Dems Let Survillance Law Lapse

[red states rule]

San Fran Nan blew it again, and the Dem Congress failed to their job. They are more interested in wasting time over contempt charges against members of the Bush administration then fighting terrorism


House to let surveillance law lapse
By Sean Lengell
February 15, 2008

House Democrats yesterday refused to revisit an update of the nation's domestic wiretapping rules before they expire tomorrow at midnight, causing Republicans to storm out of the chamber in protest.

The dispute has led both Democratic and Republican leaders to accuse one another of playing political games with national security.

Republicans said it was a "disgrace" that Democrats decided to call a vote on contempt charges against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in the 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys instead of addressing the surveillance measure.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

But House Democrats, who control the chamber, say they would rather let the surveillance law lapse without replacement legislation than rush through a bill at the last minute on such an important issue.

"Democrats have made it abundantly clear that we are prepared to sit down with the White House and Republicans to work together," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. "But we will not succumb to divisiveness and fear-mongering."

The House passed the contempt measure by a vote of 223-32, setting up a possible legal showdown with the Bush administration. The White House says the roles of Mr. Bolten and Miss Miers in the attorney firings are protected under executive privilege. Democrats disagree, saying the president is constitutionally bound to allow the two to testify as part of a congressional inquiry.

The House on Wednesday rejected a Democratic proposal for a 21-day extension of a law that temporarily updated the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Thirty-four Democrats, including members of the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, voted against the measure. No Republicans voted yes.


for complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/NATION/635545905/1001

[bullypulpit]

San Fran Nan blew it again, and the Dem Congress failed to their job. They are more interested in wasting time over contempt charges against members of the Bush administration then fighting terrorism


House to let surveillance law lapse
By Sean Lengell
February 15, 2008

House Democrats yesterday refused to revisit an update of the nation's domestic wiretapping rules before they expire tomorrow at midnight, causing Republicans to storm out of the chamber in protest.

The dispute has led both Democratic and Republican leaders to accuse one another of playing political games with national security.

Republicans said it was a "disgrace" that Democrats decided to call a vote on contempt charges against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in the 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys instead of addressing the surveillance measure.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

But House Democrats, who control the chamber, say they would rather let the surveillance law lapse without replacement legislation than rush through a bill at the last minute on such an important issue.

"Democrats have made it abundantly clear that we are prepared to sit down with the White House and Republicans to work together," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. "But we will not succumb to divisiveness and fear-mongering."

The House passed the contempt measure by a vote of 223-32, setting up a possible legal showdown with the Bush administration. The White House says the roles of Mr. Bolten and Miss Miers in the attorney firings are protected under executive privilege. Democrats disagree, saying the president is constitutionally bound to allow the two to testify as part of a congressional inquiry.

The House on Wednesday rejected a Democratic proposal for a 21-day extension of a law that temporarily updated the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Thirty-four Democrats, including members of the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, voted against the measure. No Republicans voted yes.


for complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/NATION/635545905/1001

What you are overlooking is the fact that those surveillance operations under way will in no way be affected as they run for up to a year after they are instituted.

Also overlooked is the fact that Bush is placing the financial well-being of those telecom companies which were complicit in his illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme above the safety and security of the American people. Such collusion between government and business is also know as fascism.

And as for those contempt charges...Better that than all the pissing and moaning over steroids and baseball.

[gabosaurus]

I am waiting for Obama to become president. He will repeal the entire Patriot Act.

[Classact]

What you are overlooking is the fact that those surveillance operations under way will in no way be affected as they run for up to a year after they are instituted.The only operations that continue are those already started by midnight tonight. All new surveillance must be supported by a FISA court warrant... So, if OBL calls an American "person" (do you know what an American person is? An American person is any person, including a foreign terrorists that is physically in America) the Justice Department must present "probable cause" justifying the wiretap to the FISA court... yes, they have 72 hours to do so but what if OBL and Joe terrorist talk about sports for 72 hours and then talk about plots on hour 73?

What about the telecoms companies? Perhaps they will stop helping the US government if the help costs them on Wall Street???????????????????


Also overlooked is the fact that Bush is placing the financial well-being of those telecoms companies which were complicit in his illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme above the safety and security of the American people. Such collusion between government and business is also know as fascism.Nothing illegal about it... the "Protect America Act" that is in effect until midnight was passed by congress and allows the program that you claim is illegal. The left just is in denial and owes the ACLU and the trial lawyer some campaign contributions retributions but the president and the American people will have them for lunch for going on vacation with this stupid blocking action to protect America!

And as for those contempt charges...Better that than all the pissing and moaning over steroids and baseball.

[gabosaurus]

bin Laden called me last night. He wanted me to find out if Stephanie got his Valentine's Day card.

[Classact]

bin Laden called me last night. He wanted me to find out if Stephanie got his Valentine's Day card.Yes, the left can find humor in the FACT that we are back to pre-9-11 security with the Democrats action... Terrorists from around the world can call freely to any terrorists that is in America if the Justice Department cannot show FACT that that person in America is a THREAT!

[manu1959]

What you are overlooking is the fact that those surveillance operations under way will in no way be affected as they run for up to a year after they are instituted.

Also overlooked is the fact that Bush is placing the financial well-being of those telecom companies which were complicit in his illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme above the safety and security of the American people. Such collusion between government and business is also know as fascism.

And as for those contempt charges...Better that than all the pissing and moaning over steroids and baseball.

what is your opinion of the trial lawyers that have filed suit against the telecom companies and the fact that they are all major contributors to the campaigns of virtually all of the dems that voted against the amnesty for the telcom companies and the continuation of the monitoring of terrorist activities....

[Immanuel]

I am waiting for Obama to become president. He will repeal the entire Patriot Act.


If that were true, it might even make the man something to look at as someone to vote for, but you and I both know that is not going to happen. IF he is elected, promises aside he'll find a reason to keep it in place just like any other candidate. They are not going to let that gem of power slip out of their grasp. The same thing goes for Iraq. They all talk about withdrawal. Pie in the sky promises are all they are.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't even think that the President has the power to repeal the act on his own. If he did, why wouldn't other controversial acts be repealed by the stroke of a pen when the new President takes office?

Immie

[truthmatters]

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php

[stephanie]

bin Laden called me last night. He wanted me to find out if Stephanie got his Valentine's Day card.

too stupid for words..

[Immanuel]

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php

Thank you for proving my point:


Rhetoric: "Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, Then Voted to Extend It"

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe

Obama Said That the Senate Compromise on the PATRIOT Act Was "Far From Perfect" But Modestly Improved the Original Law By Strengthening Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing the Tools That Law Enforcement Needs to Keep Us Safe.

He isn't going to repeal the act. He only wants to make it better. {gulp}

Immie

[bullypulpit]

Let's address your misconceptions one at a time...Shall we?


The only operations that continue are those already started by midnight tonight. All new surveillance must be supported by a FISA court warrant... So, if OBL calls an American "person" (do you know what an American person is? An American person is any person, including a foreign terrorists that is physically in America) the Justice Department must present "probable cause" justifying the wiretap to the FISA court... yes, they have 72 hours to do so but what if OBL and Joe terrorist talk about sports for 72 hours and then talk about plots on hour 73?

The blanket warrants that may be issued under the misnamed "Protect America Act" are unconstitutional...read the Fourth Amendment...and are only subject to review by a secret court after they have been in effect for a year. Either way, they are unconstitutional. As for the 72 hour time span you are talking about, the surveillance can be in place and remain so AFTER the 72 hour time span if the FISA court approves the warrant. Since 1979, there have been 22990 warrants approved by the FISA court, only 5 have been denied. You can check the numbers <a href=http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html>HERE</a>.


What about the telecoms companies? Perhaps they will stop helping the US government if the help costs them on Wall Street???????????????????

As for the telecoms, the lawsuits against them were filed BEFORE the "Protect America Act" was passed, and in the aftermath of the revelation in the "New York Times" of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was illegal. Were it legal, why would the telecoms which participated in it be seeking immunity from lawsuits? Given Bush's insistence on having this immunity, and his threats to veto any bill that comes to his desk without it, it would seem that he is less worried about national security than he is about corporate profits.


Nothing illegal about it... the "Protect America Act" that is in effect until midnight was passed by congress and allows the program that you claim is illegal. The left just is in denial and owes the ACLU and the trial lawyer some campaign contributions retributions but the president and the American people will have them for lunch for going on vacation with this stupid blocking action to protect America!

The "Protect America Act" represents an unconstitutional abridgement of of US civil rights as established in the Bill of Rights. Anyone who voted in support of it, Republican or Democrat, is a coward and oath breaker.

[bullypulpit]

what is your opinion of the trial lawyers that have filed suit against the telecom companies and the fact that they are all major contributors to the campaigns of virtually all of the dems that voted against the amnesty for the telcom companies and the continuation of the monitoring of terrorist activities....

So, what's yer point? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

[manu1959]

So, what's yer point? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

you are kidding right ..... the dems that took contributions from the trial lawyers then voted to support the trial lawyers lawsuits against the very companies that extending the law would have protected.....

[April15]

Probable cause get in the way of this Bush administration? They need no cause to break the law of the land. They use executive privelige to contain the spill of constitutional fluid and go on like they did nothing wrong, legally or ethically.

[bullypulpit]

you are kidding right ..... the dems that took contributions from the trial lawyers then voted to support the trial lawyers lawsuits against the very companies that extending the law would have protected.....

Democrats AND Republicans have taken campaign contributions from those very same telecom companies...After all, Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the immunity to stand. So, what's yer point?

[Yurt]

Let's address your misconceptions one at a time...Shall we?



The blanket warrants that may be issued under the misnamed "Protect America Act" are unconstitutional...read the Fourth Amendment...and are only subject to review by a secret court after they have been in effect for a year. Either way, they are unconstitutional. As for the 72 hour time span you are talking about, the surveillance can be in place and remain so AFTER the 72 hour time span if the FISA court approves the warrant. Since 1979, there have been 22990 warrants approved by the FISA court, only 5 have been denied. You can check the numbers <a href=http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html>HERE</a>.



As for the telecoms, the lawsuits against them were filed BEFORE the "Protect America Act" was passed, and in the aftermath of the revelation in the "New York Times" of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was illegal. Were it legal, why would the telecoms which participated in it be seeking immunity from lawsuits? Given Bush's insistence on having this immunity, and his threats to veto any bill that comes to his desk without it, it would seem that he is less worried about national security than he is about corporate profits.



The "Protect America Act" represents an unconstitutional abridgement of of US civil rights as established in the Bill of Rights. Anyone who voted in support of it, Republican or Democrat, is a coward and oath breaker.

explain precisely how and why the act violates the 4th amend. you also keep throwing around the word "unconstitutional" like its confetti, what part of the constitution has been violated?

[Yurt]

bin Laden called me last night. He wanted me to find out if Stephanie got his Valentine's Day card.

i don't think any of us are surprised he has you on speed dial dear

[manu1959]

Democrats AND Republicans have taken campaign contributions from those very same telecom companies...After all, Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the immunity to stand. So, what's yer point?

i believe 22 of the 26 house dems that voted against it took contributions form the trial lawyers ..... seems dems do the bidding of trial lawyers ...

[JohnDoe]

explain precisely how and why the act violates the 4th amend. you also keep throwing around the word "unconstitutional" like its confetti, what part of the constitution has been violated?



Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Aren't you a lawyer yurt? or am i confused on that?

The fourth amendment is BEING BROKEN because there is no probable cause on many being tapped and because it is without warrant....

They do NOT want to punish the telecommunication companies, they want to punish the leaders in our gvt that ordered it.

my guess is that the telecom companies that broke the law will get immunity, to testify against whoever in the gvt that ordered the illegal search....

jd

[gabosaurus]

You obviously don't know how many of us are on bin Laden's V-Day card list. Look at this romantic card he sent to Bandar Bush:

Blood runs red
Yanks are poo
I'm still around
Thanks to you

Allah loves you,
binny

[Yurt]

Aren't you a lawyer yurt? or am i confused on that?

The fourth amendment is BEING BROKEN because there is no probable cause on many being tapped and because it is without warrant....

They do NOT want to punish the telecommunication companies, they want to punish the leaders in our gvt that ordered it.

my guess is that the telecom companies that broke the law will get immunity, to testify against whoever in the gvt that ordered the illegal search....

jd

i asked a question, i did not made a statement. tell me exactly what was not lawyerly about that....

are you a judge?

[JohnDoe]

i asked a question, i did not made a statement. tell me exactly what was not lawyerly about that....

are you a judge?
Moi? a Judge? no way! hahahahahahaha! And I am actually pretty glad that you did ask the question!!! Forced me to look up the Fourth Amendment and reread it!!!! Good call on your part actually, to get us with inquiring minds to get off our butts and read the constitution!!!

:salute:

jd

[Immanuel]

Aren't you a lawyer yurt? or am i confused on that?

The fourth amendment is BEING BROKEN because there is no probable cause on many being tapped and because it is without warrant....

They do NOT want to punish the telecommunication companies, they want to punish the leaders in our gvt that ordered it.

my guess is that the telecom companies that broke the law will get immunity, to testify against whoever in the gvt that ordered the illegal search....

jd

Hey, just to cover the bases, if you are speaking on the phone, it is probable cause, but especially if you are speaking to anyone in the Middle East.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Hey, just to cover the bases, if you are speaking on the phone, it is probable cause, but especially if you are speaking to anyone in the Middle East.

Immie
Probable cause, and the specifics of who and what are being searched must be presented to a judge who issues the warrant is my understanding of it....but i am not 100% certain?

jd

[Immanuel]

Probable cause, and the specifics of who and what are being searched must be presented to a judge who issues the warrant is my understanding of it....but i am not 100% certain?

jd

I'm not arguing with you. I was being facetious as to what the administration might consider probable cause. You use the phone? Chances are good you are doing so to contact terrorists; therefore, we have probable cause to tap your phones.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I'm not arguing with you. I was being facetious as to what the administration might consider probable cause. You use the phone? Chances are good you are doing so to contact terrorists; therefore, we have probable cause to tap your phones.

Immie
Ahhhhhhh, gotcha! Should have known that is what you meant on this... !!!

jd

[bullypulpit]

explain precisely how and why the act violates the 4th amend. you also keep throwing around the word "unconstitutional" like its confetti, what part of the constitution has been violated?

Ask, and ye shall receive...

the Fourth Amendment reads thus:

<blockquote>Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and <b><i>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized</i></b>. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

Blanket warrants provide no "description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", let alone probable cause. It doesn't require a constitutional scholr to see this. They are, in short a fishing expedition with no specific goal in mind. And, absent any meaningful oversight under the "Protect America Act" (read as: Consolidate Executive Power Act), clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment. That any congressional representative would vote in favor of this act, let alone the provisions shielding telecom companies from legal jeopardy, shows what kind of moral coward they truly are. Upon taking office each of them took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies...By voting in favor of this act they forswear their oaths and abdicate their duties to the Constitution and their constituents.

That you, and your fellow travelers, continue to be so forceful in your support of this policy of the Bush administration indicates just what a pack of cravens you are...Willing to abandon the very foundations of the Republic in fear of the possibility of an outside attack. But, you see, that's the price of freedom. If you aren't willing to pay it, I'm sure North Korea or Burma will cheerfully take you in.

[red states rule]

Probable cause, and the specifics of who and what are being searched must be presented to a judge who issues the warrant is my understanding of it....but i am not 100% certain?

jd

JD, Why in the world are you libs so worried about the "rights" of terrorists? It seems to me your side would rather have successful terrorist atacks rather then violate these rights you have created for them

[bullypulpit]

JD, Why in the world are you libs so worried about the "rights" of terrorists? It seems to me your side would rather have successful terrorist atacks rather then violate these rights you have created for them

Yet again, you're missing the point. It's not terrorists we're talking about...It's American citizens. Blanket warrants are not the tools of a government interested in maintaining a free and open society. They're the tool of despots and despot wannabes interested in securing their own power

[red states rule]

Yet again, you're missing the point. It's not terrorists we're talking about...It's American citizens. Blanket warrants are not the tools of a government interested in maintaining a free and open society. They're the tool of despots and despot wannabes interested in securing their own power

Again BP, you are lacking the facts of the issue

These calls were coming from or being made to overseas countries lnow for terrorists activity

The calls are fed through a compter that scans for jey words - then if a key word is found - an human listens to the call

Libs like you are only looking to for a political issue, and in doing so, giving aid to the terorists. This is whu you clowns should not be trusted with national security, and why the terrorists are looking forward to a Dem win in November. With you guys in power, the terrorists will be safer and have a green light to expand their activites without having to worry about the US government tracking them

Do you have any idea how many calls are made on a dialy basis - it is impossible to tap the phones and listen to the calls of US citizens

[Immanuel]

JD, Why in the world are you libs so worried about the "rights" of terrorists? It seems to me your side would rather have successful terrorist atacks rather then violate these rights you have created for them

I'll take a stab at that one because in this case, I'm on their side.

Look, we are not talking only about terrorists. Sometimes innocent people get caught up in legal matters that they had nothing to do with. Sometimes the innocent get arrested for things they have never done. I'm not concerned in the least about terrorists. I'm concerned about any innocent person that is accused.

The reason we have those rights is to protect the innocent not the guilty. I'm certain that in most cases when the guilty are arrested and presented for trial in front of an impartial judge and jury that the law wins.

Our constitutional rights were written to protect the people from a government that might get out of hand. Those rights were written to protect the innocent not the guilty. I don't know if our government has gotten out of hand yet. But the minute we start opening the door for them to do so is the minute we relinquish our own safety.

This has been my biggest issue with the Bush Administration from the moment they presented the Patriot Act. I had always said, that I didn't believe this administration would do anything inappropriate, but that legislation such as the Patriot Act opened the door for future administrations to take the issue farther even to the point of declaring innocent citizens, who oppose it... i.e. pro-life/religious right individuals against a Hillary Clinton administration, as being enemy combatants and having them arrested and held indefinitely or even executed. Now, I'm not so sure about my faith in this administration. I don't know of any innocent citizens who have been persecuted by this administration, but my faith that the administration would not use it has wavered.

To sum up what I am saying, it is not the guilty that our rights are here to protect. It is the innocent. The guilty will be tried even if their rights are maintained. If the guilty are tried they are much more likely to be found guilty than they are innocent. I'm not protecting the guilty. I'm protecting the possible innocent man who gets rounded up in a net with no exit.

Even one innocent man whose rights have been violated and has been incarcerated or executed is one too many.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee rights to non-citizens, but the U.S. Constitution is written upon our view of moral rights and human rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution does not guarantee these right to non-citizen neither does it forbid them nor should it. These rights are human rights that should be extended to any human being (yes, even terrorists are human beings although I wonder what has happened to their souls) whether they are American citizens or not.

I'm talking about basic human rights here. I'm not talking about the right to vote or any other such right, but human rights.

Immie

[red states rule]

I'll take a stab at that one because in this case, I'm on their side.

Look, we are not talking only about terrorists. Sometimes innocent people get caught up in legal matters that they had nothing to do with. Sometimes the innocent get arrested for things they have never done. I'm not concerned in the least about terrorists. I'm concerned about any innocent person that is accused.

The reason we have those rights is to protect the innocent not the guilty. I'm certain that in most cases when the guilty are arrested and presented for trial in front of an impartial judge and jury that the law wins.

Our constitutional rights were written to protect the people from a government that might get out of hand. Those rights were written to protect the innocent not the guilty. I don't know if our government has gotten out of hand yet. But the minute we start opening the door for them to do so is the minute we relinquish our own safety.

This has been my biggest issue with the Bush Administration from the moment they presented the Patriot Act. I had always said, that I didn't believe this administration would do anything inappropriate, but that legislation such as the Patriot Act opened the door for future administrations to take the issue farther even to the point of declaring innocent citizens, who oppose it... i.e. pro-life/religious right individuals against a Hillary Clinton administration, as being enemy combatants and having them arrested and held indefinitely or even executed. Now, I'm not so sure about my faith in this administration. I don't know of any innocent citizens who have been persecuted by this administration, but my faith that the administration would not use it has wavered.

To sum up what I am saying, it is not the guilty that our rights are here to protect. It is the innocent. The guilty will be tried even if their rights are maintained. If the guilty are tried they are much more likely to be found guilty than they are innocent. I'm not protecting the guilty. I'm protecting the possible innocent man who gets rounded up in a net with no exit.

Even one innocent man whose rights have been violated and has been incarcerated or executed is one too many.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee rights to non-citizens, but the U.S. Constitution is written upon our view of moral rights and human rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution does not guarantee these right to non-citizen neither does it forbid them nor should it. These rights are human rights that should be extended to any human being (yes, even terrorists are human beings although I wonder what has happened to their souls) whether they are American citizens or not.

I'm talking about basic human rights here. I'm not talking about the right to vote or any other such right, but human rights.

Immie

You have played this "innocent" sob story for way to long. Do you have any names, dates, and facts - or just the talking point?

I am fed up with bleeding hearts who want to fight a PC war against terrorists who want YOU dead

These pigs will not respond to your kind words for them, or your fight to grant them "rights" They will cut your head off in a split second my friend

Meanwhile, libs want to stick their head in the sand, pretend their is no terror threat,with their ass exposed to the terrorists

Meanwhile, we here the same old same old on how rights of US citizens are being taken away - but never any facts

Same with "innocent" people being taken away - perhaps someday you will provide some facts

[Immanuel]

You have played this "innocent" sob story for way to long. Do you have any names, dates, and facts - or just the talking point?

I am fed up with bleeding hearts who want to fight a PC war against terrorists who want YOU dead

These pigs will not respond to your kind words for them, or your fight to grant them "rights" They will cut your head off in a split second my friend

Meanwhile, libs want to stick their head in the sand, pretend their is no terror threat,with their ass exposed to the terrorists

Meanwhile, we here the same old same old on how rights of US citizens are being taken away - but never any facts

Same with "innocent" people being taken away - perhaps someday you will provide some facts

Don't need a single name. There doesn't have to be a single one. Those rights were developed to prevent abuse of citizens. They were developed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. That's what they did then, that is what they do today and that is what they will do forever. If there is not a single innocent person being held in captivity today, giving the guilty their basic human rights will not let them get away with a damned thing. It will simply prove their guilt.

You are extremely ignorant (which I know you are not) if you think that this has anything at all to do with the bullshit game you are playing. It is not, never has been and never will be about the current crop of detainees. It is about any human being taken illegally by the government past, present or future.

As for the current terrorist, maybe you were just too drunk to have read what I said, any guilty person will be tried and convicted EVEN if they are afforded basic human rights.

Please quit playing ignorant. You're just playing a stupid game and you are not being very successful at it. It's bullshit and you know it AND if you don't know it, I suggest you enter yourself in an eight grade U.S. Government class immediately, because this is basic stuff.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

Those rights were developed to prevent abuse of citizens. They were developed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

That may have been the original intention but we all know who those laws REALLY help now--don't we ?

[Gaffer]

We are not dealing with US citizens here. Citizens are not and never have been threatened with having their freedoms removed. We are dealing with a bunch of thugs who if not for the libs and courts would have been tried in a military tribunal and sentenced by now.

[red states rule]

Don't need a single name. There doesn't have to be a single one. Those rights were developed to prevent abuse of citizens. They were developed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. That's what they did then, that is what they do today and that is what they will do forever. If there is not a single innocent person being held in captivity today, giving the guilty their basic human rights will not let them get away with a damned thing. It will simply prove their guilt.

You are extremely ignorant (which I know you are not) if you think that this has anything at all to do with the bullshit game you are playing. It is not, never has been and never will be about the current crop of detainees. It is about any human being taken illegally by the government past, present or future.

As for the current terrorist, maybe you were just too drunk to have read what I said, any guilty person will be tried and convicted EVEN if they are afforded basic human rights.

Please quit playing ignorant. You're just playing a stupid game and you are not being very successful at it. It's bullshit and you know it AND if you don't know it, I suggest you enter yourself in an eight grade U.S. Government class immediately, because this is basic stuff.

Immie

So you rant about innocent people being locked up - but name any

You rant about rights being taken away but can't name any

Then you fall back on personal attacks - seems you are losing this debate and can't admit it

[Classact]

Let's address your misconceptions one at a time...Shall we?



The blanket warrants that may be issued under the misnamed "Protect America Act" are unconstitutional...read the Fourth Amendment...and are only subject to review by a secret court after they have been in effect for a year. Either way, they are unconstitutional. As for the 72 hour time span you are talking about, the surveillance can be in place and remain so AFTER the 72 hour time span if the FISA court approves the warrant. Since 1979, there have been 22990 warrants approved by the FISA court, only 5 have been denied. You can check the numbers <a href=http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html>HERE</a>. The FISA court has no reason to provide a warrant if the "American person" isn't suspected to be breaking the law. For example, an American person, lets say a Syrian college student in his free time takes driving lessons for hauling hazardous materials and OBL himself calls him, the old FISA law that will be in effect tonight at midnight would refer the Justice Department back to the forth Amendment that requires probable cause to issue a court ordered warrant in order to invade the American persons privacy... the FISA court would ask, what is your PC to cause the court to override the American persons forth amendment rights? There is no PC, learning to drive a truck is lawful, talking to a foreigner is legal even if that person is a terrorist.

Back to the Unlawful Wiretaps... they were not unlawful as explained here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#6 a judge, using the above paragraphs analogy said he thought they were unlawful but the president claims rights under the constitution as commander in chief that defines "reasonable" in a different gravity in times of war. The Justice Department is appealing the judge's decision to a higher court so it is undecided. The matter was referred to the Congress and the congress created law, the Protect America Act that defines congresses interpretation of reasonable searches. The President still claims his constitutional rights, and may in fact use them to listen in on a conversation between OBL and the Syrian student learning to drive a hazardous vehicle.




As for the telecoms, the lawsuits against them were filed BEFORE the "Protect America Act" was passed, and in the aftermath of the revelation in the "New York Times" of the Bush administration's warrant-less wiretapping program, which was illegal. Were it legal, why would the telecoms which participated in it be seeking immunity from lawsuits? Given Bush's insistence on having this immunity, and his threats to veto any bill that comes to his desk without it, it would seem that he is less worried about national security than he is about corporate profits.As I stated earlier the wiretaps were legal and is unsettled in the courts but has since been defined by congress.




The "Protect America Act" represents an unconstitutional abridgement of of US civil rights as established in the Bill of Rights. Anyone who voted in support of it, Republican or Democrat, is a coward and oath breaker. So you think the Syrian student on visa to attend college should be able to learn to drive a hazardous vehicle and talk to OBL under the US Constitution's 4th Amendment? You are brain dead if you think that... that would mean that OBL could have the freedom to talk with all the 9-11 hijackers as they attended flight school being guaranteed not to be bothered by any form of government since they are protected by the US Constitution and its 4th Amendment. If one must show PC Probable Cause to a judge to listen in on a possible terrorists and the foreign terrorists knows the US Constitution and its 4th Amendment then we are all fucked. Be "reasonable"!

[red states rule]

It would be nice if you could have a rational discussion with libs like BP. But BP is consumed with such hate and rage, the facts and truth can't get through

Here is an interesting article - it shows how the liberal media is pro terrorist and will not report the truth about thise who want us dead


Brother of Slain TWA 847 Hijack Victim Says Media Are Pro-Terrorist
By Noel Sheppard | February 16, 2008 - 12:17 ET

While press outlets such as the New York Times grieved over the death of Imad Mugniyah last week, they disgracefully ignored the hundreds of innocent people directly and indirectly killed by this terrorist the past three decades.

One such was Robert Stethem, a Navy Seabee diver that was assassinated on June 15, 1985, during the hijacking of TWA Flight 847; Mugniyah was one of the hijackers.

On Thursday, during an interview with WOR radio's Steve Malzberg, Patrick Stethem made his feelings known about how the press covered the death of one of his brother's slayers (9-minute audio available here):

I wouldn't even call it politically correct. I'd call it pro-terrorist. You know, he's been convicted of these crimes against humanity. He was responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, which was the largest non-nuclear explosion at that time since World War II. I mean, there's no doubt of the blood on this guy's hands, and the fact that, you know, it was so fitting it was a car-bomb that finally got him, which was his, you know, method of choice. And, you know, I saw those [New York Times] pictures, and now his family understands the terror and the sadness that he inflicted on hundreds of families. And, it's a terrible thing. And, as happy as I was to see his reign of terror end, at the same time, it doesn't allow us to reach back in time, and pull, you know, our loved ones back to us.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/16/brother-slain-twa-847-hijack-victim-says-media-are-pro-terrorist

[April15]

You have played this "innocent" sob story for way to long. Do you have any names, dates, and facts - or just the talking point?

I am fed up with bleeding hearts who want to fight a PC war against terrorists who want YOU dead

These pigs will not respond to your kind words for them, or your fight to grant them "rights" They will cut your head off in a split second my friend

Meanwhile, libs want to stick their head in the sand, pretend their is no terror threat,with their ass exposed to the terrorists

Meanwhile, we here the same old same old on how rights of US citizens are being taken away - but never any facts

Same with "innocent" people being taken away - perhaps someday you will provide some facts

I know you will just say I'm paranoid but you are under serveilance right now. I can not fly by order of homeland security. I can not leave the country. Same people as above demand I stay put. Why? Because I say what they don't want others to hear. Or maybe it was because I had clients for the accounting business in the ME.

[Gaffer]

I know you will just say I'm paranoid but you are under serveilance right now. I can not fly by order of homeland security. I can not leave the country. Same people as above demand I stay put. Why? Because I say what they don't want others to hear. Or maybe it was because I had clients for the accounting business in the ME.

If your on a no fly list and under surveillance, there must be a reason. Other than prior contacts in the ME. Not to mention your anti-American rhetoric.

[April15]

If your on a no fly list and under surveillance, there must be a reason. Other than prior contacts in the ME. Not to mention your anti-American rhetoric.My position is very American. It is the government that is anti-American. At least this administration is. As for the surveillance I have no idea. I made one comment back in 2003 that the world would be better off with Bush Jr. dead and bingo all hell breaks loose. Now it seems a lot of others agree with with my assessment of Bush. Not on this board of course as this one is for the appologists.

[bullypulpit]

Again BP, you are lacking the facts of the issue

These calls were coming from or being made to overseas countries lnow for terrorists activity

The calls are fed through a compter that scans for jey words - then if a key word is found - an human listens to the call

Libs like you are only looking to for a political issue, and in doing so, giving aid to the terorists. This is whu you clowns should not be trusted with national security, and why the terrorists are looking forward to a Dem win in November. With you guys in power, the terrorists will be safer and have a green light to expand their activites without having to worry about the US government tracking them

Do you have any idea how many calls are made on a dialy basis - it is impossible to tap the phones and listen to the calls of US citizens

Since you grasp of the facts has always been tenuous, at best, let's look at the facts regarding the "Protect America Act".

The Act allows authorities to monitor phones calls and emails which originate in the US to parties overseas. This is a fishing expedition, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There is no court review of the blanket warrants issued under this act. The Attorney General has the sole authority in this arena, cutting the FISA court out of the loop. This leaves no effective check on the executive.

What is done with the phone calls and emails of American citizens caught up in this fishing net is up to the discretion of the administration, as the law does not address this issue.

There is a provision for review of the activities of the AG under the Act by the court, but no explanation on what is done with the intercepted communications of Americans nor how extensive the breach of privacy is.

In a bi-annual report to Congress the AG need only report on violations of his secret guidelines for surveillance. No report needs be made about how many American's communications have tapped or picked up nor does he need to report on how many US citizens have become targets.

If any one has "given aid" to terrorists, it is President Bush in his intransigent refusal to sign a bill into law which either requires meaningful oversight of the program or lacks immunity from legal jeopardy for those telecom companies which aided the administration in its efforts without a warrant.

Your assertion that anyone who opposes the Bush administration in its grab for unchecked executive power is intellectually dishonest. You keep repeating that noxious mantra in the hopes that it will drown out the reality which is quite the opposite of what you assert.

[bullypulpit]

If your on a no fly list and under surveillance, there must be a reason. Other than prior contacts in the ME. Not to mention your anti-American rhetoric.

Actually, the no fly list is a deeply flawed piece of work and how one gets on that list is a mystery which the agencies responsible for it will not divulge. Suffice it to say, that one can wind up on the list for little more than speaking out against the Bush administration and its policies in Iraq.

<a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/05/60minutes/main2066624.shtml>Unlikely Terrorists On No Fly List</a>

[red states rule]

Since you grasp of the facts has always been tenuous, at best, let's look at the facts regarding the "Protect America Act".

The Act allows authorities to monitor phones calls and emails which originate in the US to parties overseas. This is a fishing expedition, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There is no court review of the blanket warrants issued under this act. The Attorney General has the sole authority in this arena, cutting the FISA court out of the loop. This leaves no effective check on the executive.

What is done with the phone calls and emails of American citizens caught up in this fishing net is up to the discretion of the administration, as the law does not address this issue.

There is a provision for review of the activities of the AG under the Act by the court, but no explanation on what is done with the intercepted communications of Americans nor how extensive the breach of privacy is.

In a bi-annual report to Congress the AG need only report on violations of his secret guidelines for surveillance. No report needs be made about how many American's communications have tapped or picked up nor does he need to report on how many US citizens have become targets.

If any one has "given aid" to terrorists, it is President Bush in his intransigent refusal to sign a bill into law which either requires meaningful oversight of the program or lacks immunity from legal jeopardy for those telecom companies which aided the administration in its efforts without a warrant.

Your assertion that anyone who opposes the Bush administration in its grab for unchecked executive power is intellectually dishonest. You keep repeating that noxious mantra in the hopes that it will drown out the reality which is quite the opposite of what you assert.

Libs like you are the best allies the terrorists have. You bend over backwards to protect their "rights" meanwhile you spit in the face of the people who are protecting your sorrry ass from being killed by terrorists

I pointed out (and you dismissed it) how protecting the rights of terrorists cost 2 US Marines their lives

Hope you are happy BP - you stand tall for the terrorosts but do not give a damn about the troops

Typical of the left these days. Meanwhile terrorists groups are openly supporting Hillary - that should tell you something - but you will ignore that as well. Your hate for Pres Bush will block out anything serious from getting through

[bullypulpit]

Libs like you are the best allies the terrorists have. You bend over backwards to protect their "rights" meanwhile you spit in the face of the people who are protecting your sorrry ass from being killed by terrorists

I pointed out (and you dismissed it) how protecting the rights of terrorists cost 2 US Marines their lives

Hope you are happy BP - you stand tall for the terrorosts but do not give a damn about the troops

Typical of the left these days. Meanwhile terrorists groups are openly supporting Hillary - that should tell you something - but you will ignore that as well. Your hate for Pres Bush will block out anything serious from getting through

And you keep spouting utter crap as if it were the gospel truth. You and your fellow travelers, a fearful pack of cravens if there ever was one, are all too willing to destroy the foundations of the Republic because George W. Bush says "Boo!".

If you want to live in a paternalistic, over-bearing society that will promise to keep you safe from everything.You can move to North Korea or Burma just to name a couple. If you lack the courage and responsibility required of living in a free and open society...Move elsewhere. You and your kind aren't needed here.

America...Love it or leave it.

[Dilloduck]

And you keep spouting utter crap as if it were the gospel truth. You and your fellow travelers, a fearful pack of cravens if there ever was one, are all too willing to destroy the foundations of the Republic because George W. Bush says "Boo!".

If you want to live in a paternalistic, over-bearing society that will promise to keep you safe from everything.You can move to North Korea or Burma just to name a couple. If you lack the courage and responsibility required of living in a free and open society...Move elsewhere. You and your kind aren't needed here.

America...Love it or leave it.

How true--if you can't handle the fact that people hate you and try to kill just for being who you are you're a chicken shit. Enemies of Americans have every right to try and kill you. Deal with it. ( oh-and turn in your firearms too):laugh2:

[red states rule]

And you keep spouting utter crap as if it were the gospel truth. You and your fellow travelers, a fearful pack of cravens if there ever was one, are all too willing to destroy the foundations of the Republic because George W. Bush says "Boo!".

If you want to live in a paternalistic, over-bearing society that will promise to keep you safe from everything.You can move to North Korea or Burma just to name a couple. If you lack the courage and responsibility required of living in a free and open society...Move elsewhere. You and your kind aren't needed here.

America...Love it or leave it.

Yes BP, keep waving that white flag and act like their is no terror threat to America

Keep thinking the more the left opposes Pres Bush the less the terrorists will hate us

[Immanuel]

So you rant about innocent people being locked up - but name any

You rant about rights being taken away but can't name any

Then you fall back on personal attacks - seems you are losing this debate and can't admit it

I'm not losing this debate and there were no personal attacks in there. I didn't say you were ignorant. I said if you didn't understand those basic principles of our government, you were ignorant. You and I both know you understand this, but you don't have the balls to admit you are wrong. Now, that is a personal attack!

I never said any citizen's rights had been taken and that is absolutely beyond the point. Our Constitutional rights were developed to prevent abuses. If you and your buddy remove those rights then we are open to abuse. I'm sure that if and when that happens you will claim to have always defended our rights. Of course, we all know that would be a lie.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

I'm not losing this debate and there were no personal attacks in there. I didn't say you were ignorant. I said if you didn't understand those basic principles of our government, you were ignorant. You and I both know you understand this, but you don't have the balls to admit you are wrong. Now, that is a personal attack!

I never said any citizen's rights had been taken and that is absolutely beyond the point. Our Constitutional rights were developed to prevent abuses. If you and your buddy remove those rights then we are open to abuse. I'm sure that if and when that happens you will claim to have always defended our rights. Of course, we all know that would be a lie.

Immie

3,000 people were killed in the WTC. An investigation concluded that part of the cause was a intelligence system that failed. Our forefathers could have never envisioned foreign powers sneaking individual terrorists into the United States, killing Americans en masse and inflicting serious gamage to our economy. Fixing it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Fear of how it MIGHT be abused is a poor reason not to implement new methods of protecting American lives.

[bullypulpit]

Yes BP, keep waving that white flag and act like their is no terror threat to America

Keep thinking the more the left opposes Pres Bush the less the terrorists will hate us

I recognize the threat as being real. But I'm not going to pee my pants in terror everytime some twit in the administration says "Boo!". And just what "white flag" are you talking about? Maybe the toilet paper stuck to your shoe?

[Psychoblues]

rsr hates America, bp.



And you keep spouting utter crap as if it were the gospel truth. You and your fellow travelers, a fearful pack of cravens if there ever was one, are all too willing to destroy the foundations of the Republic because George W. Bush says "Boo!".

If you want to live in a paternalistic, over-bearing society that will promise to keep you safe from everything.You can move to North Korea or Burma just to name a couple. If you lack the courage and responsibility required of living in a free and open society...Move elsewhere. You and your kind aren't needed here.

America...Love it or leave it.

Haven't you figured that out, yet?

[JohnDoe]

3,000 people were killed in the WTC. An investigation concluded that part of the cause was a intelligence system that failed. Our forefathers could have never envisioned foreign powers sneaking individual terrorists into the United States, killing Americans en masse and inflicting serious gamage to our economy. Fixing it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Fear of how it MIGHT be abused is a poor reason not to implement new methods of protecting American lives.

good morning Dillo
What part of our intelligence system failed?

What part failed to keep us safe and prevent 911 that the patriot act is miraculously going to solve?

jd

[Immanuel]

3,000 people were killed in the WTC. An investigation concluded that part of the cause was a intelligence system that failed. Our forefathers could have never envisioned foreign powers sneaking individual terrorists into the United States, killing Americans en masse and inflicting serious gamage to our economy. Fixing it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Fear of how it MIGHT be abused is a poor reason not to implement new methods of protecting American lives.

I disagree, my friend, I'm not saying new methods should not be used. We should do everything we can to stay ahead of these bastards, but, we should be just a cautious at protecting ourselves from a government that HAS gotten too big for its britches. Our politicians in Washington are striping away the checks and balances that were developed in our system to protect us from them.

Is it the current crop of politicians that we need to worry about or a future one? I don't know the answer to that, however, as the saying goes power corrupts.

Those checks and balances were developed to protect the people. Without them we run the risk of someday having a Hitler-like rigeme in power and waking up to find our freedoms gone.

We can fight against the terrorists without throwing away the checks and balances that we have to protect us. As I said earlier in the thread, those who have been captured and ARE terrorists will not get away simply because they are given a fair hearing. They will not get away simply because we stand by our long fought for principles.

We the People of the United States of America lose the moment we give up those principles. I'm not sure we haven't already lost.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

I disagree, my friend, I'm not saying new methods should not be used. We should do everything we can to stay ahead of these bastards, but, we should be just a cautious at protecting ourselves from a government that HAS gotten too big for its britches. Our politicians in Washington are striping away the checks and balances that were developed in our system to protect us from them.

Is it the current crop of politicians that we need to worry about or a future one? I don't know the answer to that, however, as the saying goes power corrupts.

Those checks and balances were developed to protect the people. Without them we run the risk of someday having a Hitler-like rigeme in power and waking up to find our freedoms gone.

We can fight against the terrorists without throwing away the checks and balances that we have to protect us. As I said earlier in the thread, those who have been captured and ARE terrorists will not get away simply because they are given a fair hearing. They will not get away simply because we stand by our long fought for principles.

We the People of the United States of America lose the moment we give up those principles. I'm not sure we haven't already lost.

Immie

It's way to late to be bitching about it. It's beyond your control. Ignore it like we do all the other things that are FAR more threatening to our freedom, independence, security and privacy. How long would you and your family survive without evil corporations and law and order ?

[Dilloduck]

good morning Dillo
What part of our intelligence system failed?

What part failed to keep us safe and prevent 911 that the patriot act is miraculously going to solve?

jd

The wall that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information, for one thing.

[Immanuel]

It's way to late to be bitching about it. It's beyond your control. Ignore it like we do all the other things that are FAR more threatening to our freedom, independence, security and privacy. How long would you and your family survive without evil corporations and law and order ?

Corporations? Evil? Last time I checked a corporation was nothing more than a legal entity for conducting business protecting its owner from liability. Maybe the individuals that run corporations are evil, but not the corporations themselves.

As for law and order, well, that is what we are trying to maintain here. The biggest threats we have to our safety are power hungry individuals both foreign and domestic. It is foolish to ignore the threat from within simply because we perceive a threat from the outside.


The wall that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information, for one thing.

Which of our intelligence agencies knew of the impending attacks and having known, why didn't they act?

Immie

[Dilloduck]

Corporations? Evil? Last time I checked a corporation was nothing more than a legal entity for conducting business protecting its owner from liability. Maybe the individuals that run corporations are evil, but not the corporations themselves.

As for law and order, well, that is what we are trying to maintain here. The biggest threats we have to our safety are power hungry individuals both foreign and domestic. It is foolish to ignore the threat from within simply because we perceive a threat from the outside.



Which of our intelligence agencies knew of the impending attacks and having known, why didn't they act?

Immie

ahhh You wanna narrow it done to a few CEOs now. Fine--they still own us. I'm not nearly as worried about power hungry individuals as I am a population that lives in denial---and of course your basic everyday sociopaths who are everywhere. More cops, bigger guns, more prisons.:terror:

[JohnDoe]

The wall that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information, for one thing. that wall had nothing to do with our failures on 911.

From what i have read on it i thought it was the FBI that was not communicating with itself, where the shortfalls came?

jd

[Dilloduck]

that wall had nothing to do with our failures on 911.

From what i have read on it i thought it was the FBI that was not communicating with itself, where the shortfalls came?

jd

Then I guess you have answered your own question but there's also this.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/intelligence_12-11.html

[red states rule]

that wall had nothing to do with our failures on 911.

From what i have read on it i thought it was the FBI that was not communicating with itself, where the shortfalls came?

jd

Clinton gal Jamie Garelick built an extra legal "wall" that went well beyond the requirement of existing law

[bullypulpit]

So, why was the August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "<a href=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html>Bin Laden determined to strike in US</a> ignored by then National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice? No "wall" there, save perhaps her own incompetence.

[bullypulpit]

Clinton gal Jamie Garelick built an extra legal "wall" that went well beyond the requirement of existing law

Proof please. Or is this just another one of your unsubstantiated brain turds?

[Dilloduck]

Proof please. Or is this just another one of your unsubstantiated brain turds?

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200404190849.asp

[red states rule]

Proof please. Or is this just another one of your unsubstantiated brain turds?

Someone beat me to linking the sources

Now will you once again tuck your tail between your legs and crawl away as you have done on other threads after the proff was posted?

[April15]

Sorry to disagree, but your claim about "Dems. building walls between agencies" is not supported by fact. Indeed, the facts indicate almost the exact opposite of your claim.

Fact 1 - The origin of such "walls" dates back to the origin of US intelligence activities. Proof of this can be found in almost any high school or college history textbook, or thousands of other sources. These "walls" were cause by various reasons and reasonings, chief among them, typical interagency disputes, not policy.

For example:

The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report (Link 1) of pre-September 11 intelligence failures assessed that the "wall" was "constructed over 60 years," and a 2002 ruling (2)of the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review found that the "wall" originated "at some point during the 1980s." Even the Ashcroft-led Justice Department recognized as much in a July 2004 report (3) on the impact of the USA Patriot Act: "During the 1980s, the Department operated under a set of largely unwritten rules that limited to some degree information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officials."

Links
(1) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf#page=415
(2)
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

(3)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/071304_report_from_the_field.pdf#page=6

Fact 2 - The Reagan administration's policies and actions resulted in less communication between agencies than in the previous 20 years. Reagan's CIA shared almost no info with any agency, and of course the others reciprocated in a like manner. Prior to the current admin., Reagan's was the most secretive since Nixon, and in many ways, much more secret even than Nixon.

Fact 3 - Even Republicans have refuted the claims about "walls" and the "Gorelick memo".

9-11 commissioner and former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) forcefully refuted host Bill O'Reilly's false accusations that former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick was responsible for purported intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230008

And in a letter to the Wa. Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050817-101757-6420r

Gorelick memo and ensuing guidelines, which conservatives claim created a "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials, had nothing to do with military intelligence -- those documents addressed communications only among divisions within the Department of Justice.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007

You can also look to former Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission for further evidence that such claims are incorrect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9088-2004Apr13.html

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011378.php

[red states rule]

As the above link pointed out..........


April 19, 2004, 8:49 a.m.
The Wall Truth
Gorelick provides the clearest proof yet that she should resign.



The grandstanding Richard Clarke having made apologies all the rage, one should expect that President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be getting one in the next day or two. Something like this:





Dear Mr. President and Dr. Rice:
Very sorry about all that high dudgeon a couple of weeks ago. You remember, when we couldn't pass a microphone, a pencil, or a camera without perorations about the vital need to have the President waive executive privilege and ignore scads of history so Dr. Rice could be permitted to testify under oath and publicly (and improve our Nielson numbers) to address provocative allegations by another commission fave — er, witness — Richard Clarke. Turns out we should have mentioned that if Condi had just zipped an op-ed over to the Washington Post that would have done the trick. We regret any inconvenience to you, your staff, or the Constitution.
Respectfully, the 9/11 Commissioners.

If that note is not forthcoming, then someone's got some explaining to do about "The Truth About 'the Wall,'" Jamie Gorelick's remarkable Washington Post op-ed from Sunday, which purports to put to rest the nettlesome squawking about her untenable position as a commissioner judging the causes of pre-9/11 intelligence failure, a matter in which she was a key participant. Leaving aside, for a moment, how off-the-wall her account of the wall is, the fact that she well knows she needed to say something is the clearest indication yet that she belongs in the witness chair, not on the commissioners' bench.

Gorelick's op-ed intentionally raises five different points in her purported defense. Around them are sandwiched two others — opening and closing salvos that she can't resist mentioning but avoids identifying as argument points because she is too smart not to know that they scream out for her recusal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0404190849.asp

[bullypulpit]

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200404190849.asp

An opinion piece. C'mon, you're getting as bad as Red.

[bullypulpit]

Sorry to disagree, but your claim about "Dems. building walls between agencies" is not supported by fact. Indeed, the facts indicate almost the exact opposite of your claim.

Fact 1 - The origin of such "walls" dates back to the origin of US intelligence activities. Proof of this can be found in almost any high school or college history textbook, or thousands of other sources. These "walls" were cause by various reasons and reasonings, chief among them, typical interagency disputes, not policy.

For example:

The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report (Link 1) of pre-September 11 intelligence failures assessed that the "wall" was "constructed over 60 years," and a 2002 ruling (2)of the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review found that the "wall" originated "at some point during the 1980s." Even the Ashcroft-led Justice Department recognized as much in a July 2004 report (3) on the impact of the USA Patriot Act: "During the 1980s, the Department operated under a set of largely unwritten rules that limited to some degree information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officials."

Links
(1) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf#page=415
(2)
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

(3)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/071304_report_from_the_field.pdf#page=6

Fact 2 - The Reagan administration's policies and actions resulted in less communication between agencies than in the previous 20 years. Reagan's CIA shared almost no info with any agency, and of course the others reciprocated in a like manner. Prior to the current admin., Reagan's was the most secretive since Nixon, and in many ways, much more secret even than Nixon.

Fact 3 - Even Republicans have refuted the claims about "walls" and the "Gorelick memo".

9-11 commissioner and former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) forcefully refuted host Bill O'Reilly's false accusations that former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick was responsible for purported intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230008

And in a letter to the Wa. Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050817-101757-6420r

Gorelick memo and ensuing guidelines, which conservatives claim created a "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials, had nothing to do with military intelligence -- those documents addressed communications only among divisions within the Department of Justice.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007

You can also look to former Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission for further evidence that such claims are incorrect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9088-2004Apr13.html

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:

Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011378.php

Tried to rep you...Gotta spread some more joy first.

[Dilloduck]

An opinion piece. C'mon, you're getting as bad as Red.

I model myself after that great journalistic giant--the NYT. :laugh2: