Glenn Greenwald on FISA and Domestic Wiretapping
By Nicole Belle Monday Aug 06, 2007 11:01am
Download | play 
Download | play (thanks to Heather for videos)
My personal favorite journalist, Amy Goodman, interviews Glenn Greenwald and Marjorie Cohn about the slippery slope of the FISA bill that the Democrats caved on last week and the ramifications for oversight when the bill "sunsets" in six months.
Login or Register to post comments.
Very serious subject. Thanks.
...
i try to watch democracynow.org as much as i can they are 1 of the few actual journalist sources left that are untainted by corporate interests and propoganda.
Arepublicans and democrats on same side.
here is the entire discussion http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/06/1340209
Bush planning on ending the United States as we know it.
all for corporate greed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to get Comey up again, under oath, and find out what those other 'authorized' covert programs were. Something smells impeachable.
[deleted- off topic.]
This is treason by the administration against the Constitution. [Deleted. DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE ON THIS SITE]
Glenn Greenwald was on the CSPAN Washington Journal this morning debating David Rivkin (Aug. 7th). Great job Glenn and keep up the great work. We have to keep reminding these people over and over what the 4th amendment to the constitution actually says.
http://www.c-span.org/
Great, so Congress has no idea the extent of the domestic spying, so they put additional power in the hands of Gonzo and Rove who already have a history of attempting to marginalize the democratic vote and steal elections.
Is this the first step of a fatal path to giving the '08 elections to the Rethugs in spite of all their criminal behavior and public opinion? Does the bush cabal now go into overtime work to dig up dirt on their adversaries?
[Deleted. Abusive]
cynic @ 6:
it's obvious that no one has any plans on impeaching anyone. anything they find that is an impeachable offense, they will just make it a legal.
Slippery slope is right. Liberty isn't lost at the time when your rights are personally violated. They're lost at the moment that power is given to violate them.
Our employees in Congress has once again given the executive branch the power to take our rights, and some future president, with all this power, just might end up as a bigger nightmare than Bush. I feel he's the tip of the iceberg.
But this slippery slope has been coming for years. We've allowed our government to violate the constitution, well "bend the rules" for many years...ostensibly for good reasons. But, when you allow politicians to do that over and over - eventually you end up with politicians who feel the rules don't apply at all.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
All three branches of government have been working against our liberty, in my opinion. Well, that's my rant. Read on for more if you'd like:
"The Federal Assault on our Freedoms"
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_federal_assault_on_our_freedoms
cynic @ 6:
Something? wtf?! A president can be impeached and removed from office if the public doesn't like the way he's serving the country! It does not NECESSARILY even require him to have broken the law. If he has broken the law, then after impeachment AND removal from office (two separate actions, mind you), THEN he can be tried criminally. Impeachment is NOT reserved for criminal behaviours, it is the means to FIRE A PRESIDENT/OFFICIAL, just like your boss can fire YOU if you don't do what is required of you. Not to pick on you, cynic... just pointing out that ppl's ideas of 'impeachable' has been framed by both their lack of education and the matter of waiting for someone in the media to tell them WHICH CHOICES TO DEBATE ABOUT. Think for yourselves, people! the Constitution was written by normal humans, it is not beyond your own comprehension. ACTUALLY READ IT, and force the government to comply - don't just sit there and let the government (or purchased-and-house-trained media companies) tell YOU what its limitations and flaws are!
[Deleted. Thanks for the sympathy-Sitemonitor]
I happened to watch this yesterday. It's a really good summary and discussion. That law and the vote are really, really disappointing.
O Really @ 11 says: OK Here It is. In this wireless/digital age, You can not tell where a phone call or email is coming from or going to anymore. So…. you HAVE to tap them all.
Are you serious?
Democracy Now! should be required listening.
oversight @ 9:
thanks i just went to c-span just now and it looks like they are currently replaying it.
mister mix @ 12:
The only thing that's obvious is that many members of Congress need public opinion out in front of them before they find the cojones to take on the national security establishment. A principal way of accomplishing that end that could lie in revealing what Greenwald called "so illegal, so unconscionable."
Sorry, but this is no time for fashionable cynicism (my nick aside).
O Really @ 11:
No sir, YOUR thinking (or lack thereof until you believed everyone else was finally dumber than you so you'd LOOK smart) is what led to this in the first place! If proper restrictions on infingement of ppl's privacy were kept, the precedent wouldn't be there to show FISA as debate-worthy at all!
If you want to understand, ACTUALLY understand privacy laws, you must delve into civil laws called INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) LAW. It highlights why musicians aren't paid well for their music, but the people who own the tape that records it do. It highlights how you DON'T OWN THE INFORMATION ON YOUR COMPUTER BECAUSE THE COMPANY THAT WROTE THE CODE ONLY SELLS YOU THE RIGHT TO USE IT. If you don't own it, then the government can search it, as well as its creators! idiots. Possession is 9/10th of the law, people. Why do you think the first inalienable rights given to people are 'life liberty and LAND!" not persuit of happiness originally, but LAND. because owning LAND (property) was paramount to your subsequent rights! jackasses.
People like you disgust me, sir, for your arrogance and small-minded tunnel vision. You think this is simply a governmental problem? no, it stems from corporations buying their own powers from the government on bribe. then, the government can usurp their powers for their mutual gains together. twit.
Lastly, you CAN, in fact, trace where every call is made in the digital age, MUCH more easily than you used to. THERE ARE GPS CHIPS IN EVERY CELL PHONE, and you get a list of every call you made on your bill. The company knows just who you called, when you called them, where you were at the time, how much time you spent talking, and they CAN, when they choose, save your conversations digitally for very little storage space (you don't need hi-def phone records, they only have to be intelligible). now how smart are you, sir? now how futile is your argument that liberals are worse than conservatives? big-business started this mess, and your blindness and everyone else's apathy stirred it up. Bush can hardly be blamed anymore for taking the power from the people, they almost seem to drugged up to warrant having it. luckily, there are those of us awake enough to stop it, if we get up and DO SOMETHING.
O Really @ 11:
Is this guy for real? I'm surprised he knows how to turn on a computer. Wow. And he probably votes. God help us.
O Really @ 11:
Shut up and enlist you mouth breathing - warmonger - buy into anything the moron's in charge tell you... Just STFU and go to Iraq. Maybe we'll see you in 10 years.
O Really @ 11:
our thinking is "pointless"? huh? pointless?
there is no point to our thinking? is that what you are trying to say? i need a reichwing-to-english dictionary to help me sort thru your tortured thoughts. wait, president bush, is that you?
of course any american that WANTS to be spied on by the govt is confused anyhoo.
moving on...
The best part of the interview was at the end when Amy Goodman asked Marjorie Cohn how the U.S. occupation of Iraq could come to an end. Ms. Cohn replied that there are two things that must be done. The first is that the Iraqis must begin to take control of their country. The second is what helped to bring an end to the Vietnam War [as evidenced by the documentary Sir! No Sir!] and that is to have more and more soldiers refuse to take part, as Lt. Watada has explained in his speech last year at the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle, in this illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.
Democracy NOW!
Tuesday, August 7th, 2007
Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire
"Ironically, I began to understand how censorship worked in so-called free societies when I reported from totalitarian societies. During the 1970s I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist dictatorship. I interviewed members of the dissident group Charter 77, including the novelist Zdener Urbanek, and this is what he told me. "In dictatorships we are more fortunate that you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies. Unlike you in the West. We've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you, we know that the real truth is always subversive." "
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/aug/video/dnB20070807...
Lets face it .... the police state is here already. From the National Level, through the State Level and even the local level.
Reid and Pelosi better get with the program or it will all be lost.
You can watch more of Glenn Greenwald on C-SPAN. He is at minute 45 of today's washington journal (08/07).
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_...
The best decision I ever made, was dumping cable TV for DISH. They have the 2 best channels: Free Speech TV & LINK-TV, on all packages, including Democracy NOW! news, which SMOKES ANBCBSNNX corporate controlled agenda news.
They should just scrap the whole FISA thing.
I mean really, secret courts? In America?
anonymous @ 14:
Uh... no. I would suggest that you actually read the Constitution before quoting it. I happen to have a bookmark for just such an emergency.
Article One, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Article Two, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article Three, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Now, the House can certainly try to impeach on anything they want. They have that sole power (as above) but unless the President has actually committed a crime, they can't get ( in theory ) a legitimate conviction in the Senate. Impeachment is rather like a criminal indictment in that manner. You can try to indict on any damned thing you want. But unless a crime has been committed, you're not going to get a conviction. You have to prove that he is guilty, just like any other trial ( at least before Bush took us off the deep end anyway ).
'Public doesn't like the way he's serving the country!' Is not illegal by any statute in the United States. Hate to break it to you. Even worse is that the President can continue to claim executive privilege on everything until impeachment proceedings start. So, trying to gather evidence is effectively impossible. Once impeachment proceedings start, United States v Nixon set the precedent that executive priv doesn't apply against criminal investigations. So, what we need is someone to come forward and rat out Bush, which isn't going to happen.
Treason has a very precise US legal definition as well which George W. Bush has not met. See Article III above.
Up until Sunday he could have been impeached on FISA violations. Which he and his pet AG both gleefully admitted to and were a felony with a 5 year and/or $10,000 penalty for each count. Unfortunately our Dems just sold us down the pike and gave Bush a get out of impeachment free card on those charges.
So there you have it - we're screwed.
Big Dan @ 26:
THANK YOU, BIG DAN! YOU ARE THE MAN! Remember this quote, America. WTFU right now and burn those words into your brain. Then go DO SOMETHING
no need to say my "personal" favorite journalist is there? bit redundant.
Michael @ 8:
[Deleted. DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE ON THIS SITE]
E in Md @ 31:
No, that's simply defeatist. other high crimes and MISDEMEANORS, if you actually look at the words, means an action unbecoming of one's demeanor. Also, if they swore an oath to uphold the constitution by SERVING THE PEOPLE, not serving them is a misdemeanor, is it not? so, YES YOU CAN IMPEACH FOR NOT SERVING THE PUBLIC. it is simply not criminal after that, so they can't go to jail for it.
Go ahead Bush and Cheney.. keep our country safe…..
Including Journalists and American Citizens.
The people know....
The key issue to understand with the FISA vote is…
all the illegal activities the administration was engaged in have now been made legal.
...The bill that was PUT IN PLACE because of the political and CRIMINAL abuse since NIXON - to protect OUR CONSTITUTION.
And now a question for all of the representatives that voted to coverup these illegal actions:
Which Americans have they been spied on since 2001 -And Why?
Very soon.. Congressional Representatives will be meeting with their constituents
to find out what is REALLY going on in Washington D.C.
On another subject of political abuse that was established because of the NIXON criminal era - what else has been overturned by Bush since 2001?
On October 21, 2001, Bush signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" - affecting and reversing the previous Executive Order 11905....
"Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
Just exactly who has been assassinated since Bush reversed Executive Order 11905?
Who were they? When? And Where?
Does Congress have a list?
Big Dan at #29
Very well said.
oh, yeah, and glad to see you're spending your time quoting the Constitution to whine about how screwed we are. real productive. Did your high school Am. Government teacher show you how to do that, too?
Nancy Pelosi calls for a four term Presidency.
Staff Writer - The Disassociatiated Press
In other news Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill on the floor that would allow US Presidents to serve up to four terms. In an interview she noted, "Sure, some people may worry that this just opens the door to allowing Bush another eight years in Oval Office, but I think we can accomplish a lot in that time. And just think of the good that a Democrat can do with with four consecutive terms in office! I think this is the right thing for the country at this time and I urge my fellow democrats to get behind this legislation and put an end to partisan politics."
weaseldog... are you serious? is that real? for the love of God, I hope its not
One can watch the entire interview here. (that link really should be in the main post if only to credit the source...)
My personal favorite journalist, Amy Goodman
I agree. Her show, DemocracyNow! is outstanding.
AMY GOODMAN: And he said, "well some of them are tasteless". And we said,
"well, war is tasteless". I was speaking at St. Mark's Church in New York and
I talked about how Al Jazerra shows all these casualties pictures and a
journalist came up to me afterwards from Berlin and said, "It's not just Al
Jazeera that's showing these. All over Europe we see them day and night. It's
just here in the United States that you don't see them". And so we asked Aaron
Brown, "Why don't they show some of the shots", you know CNN was kicked out of
Baghdad and he said "it's tough to get those shots". You have no trouble
taking Al Jazeera's footage of the bombs over Baghdad, the kind-of fireworks
display that we saw that night scape, but when it came to taking their
pictures of casualties. Well, he said, "they're tasteless".
I really do think that if for one week in the United States we saw the true
face of war, we saw people's limbs sheered off, we saw the kids blown apart,
for one week war would be eradicated. Instead what we see in the U.S. media
and it's just quite astounding, it's the video war game. Those gray-grainy
photographs with a target on them looking down but you don't see, we don't see
those people as the targets on the ground.
E in Md @ 31:
E in Md @ 31:
could a judge issue felonies to members of congress who authorized the new FISA bill?
the program is illegal, and punishable by felony.
ergo
[darla, We thought you left. You said you were going as in "still censoring comments
so much for free speech on C&L
i think i’ll cancel my membership" What happened?]
anonymous @ 35:
anonymous @ 35:
The White House did tell the Iranians who all of our covert agents are. The Iranians promptly had a hanging party, executing those Iranians that were suspected of giving aid and comfort to Valerie Plame’s operatives.
Bush gave OBL and the Taliban a three month head start, so they could get away and escape to Pakistan. He told them on television that we would wait three months to go after them. This gave OBL time to escape (if he’s alive).
He invited Iraqis to fight back against the US when he said, “Bring em’ on!”.
His administration has given the enemy billions of dollars and thousands of free weapons and munitions.
His administration concentrated on securing only the oil facilities, while giving orders to stand down as insurgents looted armories and munition dumps for weapons to use later on US troops.
He suspended habeus corpus, and gave the military the authority to torture people as a matter of policy.
He broke multiple treaties which have the legal binding of federal law. Such as the Geneva Convention.
These are the Democrats that we questions for.
They are the ones that voted WITH the coverup Republicans.
Why?
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Aye
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Aye
Rep. Melissa Bean [D, IL-8] Aye
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Aye
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Aye
Rep. F. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2] Aye
Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10] Aye
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Aye
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Aye
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20] Aye
Rep. Robert Cramer [D, AL-5] Aye
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Aye
Rep. Artur Davis [D, AL-7] Aye
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4] Aye
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Aye
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17] Aye
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8] Aye
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2] Aye
Rep. Barton Gordon [D, TN-6] Aye
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0] Aye
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27] Aye
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9] Aye
Rep. Nicholas Lampson [D, TX-22] Aye
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Aye
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8] Aye
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Aye
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Aye
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3] Aye
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5] Aye
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Aye
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0] Aye
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23] Aye
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Aye
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3] Aye
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Aye
Rep. Victor Snyder [D, AR-2] Aye
Rep. Zackary Space [D, OH-18] Aye
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8] Aye
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4] Aye
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1] Aye
Rep. Charles Wilson [D, OH-6]
I wonder what these two Republicans know.
They voted with Pelosi against the bill.
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Ayes: 226 (Democrat: 41; Republican: 185)
Nays: 183 (Democrat: 181; Republican: 2)
Abstained: 23 (Democrat: 9; Republican: 14)
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/1806
Glenn did an excellent job this morning on C-Span. Rivkin has no respect for the constitution whatsoever. He kept talking about cars being searched. It made me cringe every time he opened his mouth. He is a loyal Bushie and will go down defending this hideous administration.
Usually when he is on television, Rivkin dresses like a clown--today, he was subdued.
He and Victoria Toesing make a good pair--birds of a feather.
darla @ 43:
The courts have no teeth, truly. Of the three branches:
Executive: carries out the enforcement of law. No matter what the court says, if the Executive does not enforce it, it doesn't happen. If the legislature makes it a law, the pres can enforce it.
Legislative: Makes the laws. It doesn't matter what the Executive wants, they make things law or not. If the judiciary doesn't like a law, the legislature can make it an ammendment, which the courts must therefore uphold with the rest of the Constitution.
Judiciary: Keepers of the law and the oaths. If the courts don't like the implications or wording of a law, they can strike it from the recorded law as unconstitutional (hence, it must be against our Constitution to do this, theoretically). Once an ammendment is made, the courts must uphold that ammendment. they cannot enforce a law. they cannot make a law. it doesn't matter anymore what the courts say, given the power that the executive currently has.
This site needs more clips from Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! Keep it up!
daveB. from Oakland @ 48:
i agree. i understand this site is about exposing crooks and liars, but all the clips don't have to come from fox and msnbc.
... I do enjoy Democracy now from time to time... [Deleted. You have no proof of this, and it's taking the thread off topic-Sitemonitor]
It is like having a steak at McDonalds...
41 Democrats are afraid that they can't get re-elected if they don't sell out to the president.
Weaseldog @ 44:
Yes, and that is just a start. I apologize, I never fully made my point. In addition to the notion that the president is WAY beyond the gray-line of 'possibly impeachable' (what I meant to make clear), impeachment proceedings can be started by the People, if Congress votes on it. yes, technically even one citizen can write up a request for impeachment proceedings, let alone large groups of people with thousands of signatures. It has an official term, not just a petition, but I honestly can't think of it. find it on the internet and join up with others to flood congress with these statements.
Awesome show, saw it last night. So now the question is:
How do we dump the Rococco and use this moment begging for renaissance?
[I've deleted the post to which you are responding. It is off-topic-Sitemonitor]
The Smiths Go To Washington @ 45:
Q U E S T I O N:
Is illegally spying on Americans without warrants an American Principle?
Since when is Congress supporting and defending the Constitution by allowing and tolerating it's usurpation through formal votes of unconstitutional proportions? If it were brought before the 50 States to ratify, the nullification of the Fourth Amendment, it would be shot down. So instead, Congress chips away at it element by aspect. And wa-la... The FOURTH AMENDMENT hollowed out by our legislators right before our eyes. Sacrificing Liberty for airs of security... LOL
Q U E S T I O N:
Why is it, for the sake of fighting TERRORISM, American Birth Rights must be sacrificed?
I thought they (sic) hated us for our freedoms? Who's the "THEY" Mr. Presdint? Congress?
The question which begs to be asked remains: Having spent so much time and effort to acquire an incredible amount of power to spy on Americans, go to war based on lies, essentially neutering Congress, can anyone conceive of a scenario where these people willingly cede this awesome power to a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress after the 2008 elections? Does anyone seriously think that on January 20, Bush, Rove and Cheney will just walk away saying thanks for the great time but the Constitution we've been crapping on tells us that it's time to peacefully transition to a new President? Does anyone really believe that? It took 600 years for the Roman Empire to collapse, this American Democracy will not make it half that long thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rove.. Think it can't happen, won't happen here? They've already indicated that they're not telling the Congress and the American people nothing about nothing. Go F yourselves Senators, Representatives...As Bush once said...it's be a great country if it were a dictatorship...as long as he was the dictator.
Good Luck everyone...
mister mix @ 49:
I agree with you. not that C&L is bad by any stretch! It's a great site and does wonders for waking up the public; however, it could use more variety of sources to make it even BETTER!
[I've deleted the post to which you are responding. It is off-topic-Sitemonitor]
Tony Mack @ 56:
Very Insightful, I like your thinking. However, I differ on opinion of possibilities... yes, I could believe that the Bushies would hand it over. They have set everything up to make their money, keep it, and make it grow. They don't care about personally spying on us... the ppl they want to do it now have the power to - CORPORATIONS. Also, it doesn't matter, Democrat or republican. THEY ARE ALL IN POLITICS BECAUSE THEY'RE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY. ALL OF THEM (except that former alaskan senator guy, with the water and the rock...) They all have the same things to gain, and give the dumb public two different ideologies to fight over while they do this thing together. it is a principle called 'demeaning the message to the dogs.' in essence, you will never understand the right to rule (and yes, their money is what they believe gives them this right) and so you must be given a dumb half-truth to argue amongst yourselves while they do their Great Work. So yes -- I could see them handing everything over to the Dem's because the dem's won't give back this power the repubs took. so the Bushies get all the money-making benefits and now they don't even have to have the job to do it!
PS i apologize for allowing the troll to take me off topic and applaud the site monitor for keeping the comment section focused.
[Thanks-No worries-Sitemonitor]
Why is it when I hear the term wire tapping I think of Hekyl and Jekyl doing a buck and wing on the telephone wires?
rasta @ 15:
You sent him away without checking for ganja first?
[Who sez? Sitemonitor]
I fear that the more power that is handed over to Bush, the better the chances are that he'll be appointed for a third term.
We used to have a document the laid out the framework of the workings of our government, but we don't use it anymore.
Now we have a government with no real rules or laws. They aren't bound by anything at all.
Be great if the sitemonitor could delete the entire administration as "off topic".
anonymous @ 59
"THEY ARE ALL IN POLITICS BECAUSE THEY’RE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY. ALL OF THEM"
I dissagree with this statement. alot of politicians (particulary the one most noticed one) are wealthy. but i know for a fact that some of these politicians, ie Corrine Brown D-FL worked in the Duval Public Schools before entering into politics. you won't find this on wikipedia so don't bother. i know because i know her personally as she is friends of my family. i suspect if you look at the more unpopular politicians you will find that outside their salaries from the the government they would be broke.
I listened to Mr GreenWald speak on C-Span this morning opposite mr. rivkin, then I had my ears assaulted by the bigoted, right wing hate mongers as they called in expressing their fears (I guess if I was a repukulan I would live in fear too), anyway one caller said if you have nothing to fear if you haven't done anything wrong, question does this anal retentive NON thinking right wing FOOL really believe that (oops he doesn't call overseas), he has to be totally brain dead.
You know everything about your friends you know all their acquaintances and you know everythiing about them what they do where they go and who they talk to sure you do, now if one of those alledged friend is now indentified as a person of interest all people who are associate with him become a person of interest.
The wacko believe that their leadership should think for them and tell them what to say ans when to say it (any body see any thing wrong woth this) now the GUILT by association under the Talking Monkeys policy allows him to make your life miserable and to allow you to disappear. Still think this is a good idea.
You are embracing a Moron that used presidential pardon to pardon a TRAITOR so his CRIME FAMILY can endure, a MORON that has a AG that is OUT and OUT lieing to Congress and is totally incompetent that is going to be in charge of over seeing this.The IDIOTS on the right see nothing wrong with it hhhmmmm.
If you have nothing to fear, then why not put webcams in your bedroom and streaming audio from your phones?
ChoicePoint is keeping the recordings of our phone calls and they get hacked a lot.
Glenn's always great on these shows. I wish he had his own radio or tv show
Once these calls start getting leaked, we can start hearing conference calls from executives of major corporations having strategy meeting with their attorneys.
That should be interesting.
mister mix @ 65:
okay fair enough, but I didn't mean every single politician. I meant the ones running for president (the source of my reply was discussing a change up of the presidency). And I'm glad you can document at least ONE good one. ^_^ but the score so far is still bleak.
From my blog:
Well, it is official, ChoicePoint, via the major telecom corporations can now legally record our phone calls in order to fish for information.
Corporations will now have their calls monitored and recorded. The President and his staff will be able listen in on phone calls coming out of Microsoft, IBM, Exxon, Del Monte Foods, Bank of America, local police departments, city halls, Masonic Lodges, Churches, attorneys offices.
In addition our private calls will be monitored and recorded.
ChoicePoint has a history of being hacked a lot. So its only a matter of time before these recorded calls make their way to the internet. Your kids will one day be able to listen to conversations you had with your husband wife hours before you went out for that hot date with your spouse.
And of course, one day, these archives will be declassified, so that future generations can listen in on your business and personal calls.
It will be interesting to find out what is said behind closed doors on the conference lines of our major corporations and legal offices.
The problem is that there isn't one credible shred of evidence that any of these expanded powers of the presidency are protecting us. Sure they have arrested a few wannabes like the Fort Dix Six that are more to be pitied than feared, but they haven't arrested a real bad guy who posed a real threat. They haven't found a bomb factory in this country. There's just no tangible evidence to prove all of their claims of protecting us.
If they really are doing their jobs, and the threats are real we should see perp walks with real bad guys in handcuffs. We should see raids and weapons confiscated. Instead they always use the negative that nothing has happened so they must be doing their jobs, knowing that you can't prove a negative. So where is the positive proof. Where are the fruits of all of this unconstitutional spying? We don't even know if the eight years between the two attacks on the World Trade Center is a proper interval to use as a standard because you can't establish a normal interval based on two events.
The Fort Dix imbeciles were caught by a sales clerk at Walgreens weren't they?
The FISA song
Tune: Anything goes (Cole Porter)
In olden days phone wires on talking
Was seen as illegal stalking
Now heaven knows
Anything goes
It’s legal now - domestic spying
The ACLU is crying
And Congress blows
Anything goes
The Nation’s mad today
Cheney’s glad today
Don’t get in their way
Talk in code Okay?
Watch your back José
Won’t be through they say
Till our rights have gone away
Your foreign friends are still not heeding
Your emails the feds are reading
What you propose
Freedom just goes
The Bill of rights goes
Anything goes!
Letter's in the mailbox to my Blue Dog. Managed to avoid swearing but whether from anger or shame it's likely to put some color in her cheeks if it gets to her.
This was more than a "slippery slope." It was a bigger cave in than that mine in Utah.
We be fucked!
Thank you, Democrats, WHO WERE ELECTED IN FALL OF 2006 to stop this sort of power grabbing by the corrupt repuke administration in Washington. Not all Democrats have marched "lock-step" with cheney, bush, gonzales, etc., and they are to be commended. The others can rest assured that they have lost my support.
I was a long-term Democrat even before I became a citizen, until yesterday, when I re-registered as "declines to state". Enough!!
The Constitution Speaks
[Deleted. Do not post the same comments in multiple threads]
SearingTruth @ 78:
It's a shame, it is rather long. you should put it on a webpage and put a link to it in every comment thread that is relative to it. I understand why it was removed, but it's a damned good post if I may say so
anonymous @ 79:
Hmmm... I'm a bit mystified.
I did make a similar post on a different thread yesterday, but the one I posted today, while having the same message, was worded and arranged differently.
Perhaps my message is too effective, and undeniable, so I'm being censored by those who wish to only see posts in support of the Democratic party on this board. I hear that many are calling for the abandonment of the Democrats since their betrayal of our nation, and they are very worried.
In any case, let me try to explain the procedure for amending the Constitution, and how it has been betrayed, once more. If the censors decide to delete it again I guess the truth is not welcome here.
But that's OK, there are a lot of places where it is very welcome. And quashing a voice of freedom here will be of no consequence. The voices of freedom can never be silenced.
So one more time, here is the Forth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Amendment IV
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.
And here is the only way it can legally be changed:
A proposed Amendment must pass with two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, or a Constitutional Convention must be called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If the amendment passes both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority, then three-fourths of the states (38) must ratify it.
Attempting to illegally "vote" the Constitution out of existence as the Democratic and Republican parties have claimed to do is simple and unambiguous treason.
Therefore I urge all loyal American to immediately abandon the Republican and Democratic parties and register as Independent voters, and then call their Senators and Representative and ask them to do the same. Tell them that you can never again support the treasonous Republican and Democratic parties.
ST
"A tyrant’s only ally is fear."
SearingTruth
"Their words could not be reconciled with their actions, and their weakness could not be reconciled with their duty."
SearingTruth
"My fellow citizens, the truth is that the Constitution fails to defend itself, enduring only in the brave hearts of those who would uphold it."
SearingTruth, A Future of the Brave
"It is the entire circumstance that concerns me, not the small window which peers in upon it."
SearingTruth
21,22,23,24
WOW,
Calm down.
I guess what they say is true.
The truth hurts.
Like I said read it for YOURSELF. Quit letting other people think for you.
Oh god my rights have been intruded on. You hate President Bush and thats all there is to it.
Now your cell phone experts. Prove what I said is wrong....... You cant.
Bush will never be impeached because they cant do it.
He hasnt broken any laws.
Quit crying. about something you have no idea about.
This illegal spying is setting up something bigger. I don't know what it is, but it's not about "terrorists", I'm totally convinced of that.
How many terrorists in America have we caught? There are NO TERRORISTS here in America, so why is our govt doing this?
I don't know! But it's not for "terrorists".
The GOP made up the "War on Terror", so they could then link opponents to "aiding the terrorists", which they do like McCarthyism...which was ALSO a Republican thing.
McCarthyism never stopped, it changed from accusing your opponents of "aiding Communists" to "aiding terrorists".
The "War on Terror" is FAKE!!! And it's going to go on and on an on...so they can do dastardly things and say, "it's to safeguard against terrorism" or "things changed since 9/11".
THAT'S why I don't believe the govt's 9/11 story!
Congress has betrayed America.
Folks, the Congress simply caved in due to the presidential directives #51 issued in May.
Read this column by Jerome Corsi. Most journalists or MSM has ignored NSPD-51/HSPD-23 & 24. Can someone dissect this one?
_____
WND Exclusive Commentary Bush makes power grab
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
(Column continues below)
When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.
The directive specifies that the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism will be designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.
Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination."
Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend.
Townsend spent 13 years at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where she served as assistant commandant for intelligence.
She is a White House staff member in the executive office of the president who also chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the National Security Council reports directly to the president.
The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the president "may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."
The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority," if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the requirements of NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 under Townsend's direction.
The White House had no comment.
Whoever has interpreted this or changed it for power grab for the ignorant president must have evil intent for the U.S.
It is not the president's doing, some other dark entity is behind this chaos.
O Really @ 81:
thier might be bugs on some of you mugs but thier aint no bugs on meeeeeeeeeeeee!
this law does not necessarily "sunset" in six months. Wake up folks, they wrote a section into this bill to allow Gonzales to continue for an additional year.....until Feb 1 2009. Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you?
See the article at Balikinization http://balkin.blogspot.com/
regarding the sunset provision:
"there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:
AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).
Thus, "acquisitions" authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it's fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until . . . February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in."
[...] Watch Video [...]
• Funny that Dem Now! and Greenwald and the major blogs have failed to report that Chairman Reyes offered a more stringent interim bill, but it was blocked by a handful of PROGRESSIVE Dems (such as Kucinich and Waters).
[from speaker.gov -- edited for space]
By refusing to vote for this better bill, we ended up with a worse bill. Everyone seems to want to bash the Dems about it -- even though in the House 190 Dems voted NAY on the subsequent bill -- but the reason why the poorer bill passed instead can be laid right on the doorstep of Blumenauer, Capuano, Filner, Holt, Inslee, Kucinich, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Olver, Stark, Waters, Welch (VT), Woolsey.
(Not voting: Clark, Waxman)
Would it have been better to pass the Speaker's bill? You damn skippy.
Blaming the Dem leadership for the excessively purist attitude of some progressives is false -- no surprise from Amy Goodman, and I guess, no surprise from blog commenters, who would have to acknowledge the effort by the Speaker, and the occasional failings of well-meaning progressives, in favor of a simplistic gloss on affairs.
mister mix @ 49:
I was lucky enough to catch that interview. Great stuff. And I agree "Democracy Now" and Amy Goodman don't seem to get the publicity she and the show should. It hardly ever gets mentioned here on C&L. Amy also has on there Greg Palast from time to time who has done some great investigations into the Bush Administration and disenfrancised voters.
Hey everyone, it's Paul in L.A. bringing his tired "blame the progressives, not the weak leadership" shtick to the table! I'll ask again, since he dodged the issue in another thread, how does the lesser of two evils count as a win in a situation where the Dems were in a position to block ANY bill from passing, much less a gross violation of our civil rights that invests new powers in a discredited administration and a patently corrupt AG? What good are Reid and Pelosi if they can't maintain party unity when minor things like the Constitution or the lives of innocents abroad are at stake?
190 Dems voted NAY, but no one filibustered (which should have been unnecessary), no one put a hold on the bill, nothing but quiet capitulation. This reminds me of when the Dems caved on the war funding bill and went so far as to reinforce the GOP false meme that to do otherwise would be placing the troops in danger. Major candidates like Obama stepped right up to the mike and proudly declared that they really wanted to end the war but couldn't put the troops at risk. Because as we all know troops simply stay in a firefight until all ammunition is gone, all rations are eaten, all fuel is spent, and so on until they are just standing naked and helpless on the battlefield. Many Dems naturally were quick to stake out their "NAY" votes then as proof of their anti-Bush and anti-war bonafides, too, despite failing in all the same ways to truly get their hands dirty and force Bush to back off.
And so here we are, in an environment where a disgraced President is able to ratchet up the fear and panic again to set the stage for yet another electoral coup and the jellyfish sometimes known as the Democrats can't bend over fast enough to let him. Do their clothes come with those old fashioned little buttoned down trap door type openings on kids pj's over their asses for easy access?
Once rights are taken from you, they are never given back.
SearingTruth@80 you said,
"Perhaps my message is too effective, and undeniable, so I’m being censored by those who wish to only see posts in support of the Democratic party on this board. I hear that many are calling for the abandonment of the Democrats since their betrayal of our nation, and they are very worried."
That's just not the case. It has nothing to do with your message or it's value. It's just a general rule re repetition and bandwith. Or a preference only for the democratic point of view. We're all after ideas and solutions just like you.
OReilly@81, you said in part,
"Bush will never be impeached because they cant do it.
He hasnt broken any laws."
Two wildly separate issues. Since your ability to reason has such a low ceiling I trust your constant re-injury to your head renders you more limited than you realize. We're embarrassed FOR you.....Sweetheart.
At least the Republicans voted in good conscience to destroy civil liberties.
Democrats or at least 41 of them are so stupid they didn't know what they voted on. So the story goes they got punked. WTF throw the goddamn fuckers out of the democratic party for being complete idiots!!! It makes me sick - sick I tell you.
DISCO INFERNO @ 94:
Is this an oxymoron?
TonyinLA @ 91:
You echo your founding fathers fellow patriot. Thank you.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
"However weak our country may be, I hope we shall never sacrifice our liberties."
Alexander Hamilton
"I wanted only a freedom for all that I had coveted for myself."
SearingTruth
Paul in LA @ 88:
Fellow patriot, you miss the entire point of The Constitution of the United States of America altogether.
It's not a matter of voting for which fascist bill rescinds more of our Constitutional rights than others. It's simply a matter of voting against all fascists bills, and upholding our Constitution at all cost.
Very, very, simple.
ST
"The depth of human compassion may be measured by how often they forgive their gods."
SearingTruth
"Their words could not be reconciled with their actions, and their weakness could not be reconciled with their duty."
SearingTruth
"I at once understood everything and nothing at all. A victory, accompanied by defeat. A war, with no prisoners. A threat, with no substance. A fear, with no end. A sorrow, with no comfort. And a land, with no freedom."
SearingTruth
Fellow patriots.
I honestly didn't know until a few minutes ago that this site was primarily sponsored by the Democrats to forward whatever they do.
I found this site by browsing the Internet, and thought it was concerned only with the freedom and liberty of Americans.
I didn't know they manipulated or cut off threads dependent upon the commands of their Democratic leaders.
I am so sorry for all loyal Americans, and wouldn't have participated in forums on this site if I had known they were controlled by any political party, Republican, Democrat, or whatever.
I have no political affiliation, and simply wish to forward freedom and truth, so look for me, and other patriotic Americans, elsewhere in the future.
ST
"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Site Monitor: This site is NOT sponsored by Democrats. This is the privately-owned blog of John Amato and the political viewpoints expressed here are his and his contributers.
Not-the-idiot Bill @ 90:
• Those are CONFIRMABLE FACTS I posted, unlike your characterization.
Not-the-idiot Bill @ 90:
Quite obviously not. The Speaker's bill would have at least given us a different bill to argue in conference with the Senate, but in the Senate there were 60 votes, easy, for their bill.
THAT IS, the same reason why impeachment is a hopeless cause -- not enough Senate votes -- is the same reason why Dems were not in a position to block as you claim.
• Not acknowledging the Speaker's efforts to close the loopholes while yet responding to the LEGALLY-BINDING effect of the DCI's finding, is YOUR propaganda. Hey folks, look at Bill failing to address the facts.
For a site not sponsored by Democrats, there sure seems to be a strong push in support of Democrats while simultaneously lambasting Republicans. Censorship, in this thread at least, has been overwhelming. When free speech is oppressed by zealotous "Site Monitors", I wonder how any reasonable debate -- or conclusions derived from a reasonable debate --- can possibly be achieved.
The U.S. Constitution isn't worth a wad of used toilet paper. The principles this nation were supposedly founded upon have been steadily undermined for more than 200 years. While it may seem that the last six years have been the worst, they were merely the continuation of a process that began in the 1790's.
You were lied to in civics class. This nation was not founded to be the land of the free. If it was, slavery would not have been enshrined in the Constitution. This nation was not founded on representative government. Who, in this government, in any way resembles people being governed? This nation was not founded upon opportunity. Robber Barons and the wealthy elite have waged a war to exploit the masses. When anything is discovered to have been illegal, they quickly pass a law making it legal, thereby absolving themselves of any crime. Freedom? None of you have it. If you did you wouldn't be agonizing over which of the lesser evils to "vote for".
Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
Not-the-idiot Bill @ 90:
Your rosy view of the House is only matched by your apparent ignorance of the Senate. 190 votes is a strong caucus vote, a rare solidarity.
Nothing except the Speaker's bill, which had the restrictions people are angry about losing in the bill that Kucinich and Waters saddled us with. But to claim the bill could be put on hold is spurious. The DCI reported to the Congress that there was a fundamental flaw in the FISA arrangement. Although that claim is also probably spurious, the fact is that the Congress cannot simply fail to act on such reports.
• It was possible to do so without weakening, even for six months, the 4th amendment. But PROGRESSIVES DIDN'T WANT ANY BILL, so what they got was a worse one. Thanks, Dennis!
"This reminds me of when the Dems caved on the war funding bill
Dems did not cave on the supplemental. We passed the bill with restrictions, Bush vetoed it, and with that veto, we lost the Blue Dogs (their ag perks in the first version were not enough for a veto override). So the House put minimum wage increases and aid to Katrina into a second bill, knowing that the military appropriations bill would be the big fight. Those funds would NOT have passed the Senate otherwise (the same 60 votes nay) -- this was an ACCOMPLISHMENT that gave a lot of poor Americans some relief from heartless Republican rule.
I protested on the street today, and I protest again tomorrow. What did you do, other than try to bash me for pointing out the FACTS that somehow all these fine leftists like Amy Goodman can't seem to do?
TonyinLA @ 91:
That's quite clearly untrue. Prohibition, for instance, removed your right to make beer in your barn. Though that right was taken away, a few years later it was RESTORED.
• Although Lincoln suspended habeus during the Civil War, those rights were restored afterward.
• Although Adams passed his Alien & Sedition Acts, the Sedition Act was sunsetted to the end of his term of office. So when he left office, the free speech rights he blocked were restored.
There are other examples. Why are you spreading such nonsense? Oh, yeah, to foster hysteria and a mood of disaffiliation which ignores the facts in favor of ANGER AT THE WRONG PEOPLE.
SearingTruth @ 96:
Compare John Adams' fine words to his actions:
"The Sedition Act (official title: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801." -- wikipedia
Adams himself asked for this law, because he felt that attacks on him and his policies while President threatened the new nation's rule of law. It is on this point that Adams and Jefferson broke (they later became friends as a result of Jefferson's work on the so-called Jefferson Bible).
There is also the Sedition act of 1918, under Wilson, which made it illegal to protest the war, and allowed the Postmaster to refuse to deliver mail to protesters. Hundreds of persons were arrested under this misguided effort. One might also mention the Palmer raids, and Cointelpro, as well as 2000's Bush v. Gore, which held that the states have the right to protect their electoral college votes at the expense of democracy. None of those actions were legal, and all reduced our rights, until they were reversed.
We are nearing another restoration of our rights. Pretending that once freedoms are taken away they are never restored, and then quoting Adams, is spurious (and ironic).
O Really @ 81:
So TWICE the SCOTUS has ruled that certain provisions to W.H. policies set forth by Bush concerning the detainment, treatment and the due process of captured prisoners are unconstitutional.
Bush's orders were ruled unconstitutional.
That's pretty illegal to me. YOU?
Is ordering of the unconstitutional treatment of persons, not charged with a crime nor found guilty of ANY crime, an American Principle?
Or how about ordering the ILLEGAL WARRENTLESS WIRETAPS of Americans? Sounds fairly unprincipled to me. YOU?
I could go on, but I'll spare you the humiliation.
.
Can someone please tell me where in the US Constitution it says the US Congress has the power & right to pass a law that gives the President permission to violate the 4th Amendment?
I naively thought the 4th Amendment was meant to prohibit all of the government from warrantless search etc.
Thankyou C&L for posting this. Amy is an incredibly smart, incisive interviewer who asks exactly the right questions. Marjorie & Glenn are arguably the 2 smartest, most incisive legal/constitutional minds around -anywhere- particularly on the subjects of FISA & the many versions, admitted & still-secret, of the TSP. Glenn Greenwald in particular has been following this issue with the unmatched zeal, righteous anger, thorough research, penetrating analysis & stirring eloquence one used to expect, but no longer receives, from the august pages of the NYT & WaPo. When the 1st Pullitzer goes to a blogger, I strongly suspect the deserving recepient will be Greenwald.
Keep up the great work. The Colbert & Daily Show clips you post already have me completely hooked to daily visits to your site. If you post more Greenwald - in any forum - I may have to start sending you money!
kevin @ 106:
Please read #103. This is FAR from the first time that Congress has passed bills which reduced our fundamental rights, going all the way back to 1798. There are several obvious examples.
[...] All Democrats Are Now Being Spied Upon [...]
Colbert on domestic spying ..directly on point as usual
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=90951
[...] country all the best in this time of constitutional destruction. America our rights our values our freedom and our dollar hang on the precipice. [...]
kevin @ 105:
Can someone please tell me where in the US Constitution it says the US Congress has the power & right to pass a law that gives the President permission to violate the 4th Amendment?
_______________________
These are Presidential Directives #51 has been deliberately confused.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Paraphrasing: (23) PD #51 was classified and hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directives.
(24) PD #51 parts that are classified cannot be shared legally with anybody. Annexes that are classified should be superseded and become part of the directives.
___________
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments supplement Constitutional guarantee against writs of habeas corpus, ex post facto laws and bills of attainder by providing a variety of procedural guarantees (often called due process rights) for those accused of crimes.
The 4th Amendment - the unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal govt., may not be searched unless a warrant is issued underscoring the Framers’ concern with possible govt. abuses.
Over the years, in a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow the police to search. Establishing the line between the government’s constitutional duty to provide for common defense and the secure the blessing of liberty is complicated. It becomes even more complex when those who threaten America’s national security use the freedom and rights found in the U.S.A. as a means through which to wage wars.
To help defend against those wishing to use the openness of American Society for harmful ends, the Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 or Terrorism Act of 2001 (Intercept).
The civil liberties concerns were renewed by Congress and signed into law by Bush in March 2006. Nevertheless, the act remains controversial. Does it help defend the U.S. against terrorist activity, or does it allow the govt. to abuse its power in the name of national security? Again, historically, it is used a guidelines during national emergencies.
_____
We had cold wars and the deadly second world wars and yet, we have not seen anything like the present day power grab from this admin.
Download youtube videos direct to your PC, iPod, PSP, iPhone, Mobile, Mac..etc for free.. Its fast
Check http://vconvert.net/
Convert to more popular format like .WMV .MOV, .MP4, .3GP, .MP3 etc
Login or Register to post comments.