell our chauffeur to pull over and that he would drive? Ed did not think so. Could not be convinced. Would not be convinced. It seemed the only thing that would convince him would be the thousand foot drop, available just a few feet to the right. And that would do no one any good. Except that I could have said, "I told you so.". And so I gave up on Ed and spent the longest hour of my life telling that nice lady EVERYTHING about the road she was driving blindly along.
For comparison, please note that one day in November of '81, I talked a Soviet torpedo to within 500 yards of USS Haddo, SSN-604. I think I know what stress is. Compared to the bus, the torpedo was a lark. The difference was who was in control, and what they were trying to do. Aboard Haddo, I knew everyone wanted the same thing. On the bus, I had no reason for such confidence.
Not one of the guys and dolls on the crew said a cross word to or about me for talking that driver through that canyon. But Ed fired me. Drawing this up against global warming, it must be admitted that if our bus had gone over, only those on it would have been spectacularly killed. The rest of y'all would have been fine. Global warming is not like that. We are all on the bus together.
I, for one, am damned good and tired of letting folks who refuse to admit that we are in trouble make the decisions about whether or not we are even going to try to pull our asses out of the fire. I don't care to wait for the proof that will convince those who refuse to look where we are going, that where we are going is bad. I feel this way because there is something quite unsatisfying about getting to say "I told you so!" while plummeting to our mutual doom.
Thank you, and please pass the bill.
==========================
I would have to change a few of those words, to make them apply to the conversation atop this page.
Later on.
Frosted Flake
Appaently, the US Attorney has a Time Machine
According to this PDF provided by the New York Times, the Tapes the CIA destroyed in 2005 after being told not to by....everyone consulted....were viewed in 2007, by United states Attorney Chuck Rosenburg.
Another thing pointed out in this official government document is the existence of two sets of >>>>>>>transcripts<<<<<<<<<< of the tapes allegedly destroyed.
A third thing pointed out is who those transcripts were provided to, including :
The Honorable Karen J. Williams
Chief Judge
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circut
1100 East Main Street, Suite 501
Richmond virginia 23219-5799
So go get them.
Frosted Flake
While you are there, please ask the judge if it is true that truth is identifiable by its' myriad connections to the rest of reality while lies are distinguishable be the lack of such connections where they should most exist.
Posting again
My post from yesterday never made it in, so I am posting again. I have not posted in months, because if Rep Conyers is not listening to all of you, my voice is not going to make a difference here either.
I was posting yesterday to note that I had read an article that said the reason Congress was not moving with impeachment was because this administration had said if they did, they would move ahead with militarization and moving forward with their fascist agenda.
This morning I read another post on another site, after downing street, that said the same thing.
Is this what is keeping you from holding this administration accountable, Rep Conyers? I certainly hope not.
Carole J Gilbert
Does Congress Agree that Bush is Above the Law?
I pose that question because for several years now, Congress has tolerated the Administration’s rewriting/ ignoring/ misinterpreting the law whenever it gets in the way of what they want to do. MLBD’s diary: Sheldon Whitehouse: Proof Bush Believes he IS the law cites some of Senator Whitehouse’s FISA speech, Criticizes Bush Admin’s Assertion of Executive Power: (emphasis mine)
“…For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program…”
“…As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them…I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on… To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them…:
1. ” An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it…”
2. “…The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II…”
3. “…The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations…
(??? !!!!—What??)
Senator Whitehouse goes on to describe the enormous hubris of these assertions better than I can in the rest of his statement. IANAL, but even I can see the dictatorial slant of these “legal” opinions by the OLC (as dictated to them by the Administration, perhaps?)—the opinions granting more powers to the Executive than any actually granted in the Constitution itself.
Congressman Conyers: As Senator Whitehouse’s speech demonstrates, the Administration ignores the law, makes up new laws, or rewrites existing law in any way they please, for whatever reason the choose to do so. The Administration apparently has noted that there has been no consequence for the Executive Branch’s assuming the Authority of the Legislative and Judicial Branches with regard to making and interpreting law.
The Administration has little incentive to voluntarily give up the powers they have usurped. IMHO, the only way for Congress to force compliance with the law, and restoring the balance of power, is for Congress to use its Constitutionally granted powers to enforce accountability.
BTW: Congressman Conyers: I've repeatedly heard the theoretical vote count on Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate as being 218/67. Sir, do you really believe that once hearings began to expose: The rot of corruption infecting the Administration; the amount of money that looting by government contractors has cost the treasury; the documentation that proves the War in Iraq was totally unnecessary and that the Administration knowingly manipulated the country into war anyway; the testimony of whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds with knowledge of the Administration's high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as testimony and documentation of the other massive amounts of corruption and lawbreaking by the Administration--Sir, do you REALLY believe that: 1. Those votes will not change? and 2. The people will tolerate it if their representative do not impeach, in the light of what is bound to be massive publicly aired evidence of malfeasance, misappropriation of funds, lies, and lawbreaking?
The Constitution is being assaulted-what are you doing about it?
Politely worded letters rebuking Bush will be immediately filed in the White House Wastebasket
Speaking of Courage:
How’s this for courage?: CIA Agents’ Threat Reason for Release of NIE
(via Think Progress )
“…revelation by Retired Col. W. Patrick Lang that” :
"…intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary" if the document’s gist were not given to the public. Translation? Someone in that group would have gone to the media "on the record" to disclose its contents.”
Amazing. I'll repeat that, because it is so amazing: intelligence Career Seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary" if the document's gist were not given to the public.Think about it for a minute, Congressman--these people were prepared to risk their jobs and their freedom, and their and their families' futures to make sure that the Administration didn't lie us into another war.
Chairman Conyers, can you actually look at what these brave people risked and speak of the "risks" of starting impeachment proceedings? They have risked a lot to get this information out, but it is up to Congress to make sure their bravery was not in vain. The White House spin machine is now doing its best to discredit the NIE. The President refuses to acknowledge any errors in his previous pronouncements and refuses to back off his "Iran is a threat" meme. Congressional hearings to find out who in the Administration knew about the NIE findings and when they knew them are necessary to get to the truth.
These "intellingence career seniors" have shown that there are a few patriots left in the Government, Sir, I would ask: Are there any patriots left in Congress? Or are our "representatives" too worried about the hypothetical consequences of defending the Constitution--plotting out possible consequences on their Excel spreadsheets, and projecting possible poll results?
Congress agree?
Hi unspun.
Thanks for the post.
Your quote of the Senator (see below), seems to suggest one of the main problems most of our Represetnatives and Congress members have.
Here's what we see.
And hearing this nonsense doesn't shock anyone?
No doubt many in Congress have come to believe that kind of oxymoronic bullshit, but a quick scan of the TRUTH will reveal that the President has ZERO legislative powers, inherent or otherwise.
Use Ctrl-F and try to find anything suggesting anyone in the executive branch has legislative powers.
(Let me start you below the headers so the find function works better.) http://usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
It may be equally UN-surprising to NOT find any judicial authority in the description or definition of the President's authority or that of the executive branch.
In a word, dear Congress, "duh". (We don't expect so much from the Senate, but the Congress is the Peoples House so that's the big disappointment.)
The biggest problem with Congress is either illiteracy, which is unlikely, or it's basic basic religio/political blindness.
Let me explain, the "religio" part of that concept. Obviously this isn't a physical impairment or we could much more easily replace our representatives after the daily pileup in the parking lot.
In these days of religiosity it where we again see people invoking God's name and the Bible in oaths that would be forbidden for Christians*
there's also a guiding principle in Luke 6:39 as it pertains to our current leadership in the House and the Senate. http://bible.cc/luke/6-39.htm
In other words, how much legislative authority does the President of
the United States have under THIS Constution? USA
And don't let anyone fool you. The USA Constitution is every bit as legally binding
as the Confederate Constitution would have been if the religionist mammonists
had won the American Civil War. (Careful! That mammonist link is in the CSA, not the USA.)
----------
Oaths forbidden to Christians. See Matt 5:33+ and it will knock your socks off when you see how stupid these hypocrites are utterly unnecessarily so because in fact the Constitution DOES allow a simple "affirmation".
But these inane hypocrite do not cop to that -- and good thing because if they did, Matt 5:33 might have been wrong because they would have PASSED their constitutionally forbidden RELIGIOUS TEST.
duh.
Just duh.
Conyers, Scott, Nadler, Delahunt...
Pen TWO letters...
Read 'em here.
ABC reports Harriet Miers knew.
John, WHEN "MIGHT" THAT CONTEMPT VOTE TAKE PLACE? NEXT YEAR?
===============
I M P E A C H !
Was a preservation order issued, Congressman?
If there are two tapes, then there are more. A preservation order must be issued immediately. All documents relating to all tapes, including documents regarding the destruction of the two tapes must be preserved. In fact, a broad preservation order and broad document request, both paper and electronic must be put in place now!!! Otherwise, you can almost hear the shredders at work in the Oval Office.
Most of these politicians are lawyers. Did they forget how to litigate? This is Litigation 101...
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
When Satire becomes Commentary...
When I wrote this stuff, under the heading, Looking into the Future I thought they would happen later, not sooner...
White House vetoes new FISA legislation
National Irrational February 10, 2008
Citing national security interests, and the lack adequate protections for Telecom companies that cooperated in the the White House in the days following 9/11, George Bush today vetoed the RESTORE Act.
In a statement issued by the Whitehouse shortly after vetoing the legislation, President George Bush repeated his position that Congress' changes to the FISA laws were irresponsible and left the country less secure.
"Once again the Democratic leadership in Congress has acted to deny us the tools we need to gain vital intelligence on the activities of our enemies in the Global War on Terrorism. This legislation would rob us of the ability to prevent another 9/11 attack, or to prevent operations that could bring harm our brave soldiers overseas. Moreover, it seeks to make criminal, the actions of American corporations, who took bold actions in the patriotic defense of our liberties and freedoms. This Administration remains committed to protecting our citizens from the threat of islamofascism, and will continue to support those who assist us in that effort."
White House refuses 333rd request for FISA Documents
National Irrational September 13, 2008
Citing national security interests, the White House today refused to comply with the 333rd request by House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers for documents related to the electronic wiretapping program that he approved in February 2001.
According to Congressman Conyers, those documents could go a long way toward determining whether the program, which was supported by several large telecom companies, was legal under the terms of the FISA statutes, which prevent any government agency from obtaining wiretaps of American citizens without a court order.
Chairman Conyers stated that he was not discouraged by this latest refusal by the WhiteHouse, and vowed that he would send out another request for documents sometime next week.