Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal (leaked Doc)

[sabra]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Justice_Department_to_declare_warrantless_wiretaps_0119.html

Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal
RAW STORY


In a detailed 40-page legal memorandum set for release this evening the Bush Justice Department will defend the President's warrantless wiretap program as legal. A copy of the document was leaked to RAW STORY.

"The NSA activities are supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States," Justice Department lawyers write, referring to the President's order to wiretap Americans' calls overseas.

It adds, "The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack, and the Constitution gives the President the authority necessary to fulfill that solemn responsibility."

The first two pages are shown below, with a pdf link to the full document beneath that. Democrats plan unofficial hearings on the legality of the wiretaps Friday (Article here. No formal congressional hearing has been scheduled by the Republican congressional leadership to examine the taps, despite widespread concern among civil liberty advocates and constitutional scholars.

[BattyDem]

1. Since when does the Justice Department MAKE the law?

:eyes:

[Dunvegan]

8. Justice doesn't make the laws...they're supposed to uphold them.

It's the Supremes that interpret the laws.

Is Justice assuming Alito's confirmation, anyone?

[DoYouEverWonder]

63. That's why he's so important to them

Lindsey Graham "And I hope you'll understand if any us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you will tend to believe us."

Gonzalez, Roberts and anyone else that worked in the Bush WH during the last 5 year should be forced to recuse themselves and put under investigation.

[renate]

135. I keep reading that Graham said that and I wonder each time:

Was that just a HUGE Freudian slip? I can't believe he'd be that laugh-out-loud obvious on purpose.

[Marie26]

148. That was great

Graham was so weird - he'd alternate between kissing butt and making these droll, cynical comments throughout the hearing.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Yeah, I thought only elected reps get to make law

I'm sooo pre-9/11, I guess.

[teknomanzer]

97. History repeats itself...

The Roman Senate became nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Emperor. It seems our congress is only too willing to serve the same function. The president already has such supreme executive power the only obstacles left are term limits and elections. If 9/11 swept away what was left of the Bill of Rights what crisis will precipitate the elimination of the remaining obstacles?

[loudsue]

139. Yep. And one of his own got to Caesar -- et tu, Brute?

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

They're all going to suffer in the end. I just wish it was SOON!!

:kick:

[RDANGELO]

14. They don't.

All it amounts to is an opinion.

[rocktivity]

49. The Dems had BETTER filibuster now.

:mad:
rocknation

[mom cat]

79. You got those dots connected right!

I bless whoever leaked this!

[rodeodance]

59. well, gee, they have to have something to UPHOLD--so they invent it.

[WinkyDink]

173. Since the corrupt SCOTUS lets it.

[stepnw1f]

2. Fuck That... He Is Not King!

Buh bye Bush...

[Dunvegan]

3. They're making their move...

...and betting on confirmation of Alito to "make it so."

[Blutodog]

39. Right on!

These are very high level felons and have been using the SCOTUS from day 1 to validate their crimes. They get away with their crimes because they're is noone to stop them. The D's have all been sent love letters with whatever the NSA et al has on them so they're all scared shitless and essentially neutered. It's the nightmare of J.Edgar Hoover writ large. Bu$hCo now has a secret police and they are making files files files on all of us. We have a dictatorship of fear now and it's only going to get worse.

[rodeodance]

60. and you can betcha that alito WILL "make it so."

[wordpix]

86. yes, but...ACLU also making its move: ACLU v. NSA

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23496res20060117.html

[Marie26]

114. Thank God for the ACLU

Is that a contradiction? They've been fighting the Bush Administration at every turn, from the Abu Ghraib abuses, to the "enemy combatants", to the Patriot Act. I almost feel like they're singlehandledly keeping our freedoms alive.

[annabanana]

142. Now... When is Alito "scheduled" to take his seat?

Is it before the ACLU suits work their way up to the Supremes? If so... their work will come to naught.

[Marie26]

147. Probably way before this case

The ACLU is just starting at the District Court level - it might take a year for it to work its way up to the Supreme Court. But I still believe that it can be struck down, even w/Alito on the court. (Yeah, dream on, I know).

[ClintonTyree]

4. I'm shocked........

:boring: well, maybe not that shocked.

[QuettaKid]

9. F*CK you VERY MUCH Mr. Bush ! ! ! !

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Inland]

5. Thanks to unitary executive theory, this equals Bush giving Bush support

What's more, it makes the authorization of Iraq equal to a declaration of war as far as Bush authority goes, which is the dumbest crock of shit ever and so dangerous, as the war will NEVER end and has NO defined enemy and NO defined front.

Fuck you, Bush.

[Dunvegan]

10. Bingo.

[wordpix]

82. * didn't choose Gonzo for nothing-he's a good water boy for the cabal

[benburch]

6. Go Raw Story!

And DOWN WITH BUSH!

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Scarier every day. They don't think anything can touch them...

and they may well be right.

[Inland]

12. Congress might be able to. It just decides not to.

Thanks, republican fascist wannabees.

[wordpix]

83. "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs," what BS and a power grab

[Dunvegan]

13. We the People can stop them...

...but we have to have the will...and do it before it's like Germany 1941.

[merwin]

22. The majority of the people will stay pacified until AFTER it is like

Germany 1941.

Apathy at its best...

[Blutodog]

46. No their wrong

No their wrong , look even the Soviet Union which by anyone's standards was as complete a totalitarian state as they come collapsed in a heap. Remember that was in a country with NO democractic traditions or notions of personal freedom!! Here Bu$hCo is swimming against 250 yrs. of American democractic tradition and history. He's using FEAR but to keep it up they need at some pt. to really go for the brass ring and suspend the Constitution and seize total power. They will do this if they are threatened enough. My guess is that the plan is to have a junta approved successor for Bu$h , Rice or one of their hand picked cronies take over in 2008 with the help of Diebold and the other GOP voting fraud tactics they have honed almost to perfection in in 2000,2002 and 2004. By 2008 the computers will be everywhere and it will even easier for these crooks to steal whole elections from a laptop at lunch. We see they have respect for the LAW so stealing elections is just another crime among many but it has to be done because for them if an oppoition ever gains any power the investigations will begin BIG time. The NSA,FBI,are all being staffed by party loyalists and these agencies will suppy the "dirt" on anyone that dares challenge this new regimes power. Nevertheless, the bigger and wider this corrupt regimes tries to spread it's tryanny the harder it will become for it to overcome "internal" resistance. Already many so called conservatives and libertarian allies of the regime are having 2nd thoughts about the growing arrogance and open lawlessness of this gang. his latest Justice dept. statement will only add to this perception among these folks. Nevertheless, I doubt much will change in the shorterm. They are consoldiating power with Alito's nomination. We should expect them to become even more brazen as the Abramoff scandal unfolds. In fact we should expect either another terror attack ot another military andventure soon.

[MN ChimpH8R]

95. Sad to say, I think you are right

:rant:

People have been ripped on these boards for calling the masses sheeple, but there is no more accurate term. Look at the evidence: Just today read that in a WaPo poll, 51% of the sheeple polled think it's just hunky dory for ChimpCo to wiretap anyone it wants to keep us safe from those awful terrists.* The elected Dems prevaricate and suck their thumbs and refuse to stand up and be counted on any major issue. The ONLY Dem politicians deserving of any respect are Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and Al Gore. Only they have consistently said what needs to be said even though it gets flushed down the pre$$situtes' toilet and may as well have never been said as far as the teeming millions are concerned.

The slice of the population supporting Chimpass wouldn't care if their neighbors, including the kids, dog and cat, were hauled away in chains in the middle of the night because IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM directly. They WOULD NOT CARE if their own relatives were hauled away and shot in the middle of the street. They will NEVER CARE until they themselves are made to disappear but by then no one will be left to complain, as we will have been "taken care of" long before. These pinheads worship the Chimpenfuhrer the way the average German worshipped Hitler and in their minds if Chimp does it, it's fine.

These mouth-breathing cretins have no critical faculties and refuse to question what they are told. If the Idiot Son declared himself president for life donned a snappy uniform and heiled his way down the street, 40-50% of the populace would shit their pants and piss themselves in abject joy. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the 2008 elections are canceled for mysterious reasons.

The Congress is a cesspit of zoo filth in which you get exactly the justice and consideration you are able to buy. The judiciary is being systematically filled with right-wing lunatics who believe that the rights of the people are the right to sit down, the right to shut up and the right to do what the hell you are told without asking questions.

"They" control all the levers of power. "They" control the media. "They" count the votes. We are done as a country and there is not one damned thing any of us can do to stop them. Maybe the rest of nations of the developed world will finally get fed up enough to give this country the wake up call that was given Germany in 1945. One can only hope.

* and any thinking person realizes that the likelihood that you will be killed in a terrorist attack is only slightly greater than the likelihood that you will be kidnapped by space aliens.

:rant:

[mwb970]

103. Wake up call, indeed.

Maybe the rest of nations of the developed world will finally get fed up enough to give this country the wake up call that was given Germany in 1945.

Or the one that was given Japan. I have wondered at what point the rest of the world will be forced to unite against us in an attempt to kill the monster. And how will they do it?

[bearfan454]

118. Very well put

I am sad to say.

[splat@14]

15. Also means he can indiscriminately bomb anywhere he wants?

[tridim]

16. Add one more reason to the "Why * should be impeached" list

[DeepModem Mom]

17. And this will be released after we just heard from Osama? I may try on...

a tinfoil hat for size.

[joefree1]

18. Keep it up

Even conservatives are going to have a hard time with this.

[Borgnine]

113. True conservatives? Yes.

Unfortunately, I don't know how many true conservatives are left. What's posing as conservatism today would make even Nixon physically ill.

[EST]

19. New frame needed:

Activist Justice Dept.
Activist Executive Dept.
Oath to defend and uphold the constitution does not equal oath to change, modify and interpret the constitution.

[acmejack]

20. They can declare it a cheese enchilada if they wish

still won't make it something it's not, namely legitimate!

[Windy]

21. No one should be surprised about this...

Gonzales also wrote a legal memo stating the torture was authorized...

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. hahahahaha! Hail the new Fidel Castro!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

31. Fidel Bushco

Leader of the banana Republicans.

[stop the bleeding]

24. Didn't SCOTUS just smack down Ashcroft's interpretation of Oregon law

on assisted suicide?

So if the legality of this memo goes back to SCOTUS then Alito will uphold this - fucking great...

Who cares whether the DOJ is suppose to uphold the law - but when you have SCOTUS/Alito backing up your interpretations of law then WE are truly fucked.

We should have fought harder in 2000 and 2004 winning and loosing anything has it's consequences

[stepnw1f]

43. The Elections Were Stolen

We did not lose anything.

[stop the bleeding]

50. True - I am a resident of Florida and vote on touchscreens n/t

[Lochloosa]

146. Never again will I touch one of those.

The only way to vote in Florida anymore is by absentee ballot.

[samhsarah]

48. but even if SCOTUS backs it up and makes it legal from now on,

they did this before then. they still go down. then we are left trying to get this undone, which won't be easy, but it's not over yet. don't give up yet. we SHOULD HAVE fought harder in 2000 and 2004 but we can't change that now. we can change what happens from here on and we must.

[stop the bleeding]

51. Thank you for the positive outlook n/t

[samhsarah]

55. you bet.

i get just as frustrated. believe me. check out my post #54. sometimes it takes everything i can muster up not to lose my mind.

[Jon8503]

25. Would somebody tell me why they never mention the fact that

nobody is stopping him from the wiretapping of any phones. Also, there is no delay of wiretapping of any phones. He can immediately tap anyone's phone. All he needs to do is within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped, get the court order for doing it. So there is no delay at all, he can tap as quickly with the court order as without one.
I never hear them talking about that part of it though. That is correct is'nt it?

[Nay]

101. Yes, Jon, you are entirely correct. However, the point * is trying

to make is that he doesn't want any stinking laws or stinking FISA judges even attempting to tell him what to do. The laws don't apply to Hitl--, uh, the Unitary Executive, didn't you hear??:sarcasm:

[goforit]

26. If Bush solely attacked the United States, like the WTC, then does this

hold any water????

"The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack, and the Constitution gives the President the authority necessary to fulfill that solemn responsibility."

If he has responsibility and he voided this responsibility does
this men he has to step down?

[stevedeshazer]

27. I feel like I've just been kicked in the stomach.

Bush now has unlimited power.

BUT I WON'T EVER GIVE UP.

[stop the bleeding]

33. I feel like my dick just got stomped into the dirt. n/t

[Marie26]

41. No he doesn't

This just amounts to Bush saying that Bush's policy is legal. And that's fine - the Bush Administration can have an opinion. But it doesn't become legal until the legislative branch passes a law creating this authority, or the judicial branch finds that he has this power. Right now, it's as illegal after this memo as it was the day before.

[stop the bleeding]

42. see post # 24 about upholding the law and the judicial branch - I can't

believe that I am the only one to see this far down the road.:shrug:

[Marie26]

47. It's a worry

You're not the only one. A lot of Senators pressed Alito hard on his views about executive power for just this reason. One even asked him his opinion of the "unitary exective theory." They know the SC might have to hear this NSA case. I think it's possble Alito was selected for just this reason - he wrote a memo on how to expand executive power. Probably Harriet Miers was selected for the same reason - since she approved the NSA spying, she'd be sure to uphold it as a judge. So, yeah, Alito's definately a worry on this point. But Alito couldn't approve it alone, and I doubt even Scalia would approve this program. It's such a blatant violation of the laws & Constitution that it's difficult to imagine any independent court approving it. As you pointed out, the SC did just smackdown the Justice Dept's interpretation of a law, so they're willing to do it. They ruled 6-3 on that case - so even if Alito adds a vote for the conservatives, it wouldn't have changed the result in the assisted suicide case. There are still at least 5 justices willing to strike down the Attorney General's actions. Even if Alito is a plant for the Bush Ad., he probably couldn't change the court's eventual ruling on a NSA/Justice Dept. case. (IMO) But he certainly doesn't help.

[stop the bleeding]

52. Good points and you have given me a little more hope n/t

[Marie26]

112. Hope so! :) n/t

[hang a left]

80. I don't believe it for a minute...

Roberts is lying in wait. He doesn't want to alarm anyone anymore than they already are with the Alito nomination. He is a dictatorship lover, just waiting to make his move. They knew this story was going to come out a year ago. Don't think they didn't know what they were doing when they appointed Roberts for the Chief Justice position.

[Marie26]

109. Even if he is...

Roberts seems a lot more genial & reasonable and won over a lot of Democrats. But we know almost nothing about him - he was only a judge for a couple years. However, he did approve "enemy combatants" during that time. I don't doubt that his pro-executive stance was throughly vetted ahead of time before he was appointed. And he's showing his true colors now - pretty much always ruling for the Administration. But add Roberts, Alito, Scalia, & Thomas - and you still only have four reliable votes. It isn't enough. The rest of the justices have already shown their willingness to rule against the Administration on civil liberties cases. For example, the SC ruled 6-3 that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus, directly contradicting Bush policy. (Reinquist was one of the 3 who dissented for Bush, along w/Scalia-Thomas.) Even w/an Alito appointment, that balance would just change to 5-4, not enough to change the ruling. Roberts might be a Bushbot, but honestly, so was Reinquist. Since Reinquist was already ruling to approve Bush policy, Roberts at worst seems like just more of the same. It's O'Connors seat that could potentially change the swing of the court. But I just don't see Ginsberg, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, or Breyers changing their stance to allow blatant civil liberties abuses like the NSA program when they've already overruled Bush policy on detainees, etc. I feel like that's a 5-vote majority for civil liberties on this issue no matter what Alito eventually does. Now if Bush gets to appoint another justice, then we'd be in real trouble!

[stevedeshazer]

91. I'm not at all convinced that "even Scalia" would NOT approve

These guys have no problem overrunning the Constitution.

[Marie26]

111. You might be right

I'm probably being too idealistic. I just can't believe any conscientious judge would uphold this NSA policy. Scalia is a conservative, but he's brilliant, and he claims to care about the Constitution. He cares about it so much, he says, that he doesn't like people trying to add new claims or twist it beyond what's in the text. Fine, so what's crystal-clear in the text? No warrantless searches - spelled out in the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously held that wiretaps are a search, and covered by the Fourth Amendment. The FISA law is equally crystal-clear on requiring warrants for all wiretaps within the US. It's a no-brainer. These judges have spent a lifetime studying the Constitution - they'd have to know it was illegal, and if they had any shred of honesty, they'd have to rule against it. For Scalia to uphold this thing, he'd have to go not only against the Constitution, but his prior holdings, his entire philosophy. And maybe he'd do it. But it would be a complete sell-out of 20+ years as a judge & his entire legal training. Call me a dreamer, but I do think there are some Bush policies that even this court simply will not uphold.

[UpInArms]

28. Bush appointees in the Justice Department cannot make this lie to be

anything but the lie that it is.

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

[satya]

29. "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" NOT the people

I don't want him "protecting" me.

The Constitution also says: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

Where are they getting this "protect the people of the U.S." crap?

[progressoid]

145. Ding ding ding. Exactly what I was thinking.

[stevedeshazer]

30. Reluctantly kicked & recommended n/t

[Blutodog]

32. Admitted law breakers

Since when do the lawyers for admitted criminals make the LAW? I rob a bank and my lawyers then declares it's ok because ..well I'm above the law because I say so? This is circular logic but in Bu$hworld it passes for reality.

[truebrit71]

34. Sorry but this is bullshit.

The justice dept can say thay the moon is made out of cheese, it is the LAW that says that would bushitler did was illegal....

Is this the post-modern equivalent of Napoleon crowning himself Emperor?

[stop the bleeding]

37. see post # 24 about upholding the law n/t

[Marie26]

35. They can say whatever they want...

that doesn't make it legal. And the defense they've come up with is almost laughable. The Justice Dept. has some of the smartest lawyers in the country, and if this is all they can find to justify this policy, it's pretty clear that it is illegal & unconstitutional. The good thing is that we're not a dictatorship yet - the judicial branch finally interprets whether this policy was legal or not; the Justice Dept. can only offer an opinion. The Justice Dept. can't unilaterally declare anything legal - that's the courts' job.

[Mithras61]

36. The PRIMARY distortion that I haven't seen voiced here is...

that Shrub was only wiretapping overseas conversations. The facts that have come out indicate that many (perhaps even millions of) Americans have been wiretapped in their DOMESTIC conversations. The simple fact that they got warrants on SOME and NOT on OTHERS tells me that they KNOW that they COULD NOT get the warrants for the ones they were tapping without them. We need to be looking at WHO and WHEN those domestic exchanges were tapped and compare it to a listing of "Shrub's Enemies." I'd bet some serious money that VIRTUALLY EVERYONE on the warrantless taps is olso on the "Shrub's Enemies" list!

Nixon & Hoover didn't have a THING on these creeps! :grr:


I'm so mad I kant spel!

[woodsprite]

124. Wasn't there something about AT&T or one

of the phone companies routing all calls thru Canada. Wouldn't they be "tappable" according to * doctrine?

[Mithras61]

125. According to long-standing practice...

any calls that the NSA couldn't tap but friendlies could HAVE been tapped if requested. If the calls originate and terminate in the USA is the measure of if they are domestic or international, not the specific route they took. The same applies to Internet traffic.

[ucmike]

38. this is the basis for a new talking point

empty heads everywhere will be spouting "justice dept. says its legal, so there". just like "clinton and carter did the same thing".

a talking point will suffice, no need for fact or legitimacy.

[sabra]

40. and who is in charge of the DOJ? Well it's *'s ole Texas lawyer Gonzo...

coincidence?

[Kagemusha]

44. Enemy forces = US citizens

Keep in mind that's what the Justice Dept. is saying here. This is what I've said this would always come down to: the President declaring the authority to declare US citizens to be enemy combattants with zero rights without any legal review or due process whatsoever.

[Geo55]

56. 'mazing how that works, eh ?

Theses cat's ARE slick....they KNOW where they're goin'....but you really won't feel the knife.

[HuffleClaw]

45. simply parroting what bush himself said makes no difference

its for the courts to decide, and congress.

[november3rd]

53. Ha ha ha ha ha

This is turning so much into theatre of the absurd that the Republicans in Congress, and the electorate, are all going to be too embarrassed to admit this is really happening.

What a fucking joke!

[cyberpj]

61. I hope you're right. So far though, Republicans march in lock step. nt.

[samhsarah]

54. THIS IS IT! THIS IS FUCKING IT!

How much fucking more are we expected to take from this group of killing thug bastard shithead nazis? I can't anymore. I am starting to feel like I'm about to lose it. I try to stay positive, I try to charge forward, and it's getting more and more everyday like trying to roll a fucking boulder up a mountain. Words can't even describe the anger, the hatred I have for these fucking people. I never knew it was possible to feel this many negative things all at once. Sometimes it's almost like my freakin heads gonna explode!

needed to get that off my chest. ok i feel a little better now. :blush:

[Earth_First]

69. I'm with you...

When. Just when will this end?

[samhsarah]

76. Thanks.

It's comforting to know I'm not the only one who feels like they're about to lose it.

[Javaman]

74. I feel like crying, I feel like flailing out in anger...

I feel the blood pump through my fists as I clinch them in rage, I scream at the sky, "what the fuck??"

I want to hit, kick, punch something.

I am powerless. I see our wonderful country being sold off lock stock and barrel to the highest bidder. I see our basic rights as Americans taken away "for our own good". I see people blindly following moron* with no excuse other than "he* protects us", I see false patriotism, I see the rise of nationalism, I hear the hateful taunts of "if you don't like it, leave".

I write, I protest, I call, I listen, I read, I pay attention.

To what avail?

This is a very dark day for The United States of America. One more of our rights has been taken away.

I'm sad by how we, WE, have let our country down, how we have let down the founding fathers.

They are not republicans. They are not of a political nature. They are not of a law biding breed. They take, use and malign. It's all about control and greed.

We are entering our dark age.

[samhsarah]

75. WOW!

Javaman, you are a poet. Thanks.

BTW - this is your SECOND post today that deserves it's own thread. In case anyone is wondering, here's the first: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2051324&mesg_id=2051542

[Marie26]

117. They're not gone yet. Keep fighting! nt

[Dave Reynolds]

78. Strangely enough,

I'm calming down.

I am beginning to make plans and will start to gather goods and equipment.

The government is making my choice for me now, and it is almost a relief.



:patriot:

[samhsarah]

84. really?

or are you being sarcastic? i often wonder how do you know when it is finally that time. do you think it's now?

[Dave Reynolds]

88. I am serious.

I admit I am probably jumping the gun on this and being a nutjob, but I am a pessimist by nature. I hold no hope that any of our elected officials will do anything in great enough numbers, or in enough time, to save what is left of the Constitution.

While I would love to wait for someone else to start something and then join, I also do not think that will happen.

It is time for me, but I can only speak for myself.

[anotherdrew]

57. basicly, congress's laws are meaningless, bush can do anything he wants

fuck this, this is dictatorship

[AzDar]

58. Bullshit. Lil'Boots WAS not elected, and IS not King. He is a scary,

scary little man.

[debbierlus]

62. FILIBUSTER, FILIBUSTER, FILIBUSTER

This is what will become the legal justification for dictorship.

CALL YOUR SENATORS, NOW!

[EFerrari]

64. Nice try, Torquemada. You aren't on the bench yet either.

What a bunch of losers these people are.

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. If this is allowed, then ALL power is ceded to the President. It's not

only an abomination in its own right, it's the precedent for it all.

If Alito is confirmed, it will be much likely to be approved by the Supreme Court - a "legal" fascist dictatorship.

They're making their move - no wonder there's that "timely discovery" of the "new" bin Laden tape. :sarcasm: And no, I don't think the "new bin Laden tape" is a coincidence, just like his pre-2004 election tape and his never being captured were not coincidences. Just like before the 2004 election, the Bushies need a boost and a distraction to get what they want - this time Alito on the Supreme Court where he can crown the king:

[debbierlus]

67. DON'T TAKE YOUR EYE OFF THE BALL -STILL TIME TO STOP ALITO

And, thus stop this insanity to becoming the law of the land.

This memo tells us nothing we did not before. Bush has been asserting this power to break the law, indeed he has been flouting it.

So, this should just strengthen our resolve to stop Alito.

Should we go to Washington?

What do we do?

This is the last stand.

Let's brainstorm

If we beat Alito, we beat Bush.

We CAN do it. Let's band together and figure this out!

[kiraboo]

66. For the first time, I feel like giving up.

Where is the integrity? Does nobody understand that this isn't a partisan issue? We are lost.

[DrunkenMaster]

68. ALREADY ENUFF ZEIG IN MY HEIL, THANKS

and certainly enough goose in my step. Please, for gawd's sake....awfuggit - no one is listening.

[Earth_First]

70. What's next? The 22nd Amendment?

I'd like to say it's getting awfully frightening, but is BEEN getting awfully frightening...

[Vinca]

71. I'm going to declare myself skinny.

Will that make it happen???? Bring on the hot fudge.

[Patchuli]

110. *Wild applause!!*

:toast:

[understandinglife]

72. Bunk. Another anti-American, anti-Constitutional act by Bush's ...

... neoconster minions.


Peace.

[Initech]

73. So can Bush just declare himself supreme dictator of the earth now?

And get it over with already? Shit, I'm getting fed up with this administration more and more every single day.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

81. KICKYPOO

[ms liberty]

85. Some points to make:

This is nothing more than the Justice Department's attempt to rationalize and justify their actions.

The Justice Department is an arm of the Executive Branch.

It is too big to go away; it's got people of every political stripe except Christofascist angry.

God Bless Google - they could have complied; if they had, would they or the Feds have ever told us? We need to support them, and anyone who is standing up against these criminals.

It's OUR Constitution and OUR Bill of Rights.

They can only take it from us if we let them.

[wordpix]

87. good points, ms liberty: "They can only take it from us if we let them."

[stanfordlawschool]

106. we're kidding ourselves...

...if we think the public will be able to wade through this or understand it. plus, this is a dead-end politically:

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

it may have people of every political stripe angry (republicans because of its disregard for the branches of power, democrats because bush did it, Christofacists because it wasn't authorized by Pat Robertson), but its still a minority.

we need to bail on this and hammer away on ethics. people like their terrorists snooped on. i know i do.

[mvd]

107. What makes you sure only terrorists are snooped on?

I certainly don't believe Bush for a second. We need to use this - it's illegal.

[Mithras61]

108. If only "terrorists" were snooped on...

why did they wiretap the peacful anti-war group in Philadelphia?

The question in the poll is intentionally worded to provoke the response that they received. Ask the public "Do you support President Bush & the NSA wiretapping conversations of US Citizens within the US without warrants?" and see what response you get! In the meantime, quit buying the lies!

[missouri dem 2]

122. Stanford law school?

Where oh where did did Kennie Starr go? He liked snooping too.

[PegDAC]

180. Not to mention

that a Quaker peace group in Florida has been infiltrated, and property stolen.

:grr:

[AndyTiedye]

126. Terrorism Suspects = People Who Have FISA Warrants to Permit Wiretapping

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

And so do we, provided they get a warrant from the FISA court, as the law requires them to do.

They refuse to do this, because they are not monitoring terrorism suspects, so FISA would not have approved it.

[Brotherjohn]

144. No we're not. Depends on how it's asked. 52% feel he should be IMPEACHED..

... if he wiretapped American citizens without a warrant. And even Bush has admitted he has done this.

"By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval... The poll was conducted by Zogby International."

"The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." "

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=853

In the poll, and question, you're posting about, the question is asked about "terrorist" suspects. The assumption, and leading, in the question implies that we already know they're terrorists. So they're asking about "spying on terrorists".

But that is not what's happening, and most people know it.

[Marie26]

151. Here's another poll

According to the AP, 56% believe that the NSA should be required to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls. The poll you cite is hugely misleading, because the question doesn't mention the most important element - that these are "warrantless" wiretaps. It just asks if the gov. should be allowed to intercept calls - even I agree that should be allowed to do so w/a valid warrant. The answers change once pollsters ask if the gov. should be allowed to conduct warrantless wiretaps.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll

[Joey Liberal]

89. They want our freedom n.t

[Imalittleteapot]

90. BULL. How much more of this neocon bs can I

take? I'm about to explode. Surely even the rightwingers will find this major attempt to fool the public a bit lame. They won't get away with this one, will they?

:nuke:

[savemefromdumbya]

92. Seems to be a different view from the Congressional side?

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Yesterday's analysis was requested by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who wrote in a letter to Bush earlier this month that limiting information about the eavesdropping program violated the law and provided for poor oversight.

The White House has said it informed congressional leaders about the NSA program in more than a dozen briefings, but has refused to provide further details. At a minimum, the briefings included the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats, known collectively as the "Gang of Four," according to various sources.

"We believe that Congress was appropriately briefed," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement last night.

Bush has publicly acknowledged issuing an order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that allowed the National Security Agency to intercept telephone and e-mail exchanges between the United States and overseas without court authorization. The cases were limited to people suspected of al Qaeda ties, Bush and his aides said.

Cumming's analysis found that both intelligence committees should have been briefed because the program involved intelligence collection activities.

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Also yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said it would file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today demanding information about the NSA spying. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits Tuesday asserting that Bush exceeded his authority and violated Fourth Amendment guarantees in authorizing the NSA surveillance.

[wordpix]

150. Congress better get a clue real fast: Alito confirmation will give * the

emperor's crown

[Trish1168]

93. Thinking back to my social studies classes in the '70s

Umm.....I thought congress made the laws and the President signs the laws and sometimes enacts and/or enforces them....and the judiciary interprets them.

Now it seems to me its up to the courts to say whether or not the President broke the law. But one thing is sure....its not legal just because the justice department says it is.

[savemefromdumbya]

94. Justice Department are actually wrong!

Justice Department IS wrong!

[The_Casual_Observer]

96. This line of reasoning allows any criminal act legal

as long as some connection with 9/11 is made as justification.

[rg302200]

98. It doesn't matter

Because unless the people take to the streets in mass protest and the world see's how much his own people hate Bush then he will keep right on being Dubya.

Mass protest's are the only way to change anything....look at what happened in Eastern Europe during the cold war....or how about the Ukraine a few years ago? Protests were everywhere during the 1960's....Until EVERYONE of us are willing to take to the streets and shut the government down, Dubya will keep right on rolling over us.

[gordontron]

99. now lets watch if the Dems crumble

under this load of b***shit or if they can wade through it and fight like the politicians we thought we elected.


:puke:

[thereismore]

100. The executive branch OK's the supreme executive.

It's like Corleone's sons declaring Don Corleone innocent.

[mvd]

102. Another reason to stop Alito

We have ourselves a Court challenge, and we'd have little chance of winning if it goes to the Supreme Court and Alito is there. O'Connor would probably rule for them if she was there, but you never know.

[babsbunny]

104. Maybe Fitz has some tricks up his sleeve!

Something gotta to give!

[mvd]

105. That would be a good route

Things are so bad in this country right now, I just have to be an optimist. Otherwise, I'd be in constant gloom. :hi:

[superconnected]

115. Can someone please tell me what that sign on the wall says.

I thought it said animals do not drink alcholol.

It doesn't.

Oh, darn. Must be me...

[oregonindy]

116. this passes I think the american revolution replays 21st century style

scary stuff people freakin scary stuff!

[Prana69]

119. If ever you needed a reason to filibuster Alito...

Greetings from Oz. Been watching proceedings of the last few months with interest. What happens in the US reverberates around the world. We have our own lying rodent that we're trying to rid ourselves of. I figure if you can exterminate *, then we can bait our lying little cretin.

But listen, what is it going to take for your Democrat Congressmen/Congresswomen to get the message?

Alito MUST be blocked.

* owns the Executive. * owns the Legislature. The only remaining check that he has not yet taken is the Judiciary. Alito is the final piece in the puzzle.

What option do your Democrat reps now have? Can they really afford to wait for those elctions later this year, confident in the knowlege that they will pick up the required seats to regain a majority? Take it from an Australian who has watched with glee as our Rat PM languishes in opinion polls, only to conjour up a crisis just before an election and ride the wave of xenophobia and fear to victory - a lot can change in a few months.

Can you afford to wait?

The Justice Department administers the law. They have made their position clear. They are simply waiting for Alito to be confirmed so the position can be ratified by the Judiciary. Your Legislative chamber is the only remaining forum where you can prevent this happening.

It's that, or a second American Revolution. Are you prepared to go through that again?

Filibuster. Please. For all of us.

DR

[thinkingwoman]

120. they can declare that up is down if they want to

it won't affect gravity.

[Charlie Brown]

121. 2016-Justice Dept. declares forced labor camps legal and const'l

"The Supreme Military Commander is within his rights to protect the country and punish dissidents by any means he sees fit."

[missouri dem 2]

123. President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander

in Chief and sole organ for the Nation" And what sort of organ would he be?
Our national ......

[LynnTheDem]

127. JD needs to show exactly where it says "CinC OF WE THE PEOPLE."

Coz it sure as fuck doesn't say that.

But hey, next time the prez has a D behind his/her name, he/she can simply invade and occupy a country and declare himself/herself the COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF WE THE PEOPLE and spy on any Americans he/she wants to and basically do what the fuck ever he/she wants coz he/she will be above all laws.

That's the New America rah! rah! rah!

[PegDAC]

181. AMEN! n/t

[NMMNG]

128. I've got an idea

Why don't they just burn the entire f*cking Constitution and be done with it? :shrug:

[fshrink]

129. The USC

disqualified itself, and its constitutional role, when it aborted the democratic process in 2000. It has de facto become an instrument of the executive, rather than a supreme recourse for the citizens, regardless of who sits on it. And, logically, every word it utters confirms its demise and makes more obvious the constitutional crisis we have now entered. Reframe that.

[stanfordlawschool]

131. It's typically abrrev. as SCOTUS. USC is a school.

You already mentioned Bush v. Gore (or at least that is what I guess the 2000 ref. is for), I'm curioius how "logically, every word" the Court utters confirms its demise. What opinions since Bush v. Gore have confirmed that Court's demise to you? Was this because of their holdings? The policy implications? I'd be curious to know, because mainly it seems odd someone would be so down on SCOTUS when this stupid wiretapping is obviously being orchestrated by King George.

[Dr Fate]

130. If true, then there must be a Filibuster.

Democrats must show that they oppose a Proto-Facist state brought about by a Unitary Executive.

[PinkyisBlue]

132. A lowly Bush

"The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack..."

But what to do if it's the President doing the attacking?

The founders of the Constitution never imagined that our great nation could be toppled by a lowly Bush.

[batmansmom]

133. A lowly Bush

"...the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States..."

Inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ of what, exactly?

According to this bastard, the Constitution is nothing but a "Goddamned piece of paper"

Negates the claim of constitutional authority in any capacity.

Evil sociopathic thugs. And I'm being kind.

[stevietheman]

134. This is nothing short of a declaration of royal authority

Therefore, it's time to start moving to physically remove the President.

It's time to remove Traitor Bush from our White House.

[f-bush]

136. What a surprise

a little like the fox guarding the chicken coop you might say!

[jaysunb]

137. Impeachment Defense

This is simply a crock of shit, and will be summarily dismissed in all corners. But it presents a chance to give B* yet another opportunity to avoid responsibility his actions....a life, long, pattern. :evilfrown:

When the day of reckoning comes, may Senor Gonzales join his patron and others in the dock.

[truthisfreedom]

138. commander-in-chief my ass. DECLARE WAR, YOU CRIMINAL PANSY!

declare war or give up your "commander" status.

[baby_mouse]

140. Justice Department to Chew own Head Off and Replace With Own Testicles.

What a bunch of pointless tossers.

:eyes:

[Binka]

141. It's Official Mouse....I LURVE YOU

I have been laughing for 5 minutes!

[baby_mouse]

186. Awww XXX

fankyou!

[crowcalling]

143. I'm not surprised

And we are only going to be fighting a losing battle from now on, as long as there are Republican traitors in our country who are willing to install a dictator. If not Bush, it will be someone else.
They are like Nazi's pure and simple. Sorry to use that term, but if it walks like a * and talks like a *, then that is what it is.

Bush and Right-wing Republican supporters WANT a dictator. They are not American. They are traitors. They used to be our countrymen, but they have turned against us - against American democracy.

We are the only ones fighting for democracy. THEY (Supporters of this administration) want a dictatorship.

And we are demoralized, because it is our own neighbors, our family members, our used to be countrymen who want this dictatorship to replace everything we have fought so hard for and died for. Spitting on the graves of our American soldiers. And we look on in horror, mystified by their evil, shocked by their ignorance, bruised by their hateful bigotry and religious zealotry and finally disgusted by their cowardice.

History will remember them. Every last one of them - for exactly what they are.

[whosinpower]

149. Yeah - but!

What about the spying that occured without warrents PRIOR to September 11? That hit the news - I remember it clearly. Can soneone enlighten me?

[Up2Late]

152. Justice Dept. Backs Bush on Spy Powers (Wash. Post)

Justice Dept. Backs Bush on Spy Powers

Administration Cites War as Justification

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration argued yesterday that the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order warrantless eavesdropping on the international calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and others in this country, offering the administration's most detailed legal defense to date of its surveillance program. The Justice Department's lengthy legal analysis also says that if a 1978 law that requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping is interpreted as blocking the president's powers to protect the country in a time of war, its constitutionality is doubtful and the president's authority supersedes it.

Many experts on intelligence and national security law have concluded that the president overstepped his authority, and that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specifically prohibits such domestic surveillance without a warrant. The legal justifications were laid out in a 42-page white paper sent to Congress yesterday by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The administration has offered many of the same arguments orally in defending the program since its existence was disclosed last month.

For example, Gonzales asserted that the president's power to protect the country with surveillance was reaffirmed when Congress passed a resolution in October 2001 that authorized the president to use military force against al Qaeda and to deter future terrorist attacks.

"The program was designed to be protective of civil liberties," Steven G. Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general for the department's Office of Legal Counsel, said yesterday in a briefing with reporters. "It's not a blank check that says the president can do whatever he wants." Bradbury said the president has a special role -- and duty -- to take whatever military action is needed to counter attacks on the United States, and those actions necessarily incude intercepting telecommunications and e-mail.

(more at link below)

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903276.html?nav=rss_politics>

[Lithos]

153. I'm shocked!

No not really. Gonzalez is such a tool....

[mcctatas]

154. Well who would have thunk that?!

Imagine, the very same people who helped convince the blivet that he had the authority now support their own half-assed arguments! friggin bunch of anal cysts!!!!!:grr:

[PVK]

155. Why I am going to reinstate my ACLU membership tomorrow.

"Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, said Bush and Gonzales are manufacturing legal justifications but the program remains in violation of the constitutional amendments protecting free speech and privacy."

The ACLU has brought suit on this matter.

[TaleWgnDg]

162. excellent and good for you!! . . . welcome to DU, PVK

.
ACLU rocks !!

.

[PVK]

183. Thanks and agreed. n/t

[UpInArms]

156. twisted logic:

"The program was designed to be protective of civil liberties,"

they violate our liberties and call it "protection"?

These warped anthropods disgust me.

[TaleWgnDg]

161. Ah-ha!

.

George Orwell's book, "1984"
.

[IChing]

157. Steven G. Bradbury said that Govt. Propragada News reports were OK

He wrote the opinion for the Justice Dept. which was also proven wrong.

Bush said in a press conference today there is nothing wrong with releasing the videos,
basing his argument on two administration memos uncovered this week,
written by Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general,
and Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

"There is a Justice Department opinion that says these pieces are OK
so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy," said Bush.
"And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling."

http://www.punditguy.com/2005/03/united_states_o.html

However as you know this was not true or legal.

[LynnTheDem]

158. Where exactly in the USC does it mention

COMMANDER IN CHIEF of WE THE PEOPLE

I'd really love to see that.

The Founding Fathers would call bush what he is...a traitor.

[0rganism]

159. Same place where it enumerates the powers of a Unitary Executive

What, don't you remember reading that part?

[LynnTheDem]

168. You mean all the bits that are in invisible ink?

Drats, nope I never read those parts.

[Erika]

160. W's rubber stampers rubber stamp his move?

Just shocked. The crooks.

[mykpart]

163. It sounds as if Bush plans to

take it to the SCOTUS, after he gets Alito in there, of course. They do whatever he tells them.

[radfringe]

164. if they haven't already...

any bets they use the "new" bin-laden tape as justification for wire-tapping...as in:

"hey, the guy says he's going to attack. We have to find out where it's going to happen and stop him. If we're prevented from wire-tapping Grandma's phone we won't get the info we need to stop another attack like 9/11..."

[depakid]

165. "The program was designed to be protective of civil liberties,"

Is there ANYTHING that these people WON'T say?

And is there ANY limit to the Washington Post's efforts to prop up the far right with its propaganda?

[Maeve]

172. Just more proof they didn't learn from Vietnam--still trying to

Destroy the village to save it. :eyes:

[MiniMe]

166. It isn't up to the justice departments to decide if something is legal

or not, that is the courts job.

[kurth]

167. Little Speedy Gonzales did good - "Heck of an Attorney General," Bush said

[papau]

169. Administration Paper Defends Spy Program(presidential powers, particularly

in the area of national security, are simply "beyond Congress' ability to regulate,")

So the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service sees significant legal flaws in the president's program with one analysis concluded that the warrantless surveillance effort directly conflicts with Congress's intentions in passing the FISA law with legal justifications were "not as well-grounded" as the administration asserted, and another report that the administration appears to have violated a national security law by failing to brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees on the program in 2001 (only a limited briefing to the two most senior members on each committee). The the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights go to court to assert that President Bush exceeded his power, violated the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and broke the FISA law when he authorized the program in an effort to find out if secret al Qaeda cells were plotting inside the United States.

Result is the DOJ "white paper" that claims that the President has inherent war powers to order warrantless eavesdropping on the international calls and e-mails of US citizens and others in this country, saying that if the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is interpreted as blocking the President's powers to protect the country in a time of war, its constitutionality is doubtful and the President's authority supersedes it.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903276.html


Administration Paper Defends Spy Program
Detailed Argument Cites War Powers
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A01
The Bush administration argued yesterday that the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order warrantless eavesdropping on the international calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and others in this country, offering the administration's most detailed legal defense to date of its surveillance program.
The Justice Department's lengthy legal analysis also says that if a 1978 law that requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping is interpreted as blocking the president's powers to protect the country in a time of war, its constitutionality is doubtful and the president's authority supersedes it.
Many experts on intelligence and national security law have concluded that the president overstepped his authority, and that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specifically prohibits such domestic surveillance without a warrant.
The legal justifications were laid out in a 42-page white paper sent to Congress yesterday by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The administration has offered many of the same arguments orally in defending the program since its existence was disclosed last month.
For example, Gonzales asserted that the president's power to protect the country with surveillance was reaffirmed when Congress passed a resolution in October 2001 that authorized the president to use military force against al Qaeda and to deter future terrorist attacks.
"The program was designed to be protective of civil liberties," Steven G. Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general for the department's Office of Legal Counsel, said yesterday in a briefing with reporters. "It's not a blank check that says the president can do whatever he wants." Bradbury said the president has a special role -- and duty -- to take whatever military action is needed to counter attacks on the United States, and those actions necessarily include intercepting telecommunications and e-mail.<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/politics/20nsa.html
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - The Bush administration offered its fullest defense to date Thursday of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that authorization from Congress to deter terrorist attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the N.S.A. activities."
In a 42-page legal analysis, the Justice Department cited the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of presidents both Republican and Democratic, and dozens of scholarly papers and court cases in justifying President Bush's power to order the N.S.A. surveillance program.
With the legality of the program under public attack since its disclosure last month, officials said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales ordered up the analysis partly in response to what administration lawyers felt were unfair conclusions in a Jan. 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Congressional report challenged virtually all the main legal justifications the administration had cited for the program.<snip>


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-19-cheney-spying_x.htm

Cheney says domestic surveillance vital

NEW YORK (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, saying it is an essential tool in monitoring al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. But Cheney stressed that the program was limited and conducted in a way that safeguarded civil liberties.

[baby_mouse]

170. Administration Makes Up Whole Bunch of Crap

God's twirling around in his wheelchair, kiddies...

[mom cat]

171. This is exactly why we must fight Alito. Filibuster!

CALL ALL YOUR SENATORS LOCAL DISTRICT OFFICES NOW TO OPPOSE ALITO

We have gotten many emails from our participants, asking "what more can we do?" Some have reported senators arbitrarily turning off their answering machines at night, or long waits on hold. Are they trying to hide from the thousands and thousands of their constituents who are raising their voices to demand that they filibuster the evasive Alito? Even if you have already sent your personal message by email or made some phone calls, we have added a FABULOUS extra function to the main action page where you can instantly lookup all your senators local district offices phone and fax numbers with just one click.

http://www.nocrony.com

SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT FILIBUSTER FRIDAY

If the other side can have a so-called "Justice Sunday", we can have our own "Filibuster Friday", and that day is tomorrow. In just the last 24 hours we have seen a major shift in momentum. Today, Senator Leahy came out with a very strong statement that he recognizes the immense threat to our freedom and democracy in allowing a dangerous and unpopular president to install a fifth and controlling vote to hold that our Constitution actually intended to create an executive dictatorship. Tomorrow we need to show our support for those senators who are starting to stand up now by hitting every phone they've got right down to the district level with our phone calls and faxes. Get all your numbers with one easy click at

http://www.nocrony.com

Those you who like to call in to progressive radio programs, we have all their call in numbers too at the site above in the right column. Call them and ask them to talk up Filibuster Friday all day and night long! Let's start early and snowball the thing all day long. Ask them to give out the easy to say and remember URL above as much as possible. Senators have said they are "undecided" on a filibuster. But we the American people HAVE decided and all our senators have to do it get it.

Some senators who are too still too cowardly to demand a filibuster are saying they will make Alito an issue in the 2006 election. It'll be an issue alright, in their OWN primaries! Any officeholder who will not stand up for this one must never hold public office in any capacity ever again. And the difference is whether you will stand up YOURSELF right now and make those calls to their local district offices. Make calls to the toll-free numbers 888-355-3588, 888-818-6641 and 800-426-8073 if you can get through there too.

It is not enough to vote "No." They must vote "Hell, NO!" It's called a filibuster. Filibuster Friday.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

[Pryderi]

174. Some interesting FISA statistics:

This has probably been posted before, but I couldn't find it in a search


Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r

Again, I ask, "If the president wasn't doing anything wrong, why didn't he ask for a warrant?"

[saberjet22]

175. Impeachment time is here.

We have reached the red warning line and the boiler is about to blow. Now it appears that Bush thinks he can declare his own laws. The Dictator has arrived, make way, make way! Delusions of grandeur, next stop. I wonder who he's going to be. Napoleon? George Washington? Attila the Hun would be nice.
Seriously, folks, see, it's time to put the brakes on and throw this bum into a cell.

[oneoftheboys]

176. Why, I declare...

BS. This will not be the end of this. But this is not good.

[DrunkenMaster]

177. Let Freedumb Ring

Since the Justice Department is set this evening to release their report that explains why President Bush's wiretapping of domestic political opponents and peace groups like the Quakers is perfectly Constitutional, I thought this might be a fine opportunity to recap the story thus far.

1. Any American citizen can now be detained without an attorney or any filed charges for any length of time if George W. Bush decides you are the enemy. There is no review process for this detention, and several US citizens have already had this happen to them.

2. The Justice Department may now at any time access your emails, phone records, library loans, or even enter your home without ever telling you what has taken place. If you learn this has occured, it is a crime for you to talk about it publicly and it is punishable by long periods of incarceration.

3. Since the Geneva Convention has been rendered "quaint" and "outdated" by the Justice Department, Bush may now have you exported via a process called "extraordinary rendition" to one of many secret prisons throughout the planet where you will be beaten and tortured.

4. That torture may include rape, which the Taguba Report (completed by the US military, no less) has already admitted to, attack by trained dogs (where do you think that german shepherd bit the naked, cowering prisoner in the Abu Ghraib photos? The next photos in the series exist but are unreleased...I'll leave it to your imagination, or you can listen to interviews with journalist Seymour Hersh for details), drowning, electric shock, or the torture of family members, including children. Presidential advisors have admitted in public debate that there is no law against Bush allowing a child's testicles to be crushed in front of his parents for purposes of "persuasion".

5. According to tonight's report by the US Justice Department, the President may use on-going, warrantless, secret wiretaps to track domestic opponents of his polices, including current politicians, peace groups like the Quakers and Code Pink, and anyone else he deems a threat to "national security". Once again, there is no form of oversight or judicial review required.

This nation is being controlled by psychotics and no one cares. The new season of American Idol is rolling, Brad Pitt and some other bimbo are having a baby, and the Superbowl is just around the corner. Not one of my students has heard of the state-sponsored genocide currently happening in Darfur, but every single one of them had heard of Jessica Simpson. Who will be the next American Idol? Only YOU can decide.

[Marie26]

182. Good, depressing summary. nt

[SittingBull]

178. Sorry

I'd try to read it, but it bothers me really, soon as it comes to the summary and the first "On Sept. 11"- BS

The holy mantra.

[madmark]

179. this issue needs to be joined before a federal court asap

[progressivebydesign]

184. Incurious George becomes Tricky Dick. n/t

[timtom]

185. It's quite simple, really.

Every executive order, every pronouncement by the so-called Justice Dept., every illegal rider tacked on to a piece of legislation, is to be considered null and void. (Ever notice how those extra provisions that sneak into bills are very much like computer viruses or trojans?