What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 23, 2005

If not now, when?

So we now know that Bush:

  • Sought War Powers INSIDE the US

  • Personally approved spying on US citizens without warrants

  • Cherry-picked prewar intelligence to start a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the US

  • Had to have his arm twisted to come out against torture

  • Terrorized US citizens by issuing numerous Terror Alerts before the 2004 election (but NONE since)

  • Declares that the "War on Terror" gives him authority to do whatever he wants

  • So now can we impeach the fucker?


    Anonymous said...

    So we now know that Bush:

    Sought War Powers INSIDE the US
    --Like Bill Clinton did, yet you liberals didn't have a problem with it then, not to mention he can, and so could Clinton.

    Personally approved spying on US citizens without warrants
    --Like Clinton did, and like Carter did. Executive Orders both signed by them, not to mention it's in their power to do so. Again, you didn't have a problem back when Democrats were President, why now?

    Cherry-picked prewar intelligence to start a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the US
    --Everyone had access to the same intelligence information. There was no cherry picking, you just say that to justify your whining. Again, everyone had access to the same intelligence information.

    Had to have his arm twisted to come out against torture
    --I wonder if you can ask the terrorists nicely to not torture those who they capture. Remember Nick Berg? I wonder what he'd have to say about that. Anyway, we never tortured any prisoners. It's people like you and Ed (hic) Kennedy who make our military men and women to sound like Nazis. How nice of you. I can see you and those like you "have our Military's back" .... not.

    Terrorized US citizens by issuing numerous Terror Alerts before the 2004 election (but NONE since)
    --That's because there hasn't been any NEED for Terror Alerts. That's because we have already prevented numerous attempts. That's because Bush is diligently working to prevent terrorism from occurring, although people and those like you are making it increasingly difficult as each day passes.

    Declares that the "War on Terror" gives him authority to do whatever he wants
    --It's The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. By the way, in 1994, It extended not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order. You might want to notice that this "extension" occurred under the "watchful eye" of the Clinton Administration.

    Impeach? We don't got no stinkin' impeach...

    Anonymous said...

    Oh yeah, before I forget:

    Story below, taken from The Washington Times:

    Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.

    "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

    More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

    Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.

    In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority. One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.

    In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects. Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.

    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government. That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.

    A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments." The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."

    "Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.

    The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.

    "Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said. Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public. One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.

    In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority." - "The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.

    Maria said...

    Keep lying about what FISA says and what Clinton and Carter did -- afterall, Bush needs a blowjob from someone and you're doing a masterful job of it.

    Anonymous said...

    Again, I rest my case when it comes to that potty mouth of yours. Is there anything you can say that contains intelligence, and lacks vulgarness? In fact, I dare you to come forward and say something that does not contain the vulgar garbage that you're so used to spewing out. What a shame that you're projecting such a negative image of your political party, but then again, I shouldn't be surprised.

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

    Maria said...

    Is there anything that you can say which is not a lie? Clinton/Carter did not create executive orders to spy on people INSIDE THE US WITHOUT A WARRANT. Yet you keep repeating that they did the same thing that Bush did.

    Again, can you give an argument which is not based on lies?

    And, if my "potty mouth" offends you, don't read this blog. There are millions of them out there.

    Maria said...

    I must add that with all your lies, you represent your party only all too well.

    Anonymous said...

    As you represent yours all too well, too.

    I am impressed, you didn't use a single vulgar word in your responses. You win the golden star.

    As far as reading your blog is concerned, I cannot help but not to, because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Not only that, it's downright amusing to know that there are people with a mentality such as yours.

    I will give you this much: At least you're steadfast in what you believe, no matter how wrong it is.

    Closing, I wish to put the political debates aside for at least a day or two and wish your and yours a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

    KGB said...

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    -Theodore Roosevelt