Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

!!!BUSH SOUGHT WAR POWERS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:33 PM
Original message
!!!BUSH SOUGHT WAR POWERS IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 09:39 PM by kpete
Bush sought war powers IN the U.S.!!!

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04

Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority ``in the United States'' in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in Friday's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.

The Justice Department acknowledged Thursday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with ``the 'procedures' of'' the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, ``except as authorized by statute.''

Thursday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created a new exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled ``Authorization for the Use of Military Force,'' made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/222857/78
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Whoooooaaaa!!!
Kick & Recommend!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ah, that explaines Daschle's little mail problem
Right after 911. Wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. you mean that anthrax incident?
it`s seems so long ago and so far away.......

funny.. some how they cannot track down someone who had access to dept of defense grade anthrax. we will never know who murdered innocent american citizens to intimidate the senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
53. Or maybe we will...
When (and if) we find out the entire truth about the last 4 years, it might be too much for Americans to handle.

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. Exactly. It will be too horrible. We have all been raised to believe that
it couldn't happen here. We saved the world. We're the good guys. It's in our blood. We're not capable. The neocons are exploiting that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordmadr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
157. They have had their plan in plac from the beginning. They
don't intend to give power away, even when the new Presidential election is due.

Olafr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #53
108. make your hair stand on end!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #53
172. It is heart wrenching and empowering to realize each new betrayal.
I've cried myself to sleep on more than one occassion.

I especially felt that the war on New Orleans was particularly unjustified and even though I got mad soon after, my first response was simply to drop to the floor sobbing when I read about the DNR turning most of the floatilla away and letting old people in rest homes die out there simply because they were poor and/or black.

How do we NAIL these facts to this administration though? I want this bozo IMPEACHED.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pagandem4justice Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #172
278. I did too, Tigress
I, too, sobbed at the events in NOLA. Every time I think that I'm hardened, jaded, cynical enough to handle this administration's BS, they do something even more egregious. And then I get angry at myself for thinking that I should, or could, harden myself against this outrage. But I get so tired sometimes, so depressed and angry.

This should NOT be happening in our country! I am sick to death of being called unpatriotic for caring about my country!

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #53
226. Maybe, Maybe Not...
..."it might be too much for Americans to handle."

Maybe, maybe not. The truth will set us free," right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stubtoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #226
252. Right on, Aunti!
We can handle it I'm sure. It won't be easy but it will be necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #53
248. They'll keep that information classified so as not to upset the public...
We are SO very delicate you know. Even the angry Dem's and Independents believe America can't handle the whole truth about anything. They will "protect" * using the excuse they are protecting us. I guarantee it. I don't ever expect then to publicly make any links regarding the anthrax, or for that matter the reality of 911 itself.

"You can't handle the truth" is still they way they operate, regardless of party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
148. the arrow points to OSP and none other...
While I have no proof, my gut points me there and I would even suggest that Michael Ledeen got some of his old fascist buddies from P2 to help deliver the packages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #148
181. OSP?
I feel dumb asking. What or who is OSP?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #181
188. Office of Special Projects, I think.
Either that or Special Plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #188
201. Good enough! THANKS! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. Wow is right!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. interesting you should say that--here's a timeline
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:26 PM by librechik
a refresher course from Wikipedia--

remember they turned Shrub down on Sep 18

Timeline of anthrax attacks:

* September 11, 2001 attacks

* September 17 or September 18: Attack #1 - Five anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed around this time (Trenton, New Jersey postmark dated September 18), targeting news media: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all in New York City; and the National Enquirer at American Media, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida, which publishes supermarket tabloids. (Only the New York Post and NBC News letters were actually found; the existence of the other three letters is inferred from the pattern of infection).

* September 22-October 1: Nine people contract anthrax, but are not correctly diagnosed at this time.

* October 1: American Media mail clerk Ernesto Blanco is hospitalized and diagnosed with pneumonia (in fact, he has inhalation anthrax).

* October 2: Robert Stevens, a photo editor at the American Media Inc. tabloid Sun in Boca Raton, Florida, is admitted to the John F. Kennedy Hospital emergency room in Atlantis, Florida presenting disorientation, a high fever, vomiting and inability to speak.

* October 4: Robert Stevens is publicly confirmed to have inhalation anthrax. It is the first known case of inhalation anthrax in the U.S. since 1976. United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson downplays terrorism as a possible cause, suggesting Stevens may have contracted anthrax by drinking water from a stream. Officials emphasize that since anthrax is not contagious, there is no reason for public concern.

* October 5: Robert Stevens, 63, dies, the first fatality in the anthrax attacks.

* October 7: Anthrax spores are found on Robert Stevens's computer keyboard. The American Media building is closed and workers are tested for exposure.

* October 6-October 9: Attack #2 - Some time within this range, two more anthrax letters are mailed (Trenton, New Jersey postmark dated October 9), targeting Senators Daschle and Leahy. (Monday, October 8, was Columbus Day, hence no mail pickup).

* October 12: The (already opened) anthrax letter to NBC News is found and turned over to the FBI. Only a trace amount of anthrax remains in the letter.

* October 13: The NBC News letter tests positive for anthrax.

* October 15: The letter to Senator Daschle is opened. The anthrax in the letter was described as a "fine, light tan powder" which easily flew into the air.

* October 17: 31 Capitol workers (five Capitol police officers, three Russ Feingold staffers, 23 Tom Daschle staffers), test positive for the presence of anthrax (presumably via nasal swabs, etc.). Feingold's office is behind Daschle's in the Hart Senate Building. Anthrax spores are found in a Senate mailroom located in an office building near the Capitol. There are rumors that anthrax was found in the ventilation system of the Capitol building itself. The House of Representatives announces it will adjourn in response to the threat...


wow "War powers in the US"

just wow

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lildreamer316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
62. RESEARCH FORUM for you too please..
potent stuff. make sure this is recorded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
102. Thanks for posting the timeline - good stuff there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
109. What did Stevens do?
what was he going to publish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. nothing really
only speculation about that--the magazine had previously published pics of drunk Bush twins, but that was long ag ago, No shortage of theories and daydreams on this subject if you google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #117
205. sounds interesting
I'll google
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #34
141. WHITE HOUSE DODGES ANTHRAX QUESTIONS
Bush Administration Stonewalls On Production of
Documents Concerning Decision to Put Staff on Cipro
Beginning September 11, 2001

http://www.judicialwatch.org/2953.shtml

----

White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax
By Sandra Sobieraj
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001; 8:11 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON President Bush said confidently Tuesday that "I don't have anthrax" after biohazard testing at the White House and the discovery of anthrax on a mail-opening machine at a screening facility six miles away.

All White House mail more than 40,000 letters a week is examined at military facilities across the Potomac River.

"Let me put it this way," Bush said. "I'm confident that when I come to work tomorrow, I'll be safe."

Asked if he was tested for the germ that has killed three people already this month, or if he was taking precautionary antibiotics, Bush replied simply: "I don't have anthrax."

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved.

At that time, nobody could guess the dimensions of the terrorists' plot.

Now, Bush said on Tuesday, "There's no question that the evil-doers are continuing to try to harm America and Americans."

CON'T-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #141
274. For people with their heads buried in the sand ...
... the White House became VERY prescient on the night of September 11th. One has to wonder why the President's staff didn't get the same treatment.

Perhaps it was Cheney's staff who had to deal with the letter mailers and hence had to shield themselves from exposure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
276. Let's not forget about Paul Wellstone ...
... that storm just up came and dissapeared and the response was johnny on the spot before anyone could comprehend what went on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheGunslinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
143. Scary shit, no doubt! Damn!
This administration is filled with criminals fueled solely by a greed for power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
264. Indeed! We think alike. I felt this way immediately.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julius Civitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
280. Exactly!!! It puts certain things in perspective!
I wonder if Leahy also questioned this "war in America" clause, just like Daschle.

Things look mighty suspicious here.

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's the Wapo link..the story is up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. When you think no more wheels are on the cart
pop goes another one.

At the same time the dots are forming letters.

I M P E A C H

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
43. MIHOP II
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Holy smokes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. Horrifying --
snip>

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. In summary, DON'T FUCK WITH DASCHLE.
Thanks Tom.

Give Congress a call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. BUSH. IS. TOAST!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. Jesus help us. I can't remember the last time I thought that. Is this as
big as I think it is? MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. wow!!!!!
Lying SOBs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Wow.... Another quick snip here:
Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
46. But did you actually figure it out then, Tom?
Did you actually realize what we were dealing with? Because I don't recall what you said about it then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #46
55. Can't answer for him, but it sounds like he denied that 1 power grab, then
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:22 PM by pinto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
101. "minutes before the Senate cast its vote" ...!!
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 11:08 PM by TahitiNut
This is part of the MO ... last minute, eleventh hour, in the middle of the night ... sneak attacks on legislation so (the opposition in) Congress doesn't have the chance to give due consideration and debate to such measures. This Bum's Rush has been the hallmark of several legislative abominations, including the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

These people rely on fraud, deceit, secrecy, and duplicity. They are dishonorable people acting on behalf of a dishonorable power base in the electorate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #101
177. Their "push to vote now!" MO or as I call it, "sign the BLANK Check...
we'll fill in the exact cost and petty little details so you don't have to claim knowledge of the extent of our destruction of the US of A".

"Don't worry about "dollar or lives sacrificed amount" and while we won't tell you which "civil liberties are scuttled" you don't have to stay up until 3 in the morning behind closed doors making America "safer". ( We wouldn't let you into our clandestine meetings anyway, so just vote on the floor and let us doctor it up later.)

THIS MO is why I think even sincere DEMs wound up on the wrong side of a lot of votes, because the content changed AFTER they voted and the shit storm was relentless, so it was hard to fathom directly how much more something would change after it had "supposedly been voted on."

I think we need an amendment to make that ENTIRELY illegal, punishable via guillotine within 24 hours of ANY organized clandestine action taken to circumvent the full floor vote's outcome. OK, that MAY be a bit harsh. LOCK EM UP!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #177
225. Then they say that "dems had all the same information" crap.
Here, sign this quick, don't bother to read it, besides we can't tell you what's all in it, but we need it in a hurry, trust us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phusion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. holy shit
Welkuhm to ze New World Order

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why isn't this in LBN? n/t
MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. Suddenly Visualizing IMPEACHMENT a lot clearer now.
Wow. Just wow.

Never Give Up.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
57. Impeachment won't do a damn thing with this Junta......
They won't even sneeze or bat an eyelash.

You need to arrest them via a warrant "without bail" for the crimes committed.

You need to prosecute and convict.

Impeachment doesn't do anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Exactly. No more pardons. No more wrist slapping.
It turned out, it was NOT for the good of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #57
83. What exactly is your point?
Give up? Resistance is futile?

Yeah, whatever.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #83
187. It seems to me the point was, MORE than IMPEACHMENT, not less.
That these crimes they are committing require them to be locked up, sent to the Hague or something so they don't have access to circumvent OUR DUE PROCESS.

That's how I read the post

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #57
112. That's exactly right .. but uncontemplated in our laws.
This is the insidious nature of a sockpuppet with Narcissistic Personality Disorder being manipulated by a cabal headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld, neither of whom have much life left to lose by life imprisonment. Mortimer Smirk is an ablative - a firewall that it will take this nation much energy to burn through. As such, I doubt he's intended to last for the full eight years. Clearly, he'll be martyred - sooner or later. The "hole card" we need to know is: Whom do they have in the batter's box, ready to take over as a stage prop? It's not Cheney. I doubt it's even Hastert. Ted Stevens? They have some 'play' (replacing Cheney?) figured out that takes it out of the normal Presidential succession, methinks.


* The Vice President Richard Cheney
* Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
* President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
* Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
* Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
* Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (ineligible)
* Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (ineligible)
* Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
* Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
* Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
* Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #112
189. Secs of Commerce and Labor ineligible for what? Succession or Impeach?
AND how many more to go until we get to Harry Reid - Senate Minority Leader - as interm pres replacement after all the crooks have been targeted for impeachment and have to step down?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #189
198. Ineligible for succession. Both were foreign-born and naturalized.
That's the complete list of Presidential Succession. Transportation is the only Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #112
214. So what are your plans for the US, Pres Norman Yoshio Mineta?
Sounds a little funny, but as an interm pres it beats the contenders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #57
162. My own evil fantasy in this matter
involves *, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, etc., each taking the part of Warden Norton in Shawshank Redemption, just as that congressional delegation arrives to tell them it's time to resign or that team of federal marshalls comes to arrest their asses. Better than spin art, baby! I can't believe I can laugh about hateful things like that, but what else are you going to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #162
191. OOH! OOH! Evil fantasy time!
Here's the rub. I'm a peaceful person, so this is only a fantasy.

BUT.... since they FINALLY made Lynching a federal offense (not for those 100+ years of ignoring the plight of blacks in the South up against the KKK, but because they felt the necktie party coming for them, don't you know?)

Here is my question, is death by guillotine as the French did to their corrupt monarchy and elitist dictatorial overlords considered to be LYNCHING?

I mean, I couldn't bring myself to the actual act and would feel compelled to assist the scum of Satan's boots who would be up on such a platform and beg for reason and full life sentences to the Hague or Guantanamo Bay for them...

But as a fantasy. Sigh.

It would be a whole lot easier if we were a hate filled mob bent on vengeance instead of peaceful Americans who just want our Constitution respected instead of pissed upon and our Bill of Rights back to their full original import.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #191
259. I'm a peaceful person too
sometimes it scares me to look at myself and see the hatred that has grown in me for these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #191
260. I'm against capital punishment so how about this:
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 11:50 AM by mod mom
After reading of Dostoyevsky's experience of waiting to be executed and then a final minute reprieve, I've always thought this was a pretty harsh punishment. How about something like this with a life sentence afterward. Of course there is always the idea of allowing the poor innocent Iraqis decide by turning them over to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #57
183. Wouldn't it remove the safety net for the ICC?
Maybe we need to just see him "renditioned" to one of those countries that has declared him a war criminal. And his DAWGS too.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
136. LOL Ain't it the truth Class...all of the sudden, my vision is
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 12:14 AM by texpatriot2004
fine tuned... :D

Perseverance pays off eh. NGU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
179. Let's chant! "LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"


"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"


"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"


"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"


"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"



"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"



"LIAR, Coward! Say it a little LOUDER!"


"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"

"LIAR!!"


IMPEACH!!!!

IMPEACH!!!!

IMPEACH!!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoKnLoD Donating Member (923 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. Planning preemptive war right after 9/11
"Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks"

Kind of fits right in with the Downing Street Memos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
159. You know, I've never been a believer of the "MIHOP".....
mind set, it always seemed extremely irrational and considering the number of people needed to pull it off and then remain silent about it afterward, damned near impossible. But now.........
If not "MIHOP", then certainly, "LIHOP". This was a power grab of the highest order and they seemed all too prepared in advance for a seamless segue into their absolute power mode.
These are truly evil people. I now believe these people are capable of anything, even something as diabolical as "MIHOP".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #159
176. Didn't Clarke say that Bush was
going around that week or just days after 911 saying they had to take out Saddam? Personally, I think this was the plan all along.

MIHOP makes more sense than arguments against it given what we have learned these last two months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #176
194. Wesley Clark
Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #194
207. No, Richard Clarke - in his position as
WH Terrorist Czar. Wesley C may have said it as well but Richard was a witness to WH discussions after 911:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/mai...
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #207
273. Sorry, I thought you meant this stuff from the primaries
(Meet the Press, June 2003, Wesley Clark)

Clark told host Tim Russert that "there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." When Russert asked "By who? Who did that?" Clark stated that:

Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But--I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.


(Rolling Stone September 25, 2003 Wesley Clark)

I went to the Pentagon nine days after the attacks and called on a man with three stars who used to work for me. He said, "Sir, I have to ask you, have you heard the joke going through the halls?" I said, "No, what is it?" He said, "It goes like this: If Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, too bad. He should have, 'cause we're going to get him anyway." He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we both knew that it would be a classic mistake if we did that.

I was relieved when we attacked Afghanistan, but I went back to the Pentagon as that war was going on, and this same guy said to me, "Oh, yes, sir, not only is it Afghanistan. There's a list of countries. We're not that good at fighting terrorists, so we're going after states: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran. There's a five-year plan." From that moment on, I couldn't believe anymore that I was just a retired general of the United States Army. I saw something wrong, but I couldn't get anyone to listen, so I started to speak out last September in a vocal way."


(Meet the Press November 16, 2003 Wesley Clark)

When we went into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, CENTCOM was already planning the operation in Iraq. Instead of planning how to get Osama bin Laden, instead of putting the U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan to finish the fight against al-Qaeda and bring back Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, we had our top leadership distracted in preparing what to do about Saddam Hussein. And then, when we could have put the U.S. troops in, we withheld them, because there was uncertainty as to how long we would be in Afghanistan and how soon we might need those troops to go into Iraq.


(New Yorker November 17, 2003 Wesley Clark)

Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.


Anyway, there's a lot more like this and he wrote about it in his book earlier in 2003, as well. Clark and Clarke, by the way, are friends and I understand they talked this all over back then. When Clarke was considering breaking out on this, Wes encouraged him to go public.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #194
212. Wasn't it Richard Clarke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #194
287. Wes Clark in 2003, and Richard Clarke in 2004 (at Wes's urging among
other reasons). Both of them were attacked by the WH as conspiracy nuts, in spite of an article in Time Magazine about W overheard sreaming about the WH: "Fuck Saddam, he's going down!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #159
184. MIHOP MIHOP MIHOP MIHOP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #184
192. OK. I'm stupid. MIHOP? Military Incursion Hassling Only Patriots?
Martian Insurgents Holographicly Operating President?

Mice In (the) Honey OMIG Puke!

No seriously. What does MIHOP stand for?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #192
193. Made it happen on purpose! 9/11 anthrax attacks every damn incident!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #193
199. Ah, thanks. Like letting Osama's family fly coop...
After commercial flights reinstated, but before American's like John Travolta et al with personal planes could get up in the air without being shot.

If he'd seriously wanted Osama, he could have kept the family in a diplomatic hotel and made Osam surrender himself in exchange.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #199
202. He's "the wo precedent"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #202
206. Or the Anti Christ.
I saw some religious ad on TV and they are so EXCITED about what's happening in the world today as evidence that we are in the last days and such.

I'm a Christian, but they make me sick.

There is also verse in the Bible about Virgins going to a Wedding and running out of oil, falling asleep etc and wondering why they missed Christ's return or were turned away.

These supposed Christians are hurrying along the activities of the very type of scum that brings about the devastation of Armagedon and patting themselves on the back, like they are doing something good. Creepy.

Real Christians are suffering to see this evil administration flourish and are scrambling to "feed His sheep". Taking up the slack and wondering when our backs or spirits will break from the strain.

It's a bizzare Christmas.

Let's put the Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men back in Christmas, huh? Wouldn't THAT make sense?

Let's quit using the Prince of Peace to advocate sensless wars with anyone we dislike a lot.

Sorry. Rant over.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #206
229. Love this rant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #202
208. You mean 'woe', don't you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #208
215. maybe w/o prescedent (without prescedent)
he's certainly done things w/o prescedent.... every time I think I know how low he can stoop, more is revealed. that man is a political contortionist.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #215
221. Ooooh. I like these new nicknames.
Too bad EarlG locked the * nickname thread in the Research Forum. Did he think our creativity was maxed on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #215
286. good toooo. Personally I think he's the suck a fart from my ass president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #208
245. Either, just a letter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #192
234. Make It Happen On Purpose
As in Sept 11 was an inside job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #159
275. The whole Anthrax thing ...

The whole Anthrax thing is really starting to come into focus.

I truly believe these assholes are trying to turn our corrupt two party system into a bought and paid for one party system with no chance of voting out the opposition via the use of rigged voting machines.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #159
290. It definitely bolsters the case, doesn't it?
I've been a pretty firm believer of LIHOP for quite some time now myself, and this latest (and I think most damning) tidbit from Daschle completely cements it for me. Clearly they were looking for an unprecedented power grab, and 9/11 provided the pretext, so they are either very, VERY lucky, or...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
17. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier..."
"just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
235. heh heh heh
don't forget the creepy laugh.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier...just so long as I'm the dictator-heh heh heh." -- George W. Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. wow! So what happens now?
Gonzales is way to close to Bush to do anything about this. There needs to be a special prosecutor for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Someone in another thread said that Jerry Naddler has requested one
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
185. All I want for Fitzmas is my Country Back, my COUNTRY Back! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hwmnbn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
19. So the chimp KNEW!!!...
He asked for war powers (eavesdropping) inside the U.S. and Congress specifically said hell no. How much more smoking can this gun be?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
20. Another Lie du Jour debunked!
They keep spinning new crap excuses by the hour to cover for Bush's confession to felonies on TV.

It's getting to where they are running out of excuses and credibility.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
21. TREASON!
U.S. Constitution

Section. 3.

Clause 1: 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
161. Confessing on TV in front of millions of viewers doesn't count?
Shit, you mean we have to go through the time and expense of putting the giggling murder monkey on trial? He's guilty as sin, everyone knows it but that's not good enough, huh? Rats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #161
195. Him and all his henchmonkeys. We need it on record. So NO ONE Forgets.
If we are by some miracle or other suitable magnificant metaphor able to "pin the truth" on these guys and make it stick to them like a dead chicken tied around their necks* for the length of a trial, then maybe all those political chicken killin' varmits will take note and live in fear for the next 150 years or so. (idea swiped from Mollie Ivins).

These bozos should have a full trial to make them as shunned and ridiculed as OJ or Michael Jackson. But their trials should END in the Hague.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #161
257. Well, he's gonna find it very hard at this point to deny it in court.
with the recording running over and over again right in front of his face. The clincher is that even if he's dragged off in chains he'll likely go down backed by fanatics saying "well he didn't lie under oath like Clinton did."

I actually feel sorry for some of these people that don't realize they have been brainwashed into protecting the real terrorist (bush) at all costs. I really don't think most of them understand that is truly what they are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. I had to read that twice. I didn't even get it the first time.
Within the United States.

As if the war resolution weren't enough.

What is it these people want?! Total and complete control?!

After all, Saddam and Bin Laden, and all of the Yellow Cakes one could want, are not within the United States borders.

So who was he thinking of declaring war on? My 82 year old father? My cat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
76. Who was he thinking of declaring war on?
You, Gregorian. You.

And everyone who thinks like you. I, for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #76
196. DEMs of course.
Poor, blacks, women, imigrants anyone who gets in their way of full and unrelenting power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daphne08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
163. Same here. I can't believe they would be so blatant.
Thank God they weren't allowed to do it (what they have done is bad enough)!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
272. This story gives a whole new meaning . . .
. . . to the idea that there are secret FEMA internment camps across the United States; a minimum of 130 and possibly as many as 700 or more fully operational facilities. Some were put into use after Katrina, to temporarily house the "refugees".

"Civilian internment camps or prison camps, more commonly known as concentration camps, have been the subject of much rumor and speculation during the past few years in America. Several publications have devoted space to the topic and many talk radio programs have dealt with the issue.

However, Congressman Henry Gonzales (D, Texas) clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview the congressman stated, "the truth is yes - you do have these stand by provisions, and the plans are here...whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism...evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps."


http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/camp9-9...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

TYY

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."
Donald Rumsfeld, February 12, 2002 Press Conference at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. "in the United States" - bone chilling. They tried to tack this on at
the last moment.

God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
24. JEEBUS, Tom!
"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

And you're just tellin us now? Or did the Corporate media suppress the story?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. I have to wonder about Daschle's ability to get his hands on
the official records. I assume they remained in DC - he probably had to get them released by the current leadership and it took a few days. Daschle knows better than to make a public statement without the written record - the media and Rove will spin him a new one, call him a liar and it would have just a one day cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hwmnbn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #36
154. That's exactly what I thought....
Apparently Daschle's comments are from an opinion piece he wrote. Whatever documentation he has as back-up would have to be public record IF IT STILL EXISTS.

He was the Senate majority leader during this time frame. Who else would be involved in these "last minute" negotiations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
197. Guess we need to whip it up to a frenzy then. MEDiA BLITZ!!!!
Kudo's to WAPO for publishing the truth!

OP EDs about the reality of having a pRes who would DECLARE WAR on His OWN People!

Can/should we get something out there to MOVE ON.org?

Activist Item?

IDEAS anyone?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #36
218. A while?
4+ years to secure records when he was the majority leader at the time this happened? I don't think so.

Unless I really missed the ball here, this happened late Sept 2001. While I'm happy it's comming out now, I'm pissed it wasnt made a huge issue in 2001.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #218
269. Why are you pissed about it not being a huge issue in 2001?
The Dems kept the language the WH wanted out of the resolution - non story at the time. It only became a story recently with the leak about NSA doing the illegal taps. In other words it just came to light that the WH has been ignoring the "limits" of the resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #218
291. LIVE (literally!) to fight another day!
Don't you get it?! The Dems had NO choice but to pick their battles VERY carefully and lay low until the political climate changed--as it has--to tell their story. I don't think some people fully comprehend just how far Cheney, et al. were planning to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
25. Can some one write it out how bush wanted it. I am a little confused. tx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Bush Wanted Congress to Grant HIM Authority to Exercise Military FORCE
WITHIN THE U.S. He wanted to put the U.S. into a State of Military Control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I got that part, but wanted to see how he actually wanted it written, that
what's confusing me.

Thanks!!!!!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
49. He wanted to do here what he did in Afghanistan. Literally.
He wanted to make all Americans subject to arrest as armed combatants.

And nobody would know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. Okay I'll try it myself.........

If it got changed to how bush wanted it, would it have read like this?

"to use all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. Oh, I see. You're trying to fit the words in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Right, how'd I do?? nt
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. Here's the full text. It might be easier to fit it in here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #70
81. You got it exactly right.
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:51 PM by Pirate Smile

the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force 'in the United States and' against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.




Daschle's column:


Power We Didn't Grant

By Tom Daschle

Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #58
72. I don't think the article includes enough of the text to make the
adjustments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. It's all coming out!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. Tomorrow's Friday. I wonder what else will be dumped?
Actually, I'm pretty leery of what will be dumped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
30. kpete, I put this in LBN, full credit to you. Thanks for the heads up.
I still can't f***ing believe it, even from this WH. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wherewingstakedream Donating Member (485 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
31. This evil little twit
and his entire cabal must be removed from office as soon as possible!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. um, wow
most things don't shock me but, wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. O.M.G. Bush wanted total control and he thought he had it too!
He can't fucking read! No wonder, he was eardroping on people! Bush is very scary man and he need to be impeached!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. he knew he didn't have it but so what?
bush gets what he wants, the privilged little bastard always has
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkiGuy Donating Member (451 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
38. This story better be in more than just WaPo tommorrow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. We need to do a big round of emailing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Rabble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
40. This just keeps getting better! K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
41. Why Couldn't Daschel Get this OUT LAST YEAR During the Campaign?!?!
Something isn't right with this. This would have DESTROYED Bush's chances... was Daschel being threatened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Given what's been revealed, I'd say yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #41
69. During the campaign,
it wasn't common knowledge about NSA spying domestically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
110. Don't think he'd have been hurt much
especially since illegal spying wasn't outed yet.

Surely bush would explain that just as hijackers were here there could be other evil-doers just awaiting orders and he had to protect America and blah, blah.

In fact they were probably surprised that congress rejected it at the height of 9/11 paranoia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cry baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
122. these negotiations may have been "classified".
He may not have been able to talk about them until now. If the conversations were classified, I wonder if Daschle will get in trouble for revealing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #122
130. I hope so.
(Bring 'em on.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #41
145. WaPo said Daschle received about $42,000 from Abramoff - was he being
blackmailed about this money and kept silent by the Administration? Can't rule out the possibility. What other connections do we not know about? By the way, Harry Reid also got $47,000 from Abramoff.

There's a lot of very disturbing info about Dems as well as GOPs in this Wash Post graphic of where Abramoff's money went:


I've been planning to post a thread on this - there was one some time back but people have forgotten and this is important:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (12/12): WAPO-GREAT GRAPHIC Showing $$$ Flowing From Abramoff to Congress

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #145
155. we can only benefit from a total cleansing
If all these numbers are accurate (so far I've only heard Harry Reid defend himself and hope he was telling the truth, but I try to keep an open mind), more Republicans than Democrats are involved, AND we want to get the slimy people out of Washington whatever color they are. So it's all good that this is coming out.

That's the difference between us and the freepers. Country before party, not vice versa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #155
210. Make all campaign financing public money
The current system is legalized influence peddling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #210
213. Agree! 100% Plus - limit the ad times and make them stump it...
if they want to put more into the election they should take it to town halls and face to face, deal with WE the people - no holds barred, no select audiences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #155
211. yeah, just don't throw the baby out with the bath water...
need to take an honest look at who was involved and what was their involvement and prosecute all equally is right.

Daschale and Reid were both close to the Anthrax attack and who knows what else? I'd just like to have the facts and a fair hearing for all and dispense justice to those who had any recourse to avoid these things and especially those who put up obstacles or threatened our elected officials and kept them from being able to do the job we elected them to do without fear for their lives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blackspade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #145
232. this graphic is extremely misleading
The thing I find interesting is that they are lumping money from the tribes in with abramoff et al.

This deliberately clouds the issue and makes it seem like the democrats are 'doing the same thing' as the republicans.
The specific source of the money to each politician in this case is important for the context of the story.
Accepting contributions from indian tribes is not illegal.
Also, just because the tribes made political contributions and were clients of abramoff does not necessarily link Democrats to abramoff or his cronies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #41
203. ANTHRAX - - Posts #9 and #34 for example.
He voted against putting those powers in the text and his office got mail with Antrhrax in it.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
45. Is it in writing somewhere ?
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:17 PM by kentuck
Did someone take notes? Or is it Daschle's word against the Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. I'm sure there is original copy of that paper Bush try to sneak in.
Senate's keep all copies of everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. It would have been part of the record, one would think.
Some kind of Congressional record. He had to submit this in writing. Even if it were spoken, it would be part of the record. Otherwise this is just heresay on the part of Daschle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Daschle can't be the only one in the senate involved
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I think Trent Lott was the Minority Leader at that time?
Then became the Majority Leader in 2002?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
270. Bingo - Lott wants to be Majority leader again. He will keep
quiet about what he knows if the WH will support him in that effort. If they don't give him what he wants he might start singing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #270
277. After he rebuilds his porch ...

Perhaps him and GW can sort that out on Daschle's new porch over some Lemonade while New Orleans refugees fume in mobile homes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
131. Republicans could not be reached for comment
Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #45
160. If Dashle was smart, a copy is sitting in a safe deposit box. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
47. Holy shit! Un-fucking-believable.
Now that we see the kind of tyranny chimp-fucker has wielded without "in the United States", just imagine if those four words were inserted.

All politics and legalities aside, this is beyond chilling!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
48. How does this hurt Bush? Aside from the obvious.
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:19 PM by Gregorian
It's not a crime to ask for totalitarian control. Or is this closer to actual treason than I think?

If anything I find it very odd that it took four years for this to surface. Why the total silence, I wonder.

edit- Obviously one knows how this hurts Bush. But it's not like he actually attacked within the US with the armed forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. It hurts him in TWO ways:
1. He's claimed that he asked for and RECEIVED permission from congress to do WARENTLESS wiretaps. But this release by Daschel is a CONTRADICTION of that...

2. It hurts him Politically, showing that, right on the HEELS of 9/11 he was seeking TOTALITARIAN control, which he has publically denied HUNDREDS of TIMES.

Republicans are going to have a difficult time standing by their man who is appearing MORE AND MORE like a Dictator WANNABE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
98. And, as far as I can tell, the War Powers Act requires that
* report his would-be domestic activities to the appropriate committees of Congress. Did that occur? Is that what Rockefeller was harping on?

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #98
118. The War Powers Act specifically refers to armed forces in hostilities
outside the United States. It's not in any sense about domestic spying on US citizens inside the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. No, actually the War Powers Act repeatedly uses the word SITUATIONS,
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 11:46 PM by BuyingThyme
as in "into hostilities, or into situations."

This is from the resolution by which Bush claims his authority:

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

This is at the end of the resolution in question (the terra resolution):

(2) Applicability of Other Requirements Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The joint resolution by which Bush asserts his right to spy on Americans was written according the requirements of the War Powers Act.

Remember, I'm not the one making the argument about spying; Bush is making the argument based on the War Powers Act and the use-of-force resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
61. At the very least, it shows that Congress explicitly denied the authority
that he is now claiming. This cuts the legs right out of their argument that such sweeping inherent powers belong with the commander-in-chief.

If he already had the power, why request it in the first place. Then...even after that power is denied...he wielded it anyway...!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
63. it hurts Bush because........
.....by admitting that they did this, he has proven that his administration broke the law!! This coming from a man who swore to uphold the Constitution, not defy it!!

I guess he didn't actually think about what those words meant before he said them........

True, it is odd that it took them 4 yrs to tell us, we're just lucky that he finally admitted to it now! I'm sure we never would have found out about it if not for the NY Times.

I'm not sure if it's treason, but if not, it's pretty close!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToolTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #48
168. He violated the Constitution, man. He violated the 4th Amendment!
He is sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution. He didn't just ask for totalitarian control, he is exercising totalitarian control by wiretapping We American People.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #48
173. Seeking to wage war against the United States IS TREASON.
*pounds fists* We should have known about this long ago!!! A POTUS seeking to wage war against the USA is horrific!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
51. scary stuff! it's all coming out... interesting this is on A04
seems like should be in big bold page one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. That was what I was thinking. Why the hell isn't this on A-1!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lildreamer316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
60. RESEARCH FORUM
Make sure this idea/conclusion isn't lost in the shuffle please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushies gotta go Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
66. This explains a lot
This sure does explain a lot about why he was demanding that Blanco turn over authority to the military.... hmmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. This was the KEYSTONE piece that PUTS IT ALL TOGETHER...
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:31 PM by berni_mccoy
Like Watergate's "Follow the Money", SPYGATE is all about "Follow the Powergrab"

Bush has been GUNNING FOR DICTORIAL POWER IN THE U.S. Since DAY ONE. He NEVER wanted to be PRESIDENT, he wanted to be KING GEORGE.

We NEED A 2ND REVOLUTION AGAINST THE NEW KING GEORGE! And it Needs to start in CONGRESS WITH IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #66
97. Exactly. He wants total miltary control over the citizens of the USA.
Welcome to DU Bushies gotta go! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushies gotta go Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #97
111. Thanks and...
If a tenth of the last four months events were known in 2004, we'd be a whole lot better off.

I don't know much about the Hill but I can only assume Daschle has come forward BECAUSE of recent events. I assume he was under some type of oath or secrecy up until now. Maybe he came forth knowing and not caring that he will face some type of legal action as a result? If that is so, maybe he just doesn't care about what happens to him but feels a deeper sense of urgency in protecting our country from *.

I'm not all that new here, ended up just lurking for the last 6 months. When I tried to log in under my original user name, I found it had been terminated. I guess I disagreed with somebody and was labeled a freeper... LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #111
139. I agree that Daschle has recently gained a spine. He may be free to speak
Advice to you : read the DU rules and keep making thoughtful and well-reasoned posts and you'll be OK. :)

Seasons Greetings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
68. That shoots down one/half of their argument...
They said that Bush had authority from the Resolution passed by Congress. If what Daschle says is true, and there is no reason to believe it is not true, then their only argument left is that the Constitution gives the President the "inherent" authority according the Constitution? But he is "Commander in Chief" over the military forces, not all the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
73. Daschle's revenge
Love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oversea Visitor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
75. Only
The USA Congress can declare war. So the Question is did the Congress ever declare war on IRAQ.
If the President declare war on Iraq did the Congress then act to prevent this because they never did. If not then WTF happen.

Bottomline poor American what a fucking mess>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. No
they authorized the president to use force concerning the UN resolutions if diplomacy failed. No formal declaration of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anitar1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #75
113. Be glad you are not living here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oversea Visitor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #113
128. Nothing to be glad on that
If you guys lose the world in for some sad time.
We now depending on the good American people to stop the madness.
You fail. We fail. Just more bloody wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #128
282. We won't fail.
It will just take time - a long time - to set things right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
78. THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 10:37 PM by peanutbrittle
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html

THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT

_______________

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES




New here and happened to run accross this which discusses warrantless searches and presidential power

Not sure if this can help but thought I would pass it along

It discusses, in depth "US persons" warrantless searches, specific court cases, USC Codes etc

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Thank you...
...and welcome to DU ! ! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. Thank you and welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. The President Has Inherent Authoritv to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Sur

The main document also discusses Title III ?????

From http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html



A. The President Has Inherent Authoritv to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Protect National Security from Foreign Threats.
In considering the constitutionality of the amended FISA, it is important to understand that FISA is not required by the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority. Both before and after the enactment of FISA, courts have recognized the President's inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. See, e.g., Butenko, 494 F.2d at 608 (grounding exception to warrant requirement in the President's Commander-in-chief and foreign-affairs powers; noting that the country's self-defense needs weigh on the side of reasonableness); Truong, 629 F.2d at 914 (citing the President's foreign affairs power as justifying an exception to the warrant requirement); cf. United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972)(reserving the question whether the President's foreign-affairs powers justify exception from warrant requirement). In general, these courts have arrived at the "primary purpose" test as a result of balancing the President's inherent authority against the privacy interests that are affected by warrantless searches. See, e.g., Truong, 629 F.2d at 913-915.

Given the enormous - and unique - importance of the President's constitutional obligation to protect national security from foreign threats, there is a strong argument that the "primary purpose" test is too strict even for electronic surveillance conducted without prior judicial approval. The government in Truong argued that such surveillance is constitutional whenever there is "any degree" of foreign intelligence purpose, while the defendants supported a "sole" purpose standard. 629 F.2d at 915-916. The court of appeals adopted a compromise, settling on the "primary purpose" test, and explaining that "e think that the unique role of the executive in foreign affairs and the separation of powers will not permit this court to allow the executive less on the facts of this case, but we also are convinced that the Fourth Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more." Id. at 916. Nonetheless, the court did not expressly consider or reject the "significant" purpose standard as an alternative to the "primary" purpose standard.

The factors favoring warrantless foreign intelligence searches have become substantially more compelling in the wake of the attacks of September 11. The government's interest has shifted to defense of the Nation from violent attack. "It is more obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation." Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citation and quotations omitted). While the magnitude of the current threat alone justifies expanding the warrant exception to searches with a significant foreign intelligence purpose, the nature of the threat is also an important consideration. Combating international terrorism is inescapably both a foreign affairs and a law enforcement function. In this context, separation-of-powers concerns require a relaxation of that standard.


B. The "Significant Purpose" Test for FISA Surveillance Satisfies the Constitution.
This Court need not decide whether the "primary purpose" test would govern unilateral Executive Branch surveillance conducted today, because the surveillance at issue here is governed by FISA's extensive procedural protections. As mentioned above, FISA orders are issued pursuant to individualized suspicion by an Article III judge. The statute requires certifications from high-ranking Executive Branch officials. It provides for intricate minimization procedures and extensive congressional oversight. And it requires a finding of probable cause - albeit not always the same probable cause that is required in ordinary criminal cases.

To the extent that FISA does not require ordinary probable cause, there is support for the proposition that a FISA order is a "warrant" in the constitutional sense. See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 877 n.4 (1987); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 (1967); Keith, 407 U.S. at 322-23. The courts of appeals have referred to FISA orders as "warrants" in the constitutional sense. See, e.g., Pelton, 835 F.2d at 1075; United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1987)(Kennedy, J.). The Court in Keith did not suggest that electronic surveillance conducted under standards different from those in Title III would fall outside the Warrant Clause. See 407 U.S. at 323.

But even if FISA orders are not warrants in the constitutional sense, the pivotal question for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether FISA-authorized surveillance is reasonable. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of administrative search warrants issued without a traditional showing of probable cause. In Camara, for example, the Court held that routine inspections for violations of a city's housing code required a "warrant procedure." 387 U.S. at 534. However, the Court went on to hold, in this "administrative warrant" context, that the probable cause standard should be "reasonableness." See id. at 537, 539. The Court specifically rejected the contention that such "warrants should issue only when the inspector possesses probable cause to believe that a particular dwelling" was in violation of the code, let alone when there is probable cause of a crime. Id.at 534; cf. Keith, 407 U.S. at 322-23 (noting that a lower probable cause standard may satisfy the Fourth Amendment in domestic security cases).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has also upheld warrantless and suspicionless searches undertaken for reasons other than ordinary, general law enforcement. See, e.g., Vernonia, 515 U.S.at 652-653. The Court has recognized that special law enforcement needs - in particular, needs related to foreign affairs and national security - can justify such warrantless and suspicionless searches. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 552 (1976) (upholding permanent immigration checkpoints, in part, due to the "formidable law enforcement problems" inherent in stemming the flow of illegal immigration); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 38 (2000)(characterizing Martinez-Fuerte as reflecting the "longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border"); see also Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U6S. 326, 330 (2001) ("When faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable" (emphasis added)(citations omitted)).

Whether or not FISA establishes a "warrant" procedure, it clearly imposes procedural protections far beyond those associated with unilateral Executive Branch surveillance of the sort at issue in Truong. Thus, FISA surveillance is distinguishable from unilateral surveillance, if not under the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, then at least under the Reasonableness Clause. As the Supreme Court recognized in the Keith case, "security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of 'ordinary crime,'" and may therefore support standards "which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III." 407 U.S. at 322-323. These different standards, the Court explained in Keith, are "compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens." Id. at 323. At issue in Keith was protection against domestic threats to national security. This case, of course, involves protection of the country from foreign threats, and therefore implicates even more important government interests, and the core of the President's Article II powers. See Haig v. Agee, 53 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) ("no government interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation").


C. The FISC's Decision Improperly Micromanages the Executive Branch in Violation of Articles II and III of the Constitution.
Apart from any constitutional defense of the Patriot Act as interpreted by the government, there are significant constitutional questions raised by the FISC's May 17 order - particularly the "chaperone" requirement and the reporting requirements of its new Rule 11. No Supreme Court opinion has ever recognized the authority of a federal court to impose such structural requirements on the Executive, let alone with respect to such core executive functions. The reasons for this are clear: Article III simply does not grant federal courts any power to order the internal workings of the Executive Branch, particularly in the area of foreign intelligence. But even if federal courts had some power to micromanage the Executive Branch, separation of powers prohibits the use of that power to the extent it interferes with core functions of the Executive.

First, nothing in the text of Article III even hints that federal courts have authority to micromanage the Executive Branch. By its plain terms, Article III makes clear that the judicial power is limited to cases and controversies. See U.S.Const. Art. III, 5 2. This limitation "defines the role of the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to other branches of government." United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Federal courts must "carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided in by the Constitution." Muskrat v. Brown, 219 U.S. 346, 355 (1911)(internal quotation omitted). Here, the FISC went beyond the mere decision of an Article III case or controversy by attempting to impose rules for the operation of the Executive Branch and structure the functions of different units with the Executive Branch.

Even if Article III provided some justification for the FISC's actions, separation of powers required the FISC not to interfere with the Executive's core functions. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the core powers conferred on each branch cannot be shared with the other branches. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 704 (1974). Even in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 695 (1988), in which the Court upheld the role of the Special Division Court to appoint independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act, the Court explained that the Act did not "work[] any judicial usurpation of properly executive functions." The powers conferred upon the Special Division were "not supervisory or administrative, nor they functions that the Constitution requires be performed within the Executive Branch." Ibid.5 it seems clear that if a federal court had assumed supervisory or administrative functions over Executive Branch officers, the Supreme Court would have found it to be a violation of the separation of powers.


5 Additionally, the Court construed the Special Division's power to terminate the office of the independent counsel as ministerial, in order to avoid the constitutional problem of usurping Executive authority. See 487 U.S. at 682-83.

Concern about the appropriate role of the Article III judiciary is especially pronounced where, as here, the case involves the functions of the Executive Branch in the area of national security. The Supreme Court has explained that "no government interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation." Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981). The text, structure, and history of the Constitution demonstrate that the primary responsibility to protect this interest is vested in the President. Article II, section 2 states that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The Constitution also vests in the President all of the executive power and imposes on him a duty to execute the laws. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to respond to threats to the national security. See, e.g., Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring) (noting that the "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive"). Further, as the courts have repeatedly recognized, the President possesses exclusive power over the conduct of foreign affairs. See, e.g., United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936); see also Department ofthe Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988). The conduct of foreign counterintelligence investigations is a necessary correlate to these executive powers.6 In order to successfully defend the Nation from threats to its security, the President must have the ability to gather and disseminate foreign intelligence information that will allow him and his assistants to develop and execute the most appropriate policies. This is an area where Article III intervention is particularly unsuited, in light of the structural advantages of the Executive to act with speed, secrecy, and unity of energy, see, e.g., The Federalist No. 70, at 424 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ("Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number"); see also The Federalist No. 74 (Alexander Hamilton), and the relative incompetence of the federal judiciary in such matters, see, e.g., Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. at 319 ("In this vast external realm , with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation"); id. at 320 (describing the President "as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations").

6 Indeed, as discussed above, Article II of the Constitution grants the President authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance when he deems it necessary to protect the Nation against foreign attack.

Prior to the USA Patriot Act, the judicial "primary purpose" standard (and the Department's internal procedures to ensure compliance with that standard) hampered the President's ability to discharge his core national security and foreign relations functions. As a result, the Department revised its procedures, pursuant to the Executive Branch's constitutionally designated powers and an explicit act of Coogress (the USA Patriot Act). The FISC, rendering its own policy judgments on how foreign counterintelligence investigations should be conducted, rejected in part and rewrote in part the Department's procedures.
To be sure, the FISC has an obligation to uphold the Constituition and, in particular, the Fourth Amendment. If the FISC determines that a particular surveillance, if authorized, would violate FISA or the Fourth Amendment, it should deny the application. The order issued by the FISC in this case, however, wholly exceeded that court's authority because it directly exercised the Executive Branch's core national security and foreign policy functions. Regardless of Article III, the FISC acted impermissibly by exercising and undermining these uniquely Executive powers.


D. The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance Supports the Government's Interpretation of FISA.
In light of the foregoing, the doctrine of constitutional doubt supports, and certainly does not undermine, the government's interpretation of the Patriot Act. See generally Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J.,concurring). As noted above, and in our principal brief, that interpretation is the correct one and flows from the plain language of the provisions and the legislative history. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 238 (1998)(doctrine applies only where the statute is "genuinely susceptible to two constructions after, and not before, its complexities are unraveled"). Moreover, Congress enacted this legislation aware of the constitutional issues it raised and set forth a strong case for its constitutionality. The 1978 Senate Intelligence Report expressly contemplated that FISA would be used for law enforcement purposes, and understood that "he targeting of U.S. persons and the overlap with criminal law enforcement require close attention to traditional fourth amendment principles." S. Rep. No. 95-701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1978) . But Congress concluded that such use of FISA would in fact be constitutional. See id. at 11-16.

Members of Congress understood that the USA Patriot Act could also raise constitutional questions, but intended for the courts to resolve the meaning of the statute as written. See 147 Cong. Rec. S10589 (Oct. 11, 2001) (statement of Senator Edwards); id. at S10593 (statement of Senator Cantwell). Indeed, Senator Leahy discussed the constitutional questions raised by the two USA Patriot Act amendments together. He observed that under the coordination amendment, "

rotection against these foreign-based threats by any lawful means is within the scope of the definition of 'foreign intelligence information,' and the use of FISA to gather evidence for the enforcement of these laws" has always been permitted. He also noted that the USA Patriot Act "adopts 'significant purpose,' and it will be up to the courts to determine how far law enforcement agencies may use FISA for criminal investigation and prosecution beyond the scope of the statutory definition of 'foreign intelligence information.'" 147 Cong. Rec. S11004 (Oct. 25, 2001) (emphasis added). This reflects an understanding that (1) the coordination amendment reaffirmed the broad definition of "foreign intelligence information" to include evidence sought for certain prosecutions; (2) the significant purpose amendment allowed FISA to be used primarily for a purpose other than collection of foreign intelligence information as so defined; (3) the two amendments would be applied together; and (4) whatever constitutional questions the amendments raised would have to be resolved by the courts.7


7 In a hearing on September 10, 2002 (copy of transcript attached), Senator Leahy stated:

I was surprised to learn that as, quote "The drafter of the coordination amendment" close quote, of the USA Patriot Act, the cites my statement - cites a Leahy statement to support its argument that there is no longer a distinction between using FISA for a criminal prosecution and using it to collect foreign intelligence. Had the Department of Justice taken the time to pick up a phone and call me, and incidentally I have a listed phone number, both home and at the office, I would have told them that was not, and is not, my belief.

On September 24, 2002, Senators Hatch, Thurmond, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, and McConnell inserted into the Congressional record a statement that the Patriot Act was designed to allow "'our law enforcement and intelligence communities * * * to cooperate fully in protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks,'" and asserting that "t was our intent * * * to change FISA to allow a foreign intelligence surveillance warrant to be obtained even when the primary purpose of the surveillance was the gathering of criminal evidence." See footnote 2, supra.

Indeed, because the President has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance based on a significant foreign intelligence purpose, this Court must interpret FISA to avoid infringement of this presidential power, if possible. Thus, it is the FISC's interpretation of FISA and the USA Patriot Act, not the government's, that raises the more severe constitutional questions. To the extent that avoidance doctrine governs here, it Compels the Court to read the statute to support, rather than infringe, the President's constitutional power and responsibility to keep the country safe.

CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the FISC in this case, including its adoption of the opinion and order of May 17, 2002, and its new Rule 11, should be vacated, and the case remanded with directions to the FISC to grant the FISA application as submitted.



JOHN ASHCROFT
Attorney General
LARRY D. THOMPSON
Deputy Attorney General

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General

DAVID S. KRIS
Associate Deputy Attorney General

JAMES A. BAKER
Counsel for Intelligence Policy

JONATHAN L. MARCUS
Attorney Advisor
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202)514-2882


Dated: September 25, 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. The government in Truong
The government in Truong argued that such surveillance is constitutional whenever there is "any degree" of foreign intelligence purpose, while the defendants supported a "sole" purpose standard. 629 F.2d at 915-916. The court of appeals adopted a compromise, settling on the "primary purpose" test, and explaining that "e think that the unique role of the executive in foreign affairs and the separation of powers will not permit this court to allow the executive less on the facts of this case, but we also are convinced that the Fourth Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #89
227. Nice try, won't work.
Just join up to defend you buddy, did ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #227
231. You have me all wrong
What I thought most interesting in that paragraph was this:

"but we also are convinced that the Fourth Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
92. "...of foreign powers or their agents.."
Don't stop in the middle of the sentence. :) It doesn't give the President any authority to spy on American citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #85
129. Here's the relevant text in Section D ...
The 1978 Senate Intelligence Report expressly contemplated that FISA would be used for law enforcement purposes, and understood that "he targeting of U.S. persons and the overlap with criminal law enforcement require close attention to traditional fourth amendment principles." S. Rep. No. 95-701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1978) . But Congress concluded that such use of FISA would in fact be constitutional. See id. at 11-16.


It's imperative to keep in mind that the sole statutory authority to wiretap "U.S. persons" exists in the crimnal code, conditioned on obtaining a warrant from a criminal court, or in FISA, conditioned on obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. The conditions of neither were met. It is a clear violation of the Constitution - which this adminstration is sworn to "protect and defend."

It could be argued to be treasonous to deliberately conspire to violate the Constitution! It is clearly a conspiracy. It was clearly deliberate. It's now also very clear that they knew it was a violation, since they sought and were rufused the domestic authority!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #85
138. The Problem With This Document, Mr. Brittle
Is that it is simply a plea from the advocates of one side in a dispute. How was the matter in which it was offered decided by judges?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. I have no idea..but
What I find interesting about the document is the light it sheds upon the findings and opinions of both previous court cases and the FISA court itself regarding the issues and how it operates.

I'll leave it up to the experts to sort it all out.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #140
146. That, Sir, With All Due Respect, Is Nonesense
The document sheds no light on those matters at all. It simply presents what one side in a dispute thinks various precendents mean, looking at them in the light most favorable to achieving the result they desire in a court case. One would have to examine the briefs presented by the other side of the dispute, which doubtless would cite most of the same precedents, and present them in a quite different light, then compare the two sides of the argument, with a knowledge of the particular facts in the case and the totality of the statutes governing the matter. If you have no idea how the case in which this argument was pressed was actually resolved, you have no business citing these papers as if they were the defining case law on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #146
178. I was not citing these papers as if they were defending the case law
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 08:39 AM by peanutbrittle
I stated that I had no idea of the legalities of this particular document.

I ran across this while "Googling" and threw it out here for others to decipher.

I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #178
256. Of course you were.
I personally don't think much of anything Ashcroft or James Baker would say anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. Nice try
but does not address wiretapping of US citizens in a blanket manner, but foreign intelligence information. The court either allows or disallows the tap. It's not inherent in presidential power nor granted to the branch concerning US citizens by the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. Not understanding the legalities all that well.......
myself..but thought I would throw this out there to see if those that do could find something in here that either verifies or villifies. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #93
104. I heard FISA granted (I believe I have it right)
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 11:10 PM by mmonk
18 taps and denied 5. I also believe NSA circumvented the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La_Fourmi_Rouge Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #104
116. umm, 18.000, actually...
No cite, but it is true - the FISA court granted more than 18 THOUSAND warrants, and denied only 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. You're correct I believe
I left off the K.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #116
124. Also, bushco is trying to make the argument
that FISA takes too long. But of course, not only was the volume forthcoming but I believe they can be ruled on even retroactively (meaning there would be no time constraints to slow them up).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #116
262. Also, FISA courts NEVER turned down Wiretaps 'til 2003...
Hmmm... even they were puking at Bu$hitCo's actions.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #104
217. In its FULL history only 5 denied, but Bush never went there.
In fact, two judges are required to be available to the pRes at all times for such warrants and in fact they can be sought retrospectively. No time delay. (Another Lie)

The whole court is in secret, so it doesn't compromise US security. (Another lie.) All it is there for is to make sure that there is probable cause to do such surveilance and that civil liberties are being safeguarded as much as possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. I never found anything about 72 hours but I found this:
<snip>
Title III and FISA contain similar "necessity" requirements. Every Title III application must provide "a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 18 U.S.C. 2518(l)(c). Correspondingly, the issuing court under Title III must find that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 18 U.S.C. 2518(3)(c).

FISA's "necessity" provision requires a high-ranking Executive Branch official to certify that the information sought by electronic surveillance "cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques." 50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B)(ii). This certification is reviewed for clear error when the target of the surveillance is a United States person. (No review is conducted in other cases.) 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(5); House Report at 80-81. Neither FISA nor Title III requires "probable cause" of necessity; instead, both contemplate judicial review of a statement of necessity from the government. Under FISA, that statement is reviewed for clear error, while under Title III it is reviewed without deference. In that respect, FISA is more favorable to the government. However, while the statement of necessity in a Title III application comes from the applicant - typically a line agent or attorney - the certification of necessity in a FISA application comes from the Director of the FBI or a similar official. The deferential standard of review is appropriate in light of the stature of such an official.

5. Period of Surveillance Order.

Title III provides for shorter periods of surveillance than FISA. Under Title III, authorization orders are issued for periods of up to 30 days. 18 U.S.C. 2518(5). Under FISA, authorization orders are issued for periods of up to 90 days for U.S. persons. 50 U.S. C. 1805 (e)(1).7

7 For non-U.S. persons who are "agents or employees" of a foreign power or "members" of an international terrorist group, initial surveillance orders may be for up to 120 days, and renewal orders for up to one year. 50 U.S.C. 1805(e)(l)-(2). Certain foreign powers themselves, as opposed to their agents, are also subject to longer periods of surveillance. Ibid.

Thus, in cases involving a U.S. person, the government must obtain three Title III orders for every one FISA order. But that is primarily an administrative burden rather than a legal one. Although shorter maximum time periods ensure regular judicial review of the progress of Title III surveillance, FISA does not require the FISC in every case to allow surveillance for the full 90 days, and the statute allows the FISC to "assess compliance with the minimization procedures" either "t or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension." 50 U.S.C. 1805(e)(3); cf. 18 U.S.C. 2518(6) (authorizing the Title III judge to require the filing of regular progress reports). In our view, there is no constitutional significance to the difference in the allowable duration of orders under FISA and Title III in cases involving U.S. persons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. And this: (read last two sentences)
<snip>
Second, FISA contains far more extensive reporting requirements than Title III. Where Title III requires only an annual report containing "a general description" of surveillances and certain statistical information, 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), FISA requires the Executive Branch to keep the Intelligence Committees "fully informed," in keeping with the general framework for intelligence oversight. 50 U.S.C. 1808(a)(1), 1826. Congress similarly believed that its "close and continuing" oversight would "suppl a compensating check" against potential Executive Branch abuses. Senate Intelligence Report at 11-12. In addition, by providing for the sunset of the amendments to FISA in the USA Patriot Act, Congress has made clear its intention to hold the Executive Branch accountable for the exercise of its FISA authority. See Section 224(a) of the USA Patriot Act, Pub.L. No. 1107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #87
125. HARDBALL YESTERDAY BIDEN SAID * HAS 15 DAYS TO GET WARRANT
AFTER SURVEILLANCE TAKES PLACE when the following circumstances are in place..

BIDEN SAID YESTERDAY ON HARDBALL..THAT THE PRES HAS 15 DAYS TO GO TO FISA IF THERE IS

congressional approval of war..or WE ARE AT WAR!!

biden said this is in effect right now and has been since the start of the conflict in iraq!

AND BIDEN HELPED WRITE THE LAW!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #78
91. This is key I think
"To be sure, the FISC has an obligation to uphold the Constituition and, in particular, the Fourth Amendment. If the FISC determines that a particular surveillance, if authorized, would violate FISA or the Fourth Amendment, it should deny the application."

And welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #78
100. A Supplemental Brief to An Appeal to the FISA Court? It was never granted
Otherwise SPYGATE would be a non-issue. Why would the FISA Court NOW Be Investigating the Bush Administrations on WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING of U.S. Citizens if it would have granted the appeal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #100
127. from what i understand ..they are concerned * used illegal wiretaps
to get info on people in order to get bogus warrants on otherwise innocent people!

another words..*'es illegal wiretaps got illegal info on innocent americans and then used that info to trick the secret court to give warrants that were not justified..
therefore exposing innocent americans and committing fraud to get warrants!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #78
166. FAS, Federation of American Scientists;
All they are are a bunch of smart people with a lot of degrees. Why should we take their word for anything? :sarcasm:

WTG! :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #166
258. FAS is publishing these government documents on their website
FAS isn't taking a position - they are providing information:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federation_o...

FAS works to challenge excessive government secrecy and promote public oversight with their FAS Project on Government Secrecy (http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html ). Part of the project includes the distribution of the free electronic newsletter Secrecy News (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html ), which provides informal coverage of new developments in secrecy, security and intelligence policies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #258
268. "they are providing information"
"they are providing information"

which is exactly all that I was attempting to do as well.

Maybe I should have explained myself better

I personally found the document enlightning and clarified some things that I was not aware of. Maybe there are other documents out there that can give people more of an insight into the way the FISC works. If so please so direct!

You believe what you want to about me, all i was trying to do was relay some information for those who wished to pick some parts out of it which may be pertinant or of value

I am not a republican troll, I voted for John Kerry and am very much opposed to this administration.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #268
294. I am not interested in anything those republicans have to say
I doubt people here are either. Don't post arguments written by republicans if you don't want to be taken for a troll. The only thing of merit is what a judge has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanutbrittle Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #258
271. Thank you for posting this
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2005/12/index.html

I honestly did not know this was there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #78
216. Welcome to DU nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
79. The neo-cons want a dictatorship
America had better wake the hell up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
88. Malloy's reading this right now on his show
If this isn't a reason for impeachment, nothing is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #88
114. I just tuned in. Holy Days! I do believe a whole lotta evil will be
removed from our lives soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
94. It was not Bush asking for this. IT WAS CHENEY.
Numbnuts Bush didn't have a clue on 9/18/01. He had that dumbstruck look in the classroom on 9/11 because he realized he had been left out of the loop. Cheney was running the whole show, and Bush was just his useful idiot. Cheney wanted his global conflagration, and tried to get authority to clampdown on any Americans who dared tried to stop him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #94
135. yes!
That was exactly what was happening during "My Pet Goat".

This shit is so incredible. . .

:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #94
261. My take EXACTLY.and therefore impeachment and conviction of
Bush alone accomplishes absolutely nothing except to leave in charge the master mind. The whole lot of them need to be investigated impeached and convicted. That has NEVER happened before in our history and I'm wondering how they are going to go about doing that. Who will be in charge of the country if the entire succession to the presidency is on trial? Or at least the first several in succession. I think they all are guilty of some crimes but none are guilty of ALL of the crimes.

To me this is so much bigger than anything this country has had to deal with. Comparing it to the Nixon era is just not adequate. It has gone so far beyond that.

All the pieces to this puzzle are mind-boggling. How in the hell could this have gone so far and WHY did it take so long for enough of the truth to come out for us to have even a small glimpse of the truth? What was the threat that kept so many silent or were they all just cowards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #261
292. I agree entirely
How do you even go about investigating something like this? There are just so many different angles and its hard to fit them all together in a coherent picture. And even if you can manage that, how the hell do you prosecute an ENTIRE administration at once? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Cheney, et al. are relying on this exact conundrum to keep them out of major trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
95. Holy Crap, wasn't it Sen Jeffords' switch to Independent that
returned Daschle to the majority leadership position during that time? We came this "." close to losing it all! Thank God that Daschle put this out there for public view, I hope it offers him some protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #95
119. Thank God for Jeffords switch
we came scary close ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merbex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #119
164. It is still too close for comfort for me
Impeachment hearings cannot begin a minute too soon for me

I sincerely hope that all this does not fall off the radar screen because of the holidays and upcoming Congressional recess

Americans' notorious short attention span could hurt the whole country

Democratic leaders- Keep the heat on!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #164
169. I'm very disappointed in Americans in general.
There is no way these people should be able to get by with what they have gotten away with on so many levels. I think what scares me most is so many millions of Americans can't seem to notice or care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
96. So is it still "inappropriate" to compare him to Hitler?
Just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #96
133. "him"?? You mean Cheney? Nope.
Mortimer Smirk is a tool - a gladly manipulated sociopath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
99. It puts the
"It would be easier if it were a dictatorship ... as long as I was the dictator" quote a whole new perspective now doesn't it? Seems that wasn't as much of a joke as they wanted us to think it was.

I hope what ever evidence he has, he has followed Rockefeller's example and has sealed copies of "Just in Case Of My Death" letters all over the place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. We thought we were free
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redacted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #99
105. Sydnie, you need to read this ASAP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/a-tenstep-pro...

Statements like these are only perceived as jokes by nervous audiences. These people are absolutely serious when they utter these remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #105
123. Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that before
I KNOW that he was dead on balls serious when he said that. I have repeated that quote to so many people, hoping to get them to understand that it wasn't a joke. I freeway blogged about the DNC site, www.twofacesofbush.com in two different states!

I know just how dangerous this man and all these men are.

I was watching the activities of the last few days in the Senate with heart in hand and even made a post about the "last 30 minutes of life support" for our country as we knew it if they were allowed to get away with what they were attempting to do. I realize the seriousness of our current position. I hope that many more, who haven't been watching closely until now, will start to pay attention and demand that it be brought to an end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #105
222. HOLY SHIT! New add to favorites Huffintonpost.com/jane-smiley
Am I crazy? I think she is so right on the money that it isn't funny.

I didn't laugh a bit, but I feel less sick and dirty for being enraged by this administration. It's like slipping off a tightrope and all of the sudden feeling the waves crashing over me as I realize it's no longer try to maintain balance, but sink or swim now.

I need air.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #105
238. And, "No Way Senate Gave Bush Power to Spy on Americans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
106. Holy Moly
I am having shock fatigue this week! :wow: My brain hurts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
107. IMPEACH NOW
get that traitor out of the people's house .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #107
242. Second and Third that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
115. Treasons Greetings
this is getting interesting - we may not have to wait for Fitzmas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redacted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
126. VIDEO: "Give 'em hell Harry" Truman on Spying on Americans
"Now I am going to tell you how we are NOT going to fight communism: "

"We are NOT going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are NOT going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are NOT going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat." - April 24, 1950.

http://www.outlawwebdesigns.com/bi30/extras/truman_afte...

(thanks to Canofun.com and Outlaw Web Designs)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
132. He is out . of. fucking. control. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jon strad Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
134. This bunch of criminals continuously manage to top themselves.
Torture, illegally spying on U.S. citizens, insane power-grabs, leaking covert agents names, where do these fuckers stop? I'd really like to know what the Bush-Cheney cabal and their cohorts think is crossing the line. I know it is generally frowned upon to make Hitler comparisons but I can't think of another time in recent history when the decisions of few put the world at risk at such a grand scale. Impeachment was just a pie-in-the-sky dream for me a bit ago but I'm seeing the need for it more and more as time goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
137. Tom Daschle writes- Power We Didn't Grant
I guess this is more like an end game than... Well, just read it.

I'm posting it here, instead of late breaking news, since it's all part of the same big mess.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

snip-
In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.

That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #137
144. Daschle HITS A HOMERUN!
And it make sense that this never came out before... I understand the context of it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #137
293. TOTAL end-game manuever
It started with stealing the 2000 election and was cemented by 9/11. These guys went for it all, and the great thing is that THEY DIDN'T GET IT. You know what happens when you fail at an end-game attempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
142. ****But then the Bushies got JOHN YOO's legal memos saying that the
CONSTITUTION ITSELF GIVES THE PRESIDENT SOLE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, AND THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO GAINSAY IT.

See this thread, and be sure to read what is posted in the replies as well, since that is where the meat of this is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title (12/20 GD): New LAT op/ed from JOHN YOO, the legal enabler of the IMPERIAL BUSH

By Yoo's legal arguments, the fact that Congress explicitly denied Bush this power meant NOTHING, because the Constitution itself gives the decision to the President and not Congress. The fact that this is false doesn't matter to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. So the story Daschle is finally telling is only one more step and doesn't by itself comprise a barrier to war powers - power to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER - according to the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinbgoode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
147. BUSTED ! ! !
That would make the Administration's charade . . .um. . .toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
149. I have one that will blow your mind...
If you answer this, then you have solved the thing no one wants to even look at, let alone consider:

Who was Chertoff's first client right after law school?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #149
150. Dr. Magdy el-Amir?
The Egyption who wire-transferred more than $5 million to Osama Bin Laden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. keep on trucking... closer to home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redacted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #151
153. Lala what are you doing up at this hour?
Thought I was the last one here for the night. Good to see you! I'm having trouble sleeping because of this news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #150
152. Did Bush Homeland Nominee Michael Chertoff Shield NJ Terror Ring?
* During his 1994-2001 tenure as criminal defense attorney for the firm Latham & Watkins, Chertoff not only defended, but also was able to acquit 9/11 financier Dr. Magdy Elamir in a New Jersey HMO scandal involving millions of dollars in unaccounted funds which, intelligence sources believe, ended up in the hands of Osama bin Laden.

* Perhaps most damning in Big Wedding is Hicks' evidence of a cover-up during Chertoff's confirmation hearings for Homeland Security head. Stories in the Washington Post and other major newspapers about the Elamir case were suddenly killed, under highly suspicious circumstances, as if there were certain individuals who didn't want all the information about Chertoff's past interfering with the appointment.

http://www.oilempire.us/chertoff.html

=====
Did Bush Homeland Nominee Michael Chertoff Shield NJ Terror Ring?
http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
156. could have used a story like this about a year or so ago
but just like the NYT, it just gets sat on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
158. D' you remember all those people who used to freak out
when we'd compare the ape to Hitler? I think someone with more musical gifts than I possess needs to write a bushco version of the old anti Nazi song "Der Fuhrers Face." Maybe I'll give it a try anyway...how many rhymes for 'face' can I come up with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
165. Maybe it's time somebody declared war on the present admin;
That would be a war I'd volunteer in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dapper Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
167. Scary
Bush is a scary mo fo.

Dap
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
170. Bush sought to wage a war HERE in the US? He hates us that much?
Mind-boggling!!!

This administration appears to want a civil war or something. Are they fucking insane or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #170
219. The Chimperor is Stark Raving Neked.
They could want US to start a "revolution" so they have reason for full martial law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
171. Not a peep on the morning news about this
All they had was Rummy declaring that maybe if things go right in Iraq we might possibly let a few troops go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #171
241. Local paper: Murder, child abuse, Clay Akin
above the fold on front page. Below the fold--Daschle's story.

AND--get this--a LTE in the same edition complaining that for the last two days they've led with murder reports when there is a serious constitutional crisis facing the country. And the response is like a giant middle finger!

http://www.newsobserver.com /

You can't even find the Daschle story on the on-line summary page. You have to go to the print edition and then search for the title!

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/friday/index.html

LTE

http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/380922.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
174. Whoa! Holy Cow Bart! Amazing. kpete---GOOOOOOAAAAALLLLL
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 07:30 AM by autorank
What a total goof ball this guy is. Really nuts. This will send the paleos over the cliff.

If the *thought people were pissed off that he might hear their tawdry conversations, imagine how they'll feel when they hear he wants the right to make war on them.

I say, make love not war, in person, not on the phone! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
175. That's the SMOKING GUN!
By cvirtue of the fact that they sought and were denied the implicit powers of Article II Section 2 of the constitution to be applied within the borders of the United States, they KNEW THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW AND DID SO ANY WAY!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #175
190. They waged war against the U.S. AFTER being denied authority to do so.
I smell treason. Don't you, Walt?

I feel like I'm living in a nightmare,...one intentionally created by the crazies in charge. And they are f*cking nuts to literally set out to destroy our form of government. Damn, why the heck aren't these nuts in handcuffs and behind bars?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
180. Oh I'm gona say it! See I told you! LOL See I told you! Court is not
going to let him slide NOT THIS TIME MF'R. YOU ARE GOING TO BE IMPEACHED! Come on 2006! Get here in a big way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
182. We're fighting them there because they wouldn't LET Me fight em here!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #182
186. Oh this good Kitchen Witch, "wouldn't LET me fight em here!"
We have to fight HIM here for sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
200. shit
why didn't Daschle say anything before now? Oh well, better late . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #200
204. I asked that last night... it's because...
By itself, this just sounds like Bush was reaching for too much authority. But when you have the SPYGATE out in the open and Bush SAYING he had the authority, this is a total SMACK down of that.

PLUS, It shows that Bush wanted authorization to WAGE WAR WITHIN the U.S. using force AGAINST AMERICANS.

Because Congress wasn't stupid enough to do that, Bush did it in secret. SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS is an ACT OF WAR. And Bush is on the RECORD saying he did it. There has never been a clearer case for IMPEACHMENT BY TREASON. EVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OxQQme Donating Member (694 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #200
220. More than impeachment !
They should be rounded up and made to 'Walk the Plank' in full view of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #220
223. Send THEM to THE HAGUE --- Let them rot in prison / no book deals.
Death is far too merciful.

Send them to Guantanamo Bay and let the former detainees supervise them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
209. IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! NOW!!!! ...
JEEBUS!!! WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE???

(Sorry to yell, but it seems like no one's out there listening.) :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
224. Found at FDL thread: thought it was interesting...
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 10:03 AM by kpete
Butting in quickly. Is anyone listening to NPR? Some guy....I didn't catch his name...just said hat he knows "people" are lawyering up in DC because of the FISA lawbreaking. He didn't say who, he was being purposely opaque I think, but he insinuated it was people in the admin. This was in answer to a question re. if it was impeachable.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/1135316500...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #224
230. Thanks for butting in with this link!
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
228. Seriously Kicked & Highly Recommended!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
233. You know what I love about this?
If this were announced on it's own, it'd disappear from the corporate media completely. The fact that it's only being brought up as a direct refutation to one of the GOP talking points (that warrantless wiretaps were implicit in that 2001 resolution) means that it will be mentioned. At least- so long as the GOP keeps using that lame argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
236. Shit
I "knew" LIHOP or MIHOP happened before but now I really know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #236
237. What I want to know-
Why isn't this all over the place? Why isn't Daschle on every news program? Why aren't we in the streets? Why,Why,Why???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #237
239. Daschle Has Been on MSNBC, About 2 Weeks Back.
He was mentioned today for a minute, of that with regards to this information.

But, don't watch Tweety's show (he's MIA from the show, maybe for the holidays, I don't know). Lady Greenspan has taken his place on Hardball. She does seem to be in defense of these issues, but some of her guests make one want to :puke:

Dis-Information to the public for the holidays. I'm not gonna' watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #237
265. Because it has conveniently been put off until the government is on
Christmas/Holiday/End of Year break. I sure as hell hope ALL of these stories can make it through until we are back in session. Notice the main thing in the MSM seems to be the "war on Christmas" story. Also conveniently MORE important than the fact that our Constitution has been used like toilet paper by THIS administration and their wealthy friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
240. I think I have crossed over from LIHOP to MIHOP
and that scares the bejeezus out of me. I knew they were evil, but I had no idea they were this evil. This is scary, scary stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #240
243. A crossover! Another light bulb just went off egh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #243
251. No. Another one went on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #251
253. Yes on! ON! ON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #253
255. Where do you stand on this?
MIHOP or LIHOP or do you think that is tin foil hat stuff?

Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #255
285. From the moment I watched the second plane fly into the building live
have believed MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #240
244. I've been LIHOP/MIHOP for a little while now
as in we will never really know whether its one or the other...but in any case both are just as evil, and both end with the same results....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. CNN just brought Daschle up
Says pres has already argued his case, end of story!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #246
247. I don't follow
Daschle is saying the pres argued his case, or that the Pres already made a good enough case so no big deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #247
249. Daran Kagan or whatever Rush's girlfriend's name is
and someone reporting in front of the white house. They did not say Daschle said there was no case (I believe that he destroy's Bush's case). They were saying that the Bush people have ALREADY addressed this and I guess we are supposed to stop thinking about it. MIGHT HURT OUR BRAINS-OUCH!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #249
250. FUCK THEM!!!!
:grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush_is_wacko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
254. I'm glad they had the foresight to keep him from the "legal authority"
to do whatever he pleases but I still gotta wonder if there is a way around this. I'm sure the * legal team is combing through everything and have already come up with a substantial list of bullshit wording in that resolution and the Patriot Act and the 911 recommendations that they will spew forth as an excuse.

I have thought so many times that surely THIS would be the straw that broke the camels back only to be disappointed that there seems to be no Republican willing to risk a dent in his pocketbook to "do the right thing."

There have been plenty of reasons for investigating this president and none of them have seemed to go anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetm2475 Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
263. Well there's the smoking gun........
Time to impeach the bastards. No more f***ing around. No more bullshit. No more arguing politics. Just everyone grab their sickles and head for D.C. They're spying on retired Quakers for God's sake. Enough is enough. And how about that anthrax? They never did find that anthrax killer, did they? These people must be removed from our government. And the time is now. WAR POWERS in the UNITED STATES OF MOTHER F***IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #263
266. Welcome Sweet M
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetm2475 Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #266
267. thanks mzmolly
:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HR_Pufnstuf Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
279. Now, who are the terraists again?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
281. He's mad and out of control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
283. Daschle just played a MAJOR trump card! Outstanding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
284. Kick it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
288. general preemptive war power - before the "Axes of Evil" speech
"deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

That would have spared Dick's efforts to invent meetings of Mohamed Atta& Saddam in Chekoslovakia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
worldgonekrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
289. I think most DUers owe Daschle an apology
It was really popular to bash him here for the "appeasement" strategy that Daschle supposedly proferred as Majority and then Minority Leader of the Senate. But now we see that Daschle may have been the only thing that kept the Bush Administration from an all out fascistic power grab following 9/11.

BTW, anybody remember the 2003 SOTU when Daschle gave Bush a death-stare the entire time? I knew then that he understood what he was up against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC