White House, Cheney's office, subpoenaed (relating to warrant-free eavesdropping)

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Leahy's committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_subpoenas_3

[acmavm]

1. Did they mention which particular documents they want but

aren't gonna get?

[L. Coyote]

32. WHAT THEY ARE REPORTING: Press Release and PDFs Subpoena Packets

Statement from Leahy's Website = Press Release and PDFs Subpoena Packets

Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas
For Legal Basis Of Bush Administration’s
Domestic Surveillance Program
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062707a.html


WASHINGTON (Wednesday, June 27) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), in consultation with Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), issued subpoenas Wednesday for documents relating to the authorization and legal justification for the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. The subpoenas seek documents related to authorization and reauthorization of the program or programs; the legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) relating to the surveillance.

“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”

“There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee,” Leahy wrote. “The Administration cannot thwart the Congress’s conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details.”

Last week the Committee, in a bipartisan vote of 13-3, authorized Chairman Leahy to issue subpoenas for documents and information related to the domestic surveillance program. The Committee has requested the legal justification for the program several times since it was first revealed in December 2005. The deadline for providing the Committee the information is July 18.

# # # # #

Subpoena packet for documents from the White House, sent via Fred Fielding, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20WH%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the Office of the Vice President, sent via Shannen Coffin, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20VP%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the Department of Justice, sent via A.G. Alberto Gonzales
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20DOJ%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

Subpoena packet for documents from the National Security Council, sent via Richard Klingler, Esq.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/6-27-07%20NSC%20Subpoena%20Packet.pdf

[Maraya1969]

46. Sooo if these thugs do not hand over the documents a warrant can

be obtained to get them right?

I would love for that to happen. Right now I see big black magic marker lines all over relevant information.

A warrant would stop the magic marker

[lonestarnot]

63. Well I would say they better hurry on that. LOL

How many markers do you suppose D.C. has? :rofl:

[MsMagnificent]

49. Who voted against issuing subpoenas?

Vote 13-3, so who are these 3?

...or how do you look something like that up?

[cal04]

2. here's a link

White House, Cheney's office, subpoenaed The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.


Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Leahy's committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_subpoenas

[maddezmom]

4. thanks

:)

[Miss Chybil]

3. K/R nt

[The Witch]

5. 5th rec! BOOOOM!!!

:woohoo:

[derby378]

6. AA-OOOOO-GAH!

Dive! Dive!

It's about to get really tense on Capitol Hill...!!

[CottonBear]

7. Cheney's office, White House subpoenaed, Senate committee probing legality of ... eavesdropping ...

BREAKING NEWS

Cheney's office, White House subpoenaed
Senate committee probing legality of Bush's eavesdropping program

Updated: 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick
Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Leahy's committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19461815/

[EVDebs]

14. It's a blatant violation of CIA and other IA's charters to do domestic ops

in the first place without warrants or oversight. That said, this administration's response has always been "I ain't got to show you no stinkin' batches"

[CottonBear]

22. BushCO does whatever it wants but that is coming to an end now that Democrats

are in the majority.

I say we indict and try all of the congressional Republicans who sat by and let this treasonous and illegal crap happen on their watch.
:grr:

[calimary]

8. YESSSSSSSSSS!!!

I hope Leahy gets cheney, GOOD. After all, cheney owes him a big one after telling him to go fuck himself while on the floor of the Senate. You go GET him, Senator Leahy!!! Give him one for ME!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3341524

[Gregorian]

9. If they don't comply can we issue a restraining order?

Kick them out of the White House? I know, it's ridiculous. Sorry I even mentioned it.

Just flailing for an intelligent thought to end the madness.

[catmandu57]

16. This will go to the Supreme Court

I think they, the whitehouse will try to stall as long as they can but ultimately this and every other battle is going to be fought in the courts.

[VP505]

27. Probably right

but the WH won't sweat that cause they know Roberts and pals will either rule in their favor or stall until Dick Head and GWB are out of office.

[Danieljay]

31. and we will lose. The court is stacked. n/t

[Mechatanketra]

18. If they don't comply, they go to jail. (On paper.)

Seriously. Contempt of Congress is punishable by no less than one month in jail. If Bush and Cheney collectively refuse to comply, they can be tried and sentenced together, and Pelosi would become acting President until their release (as presumably being in prison would render one "incapacitated" from effectively discharging one's duties).

On paper. Of course, what will probably happen is that the US Attorney for DC will simply refuse to empanel a grand jury to indict them, and Congress isn't likely to get a mandamus writ from Bush's packed courts.

It's ironic that our Founding Fathers, having wrangled so much and to the point of paranoia about reining in the power of the government to prevent the tyranny of another King George, didn't seem to consider the simple case of a small clique of crooks getting into the offices that are supposed to be doing the checking and balancing. Similarly, it's painfully twisted that a nation born out of rebellion seemed to so quickly place its governing officers on a pedestal not far removed from "divine right" ... and that it learned nothing from the examples of Nixon and Reagan (indeed, both were shielded by that same pedestal).

I laugh bitterly whenever I hear someone (usually GOP mouths bristling at insults to Bush) declaring that the President has to be given respect due for his office. Frankly (and especially after Watergate), we should have learned by now that politicians, especially the highest and mightiest, are due less respect and consideration than ordinary citizens. The country would be healthier if its government were constantly under suspicion and subject to investigations — the President should be the ethical equivalent of the Irish high kings, at risk of being torn down and replaced for the slightest blemish. If you don't think that's fair, maybe you aren't strong enough for the job.

[guitar man]

29. from your lips to God's ear

On paper. Of course, what will probably happen is that the US Attorney for DC will simply refuse to empanel a grand jury to indict them, and Congress isn't likely to get a mandamus writ from Bush's packed courts.

All I can think when I read this is, they must have gotten the "right" ones in the attorney purge, and keeping that puppet Gonzo in place is serving to cover their asses....:mad:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. from your lips to a dog's ear

...and keeping that puppet Gonzo in place is serving to cover their asses.... :mad:

[tom_paine]

64. A Caesar, a Hitler, a Bush, a Cheney NEVER go to jail

Vile tyrnats never do, though they break laws and commit felonies on a daily basis.

There is only one operative question here: WHO will be found to stand up and make it so?

That the laws have been broken, there is no doubt, serially, wantonly, multiply. Who will go over and confiscate the computers, who will risk their careers and very possibly their lives to go over and slap the cuffs of Bushler and Unka Dick Himmler?

Caeser and Hitler understood this. A government is in many ways like a child's game. A compact for all to obey the rules. If one sulhy bully decides that the rules don't apply to him, then they don't unless the other children stand uip to him, make note that he has refused and expel him from the game (and be damned the consequences).

Really, as has been conclusively demonstrated during these last 6.5 years, it is no different from a weakened and shattered republic, as Amerika is today.

Bushler and Dick Himmler have broken the compact. No one is stopping them? Then it's OK.

It's that simple.

And thus, I conclude with 100% certainty that Bush and Cheney will never suffer one iota of prosecution for their many crimes.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. If they don't comply, Senate sends Sergeant at Arms to force

compliance (at least in my dream world :)

[rambler_american]

48. Sergeant at Arms

no longer has that particular function. Enforcement of Congressional subpoena now falls to the Attorney General. Or should I say "Fails" The crooks are in charge and it may be too late to do anything about it short of a revolution.

[derby378]

10. I'm gonna need popcorn...

[L. Coyote]

37. BIG Popcorn Sale at DEM HQ = "More on the Subpoenas" @ democrats.org/

More on the Subpoenas
Posted by Michael Link on June 27, 2007 at 03:07 PM
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/more_on_the_sub.php


Just to provide some background, the subpoenas of the White House and vice-president's office, according to AP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070627/eavesdropping-subpoenas/), are intended to recover "documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program."

What type of internal disputes? Well, how about one that led to the famous scene at John Ashcroft's hospital bed (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/gonzales_it_get.php), for starters. Many of you are already aware of the dramatic story where members of the Bush administration attempted to go around the acting Attorney General in order to reauthorize the warrantless eavesdropping.

These weren't minor disagreements, either. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey both threatened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602715.html) to resign over the issue.

So why is this so important? For one, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that there wasn't any dispute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602715.html) on the issue. Not that he had any credibility, but let's remember that it was sworn testimony and he refused to retract his statement.

[Bitwit1234]

11. All I can say is

ABOUT DAMN TIME.

[MilesColtrane]

12. Gee, When BushCo™ refuses, I wonder in whose favor John Roberts will rule?

This coming Constitutional crisis will be diverted by the Supreme's rubber stamp.

[progressoid]

15. Yeah, that's kind of a depressing thought.

[TroglodyteScholar]

53. My thought exactly....

They don't give a good gollydamn about some subpoenas.

[EVDebs]

13. 'Blaming human error...' Cheney's office will wipe their hard drives

http://www.questiontechnology.org/blog/humancomputer_interaction/index.html (see Blaming Human Error, re AK Permanent Fund error)

Isn't such wiping illegal in the first place ? Aren't fail-safe procedures in place to prevent such events ? If not, who is carrying the "football" in this errorprone administration and how do we get adult supervision in place ?

[donkeyotay]

17. Let's not forget that Sockpuppet stopped an investigation

by refusing to give security clearance to the investigators. Apparently the Decider is also the Obstructer.

[Radio_Lady]

19. Kicked and recommended. I'm watching my grandson today so have no time right now.

Gee, that movie Ice Age was great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skink]

20. Cheney's office is Subpeona nuetral.

[SaveAmerica]

57. I read that as 'subpoena central' maybe that's the plan, stack as

many subpoena's in his office as they can until he can breath or chokes on them.

[deepthought42]

21. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

:rofl:

I don't believe for one second that this misadministration will comply (laws don't apply to them, DUH! :silly:), but still...


SWEET. :evilgrin:

[paparush]

23. In Other News: Operation 'Four Corners' Launched

Taking a page from famed University of North Carolina coach Dean Smith's playbook, the Cheney/Bush administration plans to run out the clock using a systematic application of:

Stalling
Ignoring
Sending the wrong information
Asking for repeated clarifications
Stalling
Launching meaningless diatribes containing key buzz words such as "Terror, in harms way, and cut and run"
Stalling

and if all else fails

Ignoring

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

25. Ya got that right!

Great post...made me laugh..your right, of course.

[guitar man]

26. Maybe it's time they meet

Mr. Terrance W Gainer :evilgrin:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/person/terrance_gainer.htm

If they don't comply, they need to send Terrance after their ass and haul them in in cuffs if necessary, enough screwing around with these jackasses!! :grr:

[Edweird]

28. And when they claim Executive Priviledge... We can go AH HA! Gotcha!

[Drum]

30. ...

:popcorn:

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. I like how they call it "eavesdropping"

as if it was the maid lurking outside the drawing-room door

instead of a high-tech government program to spy on any and all electronic communications.

Makes it sound so...quaint.

[L. Coyote]

36. Origin of the term. Spies in days of old had to hang under the eave outside a window.

When my mother was hiding Jews from the Nazis, they carefully swept the dirt around the entire house at dark, then checked in the morning. On the morning they found the boot prints under the eave next to the window, she had to go about quickly to find another place to hide the family. She was unable to secure another hiding place. The family insisted on leaving nonetheless. My mother remembered those people walking down the street until out of sight with considerable remorse, wondering for the rest of her life about their unknown fate. Whoever spied on them did not come to the house to search for Jews, so the precaution may have been unnecessary.

[New Era]

34. Lets hope Dic-k's

Lets hope Dic-k's pacemaker 5000 holds up when everyone sees the mound of shit he has created. Squirm you war criminal!

[L. Coyote]

35. DOMESTIC SPYING active and archived threads on DU

DIA SPYING: NGIA collecting data, 133 U.S. cities, ID everyone, nationality, political affiliations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x983282

Campaign 2004: Were Bush / Cheney / NSA illegal wiretaps spying on Dems?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x925247

Conyers: New FBI Report Confirms "Worst Fears" on FBI abuse of NSLs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1123651

Leahy, Specter Press For Answers On Administration’s Domestic Spying Program.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1024157

[redqueen]

38. saw this posted elsewhere...

i hope after the subpoenas are ignored, that it doesn't end there

[man4allcats]

39. And by God, they better comply or

we'll get mad! That will make them pay attention! :eyes:

[L. Coyote]

41. There is Some History to this Question, Contempt of Congress has consequences

lovuian - Tue Jun-26-07 10:45 PM - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1191735#1192274
25. Here is some History to this question .....

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees ... in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena ... in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

... early instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

... an attempt to bribe ... a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions ... releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.

In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." ... In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States. ...

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area which have been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the "Speech and Debate clause" which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.

Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

... the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 year ...

... its the DUTY of the US Attorney of the District of Columbia to refer to grand jury for action Ok here is the punishment 100 bucks to 1000 bucks :rofl: and jail time of 12 months WOW this is a Constitutional Crisis we are heading for History as we watch


Statutory proceedings

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalties are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiated the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. While the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.) ...

* Secretary of the Interior James Watt Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce, by 11-6, on 9 February 1982
... The White House delivered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours

* EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Oversight Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee, by 9-2, on 2 December 1982 House Public Works Committee House of Representatives, by 259-105 After legal cases and a Court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents.

* EPA official Rita Lavelle ... House Energy and Commerce Committee, unanimously held her in contempt on 26 April 1983 House of Representatives, by 413-0 Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000

* White House Counsel Jack Quinn, White House Director of Administration David Watkins, aide Matthew Moore ... House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, by 27-19, on 9 May 1996 ... Subpoenaed documents were provided ...

* Attorney General Janet Reno ... House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, by 24-19, on 6 August 1998 ... Documents in question were revealed during the impeachment of President Clinton

[man4allcats]

66. "100 bucks to 1000 bucks and jail time of 12 months?"

Crap! What a joke! Even Paris Hilton could handle that!

[MetaTrope]

43. No, we won't get mad

We'll threaten to hold our breath until our faces turn blue. Just threaten, mind you...no need to actually do it. :think:

[man4allcats]

65. You are right. I stand corrected.

I did forget the part about holding our breaths until our faces turn blue. ;-)

[Ikonoklast]

40. I am going to make a prediction

There will be evidence found supporting a charge of perjury.

Someone will deny the existence of certain records, e-mails, or other correspondence, and their existence will come to light.

The rats will desert the sinking ship, but only after given a free pass from Judiciary for turning in evidence to save themselves.

They see Scooter in the pen, and they won't do time for Capo Cheney.

[PBass]

42. I prefer to call it "illegal wiretapping" and not just "warrantless".

Thank you George Lakoff.

[Handsome Pete]

44. Either way it's win/win for us Dems!

If the White House doesn't comply, then they can kiss their vapor thin veneer of credibility goodbye. IF they do comply, then they're still screwed. As for me.... I'm doing the happy dance.

My name's Pete, and I will dance for nickels.

Ciao

[Beartracks]

61. conservative diehards will still believe

>If the White House doesn't comply, then they can kiss their vapor thin veneer of credibility goodbye.

If the White House doesn't comply, a goodly number of conservative diehards will still believe it is the administration's right and duty, since they're just victims of a Democratic witch-hunt. :eyes:

[Kikosexy2]

45. And Darth Dick...

took that subpoena and chewed it to little pieces and spit it out all over Congress floor...and barked.."GO F*#K YOURSELVES!!"....

[Jackpine Radical]

47. I heard a bare-bones version of this story on NPR. What coverage

is it getting elsewhere?

Are the media taking any particular note of the event?

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread maddezmom.

[liberal N proud]

51. I am sure they will work out a deal to appear without taking an oath

This criminal will do what ever he can to escape the long arm of the law.

[Joe Chi Minh]

52. No chance. That's already been knocked on the head.

[liberal N proud]

56. I don't trust these people

Until they are locked up for their crimes, I will not sit comfortably.

[Amonester]

54. Is the long arm of the law "off the table" too?

Me guesses we're about to get an answer to this important question in about 3 weeks or so...

That is, IF the PNAC gangsters (or their paid dark-water thugs) do not blow up a "mini" somewhere 'round the potomac and dic-k doesn't declare chimpy dic-ktatort for eternety...

:popcorn:

[ThatsMyBarack]

55. Is this the beginning of the end....

....of the era of terra?

[classof56]

58. NOW we're gettin' somewhere. I hope!!! n/t

[Duncan]

59. "warrant-free"?!

WTF? What happened to "warrantless" That is some blatant whitewashing Bush-pandering euphamising horse manure if I've ever seen it, and I see it every day.

[Beartracks]

62. Wow - sounds like "new, improved"! nt