But wait - it was a secret? How did we find out about it then? Check out today's Washington Post:A U.S. intelligence court earlier this year secretly struck down a key element of President George W. Bush's warrantless spying program, The Washington Post reported in its Friday edition.
The decision is one reason Congress is trying to give legal authorization to the spying program in fevered negotiations with the Bush administration this week, the Post reported.
The intelligence-court judge, who remains anonymous, concluded that the government had overstepped its authority by monitoring overseas communications that pass through the United States, the Post said, citing anonymous government and congressional sources.
What is it with these Republicans leaking classified information for political gain? Don't they know that it's a dangerous world? Leaking classified information is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or so I'm told.House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disclosed elements of the court's decision in remarks Tuesday to Fox News as he was promoting the administration-backed wiretapping legislation. Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.
So the secret, classified FISA court struck down part of dubya's domestic surveillance plan (in secret, of course) and yet when a Repulican member of the House discloses that information on the Republican "news" channel, it's somehow not "revealing classified information."
Yea, and Valerie Plame wasn't covert, either.
But beyond that - what would this new FISA scenario look like? This is from the AP:
The Bush Administration wanted to give more authority to AG Gonzales?The law generally requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from suspects who are overseas, opening what the White House considers a significant gap in protecting against attacks by foreigners targeting the U.S.
Democrats, who control Congress, would allow the messages from foreign targets to be intercepted, but only after a review by the special FISA court to make sure the surveillance does not focus on communications that might be sent to and from Americans.
They reject the Bush administration's proposal to give Gonzales speedy authority to decide if the surveillance properly targets people overseas _ and not in the United States.
This AG Gonzales?
End the tenure of Alberto Gonzales. IMPEACH.Senators in both parties concede they don't have enough evidence to make a perjury charge stick against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But that doesn't mean they're going to quit trying to pry him from office.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is considering asking the Justice Department's inspector general to examine whether Gonzales' answers to questions from lawmakers amount to misconduct.
"I am deeply concerned about the seriousness of his misleading testimony and the pattern that has developed with regards to the attorney general's testimony over the years," Leahy said Thursday. "At the very least, I am considering sending his answers as they stand to the inspector general for review."
Ranking committee Republican Arlen Specter doesn't sound like he'd stand in the way.
"I think we need to finish this (the committee's) investigation and find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales," Pennsylvania Sen. Specter said Thursday at a hearing.
8 comments:
Due to the superior US telephone systems, foreign transmissions that originate and terminate offshore could actually be routed thru the US system.
Once the Dems found this out, especially in the media, they headed for tall cotton and are merely saving their own asses; especially, that is, if it can be determined that this method of interception can secure the US from terrorist attack.
If a catastrophic attack occurs here, and the Dems blocked the public-endorsed surveilance that could have stopped it, that would be disastrous for their party.
And they know it.
I think you make a good point, X. The kleptocracy that is the current Administration has instilled enough fear into the American public that most of us are now convinced that the terrorists are a larger threat than the Soviet Union was when combined with Maoist China.
It's bunk, of course, but congressional Dems will never grow enough testicular mass to say so.
We didn't find it necessary to abandon the Bill of Rights in order to protect ourselves from thousands of nuclear weapons, but 19 Saudis weilding box cutters, with massive public-relations support from Rove, Inc. now have us -- and people like you in particular -- ready to blythly declare, "That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway." Sure, throw me in jail for years without access to legal counsel. Sure, tap my phone without a court order. Sure, torture me. While you're at it, go ahead and invade Iraq for no discernable reason. Iran, too. Just don't let them get close to me with those scary Exacto knives! Please!
The people in this country, including the wimpy Dems in Congress who live in eternal awe of you in the WingNut battalions, have melded into a nation of wimps. We need to follow, fawn over, and enable a phony, codpiece-wearing, chickenhawk macho fool so that we can pretend we're not cowering in a corner, afraid of our own shadows.
You've been tooled by those thieves in the White House, my friend. And you're asking, "Please, sir, may I have another?"
Man, it used to be easier to discuss issues with you; your cycnicism overwhelms me now.
It is easy to offer a blanket response in that all civil liberties are thrown out, that everyone will be held in violation of habeaus corpus. That simply is not the case.
How is this new wiretapping measure, where the US is the conduit of communication, with no US citizen involved, a violation of anyone's civil rights? It isn't.
Seems to me that the whole schmeer was determined by the Supreme Court and revised by Congress anyway. Just the way democracy is s'posed to work.
Regarding habeaus corpus, who are you referring to, anyway? Enemy combatants at Gitmo?
I don't know whether you are confusing cynicism with well-earned skepticism or whether you are being disingenuous, X. I'll assume the former for the sake of amity and discussion.
Habeas corpus: In order to maintain a despotic regime, it is not necessary to hold everyone in violation of habeas corpus. The despots need only hold a few troublemakers. This is enough to keep most of the population in line. The people who invented habeas corpus back in the Magna Carta era knew this, and so did the authors of our Constitution. They made habeas corpus the only individual civil liberty explicitly mentioned in the original document for a reason.
Wiretapping: Even John Ashcroft refused, from a semiconscious, drug-induced torpor, to sign off on the antics of the Bush administration. Recently, even the FISA court -- a rubber stamp for Republican ne'er-do-wells by design -- refused a request from the Watchers. Alberto Gonzales, who has difficulty recalling whether he can remember having an recollection of the memory of shaving this morning, considers the Geneva Convention "quaint." He represents a government that frustrates legislation through signing statements and breaks laws intended to place even the slightest restriction on the executive's ability to poke its nose into our affairs -- including political affairs. Our beloved leader recently issued an executive order that allows the seizure of property from anyone who might "pose a significant risk of committing, an act ... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.” (Don't bother complaining about the ellipsis. What I took out doesn't affect the meaning, only the clarity.) Now these people are asking for MORE power? What the hell is the question?
Enemy combatants: This is a term invented by the Bush administration to disguise the fact that they can't deal with them either as accused criminals or prisoners of war. We were told these were "the worst of the worst." Then why have we released more than 400 of them after holding them for years with no legal representation? Many were people simply scooped up off the battlefield, or turned in by others holding a grudge.
Further, two American citizens that we know of have been brutalized under imprisonment without recourse to counsel.
I don't know whether you are actually a conservative or not, X, but I know these would-be tyrants in the White House are not. They are megalomaniacal thieves, pure and simple.
Getting back to cynicism: I own not a bit of it, my friend. One good definition of a cynic is a person who manipulates another's weakness to aggrandize his own wealth and power. Does that sound like anyone you know? Hint: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you suppose I am wealthy and powerful? <grin>If I were, I would be a Republican.</grin>
One more thing: Most of us were not born with a hatred of those evil doers. They earned it from us by stealing our government, our money, and our liberty. If I'm a cynic, you should be one, too. And please, Great Bwahoona, deliver some of this kind of cynicism to those spineless Democrats in Congress.
Since you didn't address my points about torture, Iraq, or Iran, I'll assume you agree with me.
Well, I like to think of myself as a Reagan conservative (don't spit out your coffee). The only thing now that I like about Bush is that he lowered taxes - I am a supply sider.
I don't have enough space or time here to list what I do not like about this administration.
First, they were absolute numbskulls to bring up torture abilities or ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Once we lose our moral high ground, we're no better than any despot. If we are not, as I have always believed, on a mission of colonialism or oil-taking, we must stand by the virtue that what we are engaged throughout the world is a noble cause.
Regarding Iran, we cannot let them get a nuke. If they buy the technology from the Europeans, we must diplomatically force the Europeans to stop the sale. It is for their interest as well as our own.
I am concerned that Israel would not stand for nukes in Iran. If they started some form of pre-emptive strike, it would set off the middle east like a powder keg.
Finally, Iraq. i think I have given you my current views on this war a couple of times, and I do not want to bore the readers. Suffice to say, I've hitched my wagon to Petaeus' surge.
Well, of course I would argue that your one remaining point of agreement with the Bushies is naive and misguided as well, but I don't want to drag this thread off-topic.
We could also disagree about which of us tends to be disagreeable, but I'll admit that when you are being reasonable, you are an interesting debating opponent. Wrong, but interesting. (:^)}
Fair enough.
One final thing:
Early in my blogging (trolling) career I used to get my Irish up too much. One instance was when I called you Shitrock.
Sophomoric on my part, and you wear the handle as a badge of fighting the wingnuts.
Keep it as you will see fit. I apologize.
I'll know you as John.
Apology accepted, but I will continue to wear the moniker proudly except when addressing you.
I only think of you as a troll occasionally, X. Usually, I think of you as Eric. If you don't get the inside reference, I apologize.
Post a Comment