BUSH JUST ADMITTED GUILT, PROUDLY. Stunning, really.

Bush Admits Criminal Act


Well, he just did it. I don't think the press has yet to understand what's going on here, typically. This isn't simply about whether spying on Americans without warrants is constitutional or even if it is the right or wrong policy, it's about whether the executive has the power to do whatever it wants. As Digby wrote:



Look, the problem here, again, is not one of just spying on Americans, as repulsively totalitarian as that is. It's that the administration adopted John Yoo's theory of presidential infallibility. But, of course, it wasn't really John Yoo's theory at all; it was Dick Cheney's muse, Richard Nixon who said, "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

This was not some off the cuff statement. It was based upon a serious constitutional theory --- that the congress or the judiciary (and by inference the laws they promulgate and interpret) have no authority over an equal branch of government. The president, in the pursuit of his duties as president, is not subject to the laws. Citizens can offer their judgment of his performance every four years at the ballot box.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113477714899464334


Bush just admitted guilt, proudly. Stunning, really.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/

this has to be the sorriest no goodest low lifest poorest pResident ever.
Damn I'm pissed.

I think it's starting to kick in with Congress now that they realize who's watching them and why. All the R's needed was a shill for 'their' secret team.

Bush once uttered in a stuttering, bumbling way that "Congress makes the laws, the President carries them out." But it's increasingly clear that Bush only believes that Congress makes the laws, and the President interprets them in any way that will justify whatever he wants to do.

Congressman of the Republican party should realize that Bush is angling to make them irrelevant. This president believes he is above the law, and hence above Congress. It is VERY clear in our Constitution that the people are the ultimate authority and that authority is rested in the legislature, not the executive.

Consider the Katrina disaster and the situation is even MORE scarry. Here we had a president who was INTENTIONALLY angling to declare a state under martial law and take DIRECT authoritarian control.

Bush is a monster and his hand is becoming clear. I don't believe he has ANY intention of vacating office in 2009. The country needs to remove this would be Hitler from office.

can find in this turn of phrase. he did NOT say "carries them out".
Freudian slips can be most illuminating.

And the president certainly is "EXECUTING" the law in the same way that Arnold executed Tookie (for all the meanings you can read into that ;-).

That's what Randi was saying. She was going to ask for her file(s) and look through them and see if there was anything there.

"Operation Garden Plot is the code name for the use of coordinated military action in law enforcement at any time during a civil disturbance within the fifty states, District of Columbia, and possessions and territories The operation of the FBI's COINTELPRO Domestic Counter Intelligence Program, FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency, and JTTF Joint Terror Task Force, all give the government the authority to step in and immediately crush any civil disturbance or turmoil which might occur. Civil disturbances are defined as riots, acts of violence, insurrection, unlawful obstruction or assemblage, or other disorders prejudicial to public law and order." <2> ( http://www.thewinds.org/1997/07/civilian_control.html )"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Garden_Plot

"Operation Cable Splicer is "the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation." <1> ( http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/5561.php )"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Cable_Splicer

The UN-constitutional overthrow of the US by a chief executive Commander-in-Chief sworn to uphold that same Constitution is treason. When did Bush decide to put into operation Ops Garden Plot and Cable Splicer ? Will anyone in the media ask him this question ? Has the press become an accomplice via Operation Mockingbird ?

They could be bugging him and stuff.

It is over for the chimpanzee but you guys have to do your part!

"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825.

"The President is bound to stop at the limits prescribed by our Constitution and law to the authorities in his hands, would apply in an occasion of peace as well as war." - Thomas Jefferson

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. (clearly it is possible for a president to break laws even if he thinks he can do what he wants as Bush has made justifications for his actions today)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The President just admitted today that he, like Saddam, is allowed to do whatever he feels is necessary because he is the president. That is the same argument Saddam uses and all totalitarian dictators have used in world history! Sorry, but it DOESN'T workt that way!

He signed off on an amazing thirty authorizations of large scale spying on American citizens without following our Constitutional law (4th Amendment - protection of citizens from unlawful search & seizure, and the Surveillance Court laws which requires him to simply get one of their judges to approve spying on American citizens in this manner). Staff at the National Security Administration demanded to be taken off these requests because they knew of their unconstitutionality! YES! And his admission today is throwing it at our nation and our world saying he is allowed to do whatever he wants - whenever he wants. His arrogance is breathtaking, isn't it? But his actions are exactly what one would do when a leak of this information comes out! He has to take it head on, show him we are not asleep, my fellow citizens.

The President has not upheld his oath of office in protecting and defending the Constitution that he swore to defend, in fact he is destroying it, and lets not forget what Thomas Jefferson said, that the president is required to stop at the rules of the constitution regardless if we're at peace or at war.

This is by far, the culmination of a plethora of criminal behavior from his administration, that ranges from negligence (ignoring safety of citizens), lying (counsel lying to Special Prosecutor), treason (CIA leak case), propaganda (claiming even today that Saddam had something to do with 9/11), and greed (Cheney's private meetings with energy corporations making policy to profit them billions).

If any American cannot find this most current action as reprehensible, and ignore their party affiliation, and instead realize BIG BROTHER society is clearly upon us, as few American governments have sunk this low and ignored civil liberties, then I feel it is hopeless for our country.

If we permit our presidents to do whatever they want then we are lost. That is a dictatorship and will lead to oppression, hardship, and, loss of life which will be argued by the controlling power as necessary to protect our "democracy" and our "values", which are in shambles if this president gets away with these actions.

I ask you to contact your congressman or congresswoman, your senator, and write your local newspaper. It took me less than 5 minutes to get the #'s off this link, and write my editor, I implore you to do the same.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Legislative_Branch/

The time is nigh for action, this is the crack in the damn that must be stopped before we allow fascism like so many cultures have, because they were blind to seeing it take footing right before their eyes.

Regards,
The Martyred

Those quotes from Thomas Jefferson are gold.

I was an American and fight for what your system was based on.

America, the light of the world and America the capable of great evil. I truly hope the masses of Americans will wake up and throw these evil and stupid men (and women) out! November 1986 is 13 months away! By then Iraq will be in utter turmoil and Bush's mess will be more apparent.

Have patience, persist and educate your friends, family members and friends. Organize and fight this horror!

Now.

One Nation
Under
Surveillance

I have my "Surveillance Undermines Liberty" button on and will wear it everywhere.

I'm going to an anti-war vigil tomorrow but my sign is going to be about our fascist regime.

Have to call the senators and reps TODAY. Leave a strong message.

If we let this go by like we did everything else, we deserve to live under a dictator!

It is time for America to rise up to its destiny or it too will pass away...the world is watching you with bated breath!

Now who else?

The president threw his challenge to us in front of the whole world.

This is urgent.

and will also call his office. When I call his office, I'm also going to say Frist's actions regarding this matter will show whether he values loyalty to his party above loyalty to this country. Email was as follows:

Senator Frist, when you took the oath of office, you swore to defend and uphold the Constitution. In his speech this morning, President Bush left no doubt that he has unequivocally violated the fourth amendment:

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

This amendment says nothing about exceptions, nor has this amendment been repealed by Congress.

Once again, I remind you that you swore to defend and uphold the Constitution. What do you intend to do about this violation?

right now.

I normally don't write Frist since he's nothing more than under Bush's pocket and control but I will this time with this.

I'm sending out to my email list along with a call to contact legislators and write to the media.

It needs to be done today.

statement. Sad, but too, too true.
:cry:

by the way. The Saddamites call it "sovereign immunity." Saddam was president, so if he did it, it could not be against the law.

Maybe desrves its own thread so some Dems can catch it, I haven't heard any of them use this yet but it was the first thing I though of.

must be some more heat coming. whenever these clowns give it up you can be sure there's more that their hiding.

Maybe it's go for broke time? Swing from your heels or you'll swing from your neck?

I was thinking there were a just a couple authorizations.

Watch the board. Someone will catch this. Maybe it's the Bolton link.

Not just a slip of the pen!

The clown doesn't do much - he exercises, he eats, he makes a speech from time to time but mostly he just sits at his desk and does nothing - he leaves the day to day management of things to Uncle Dick and Karl. So what puzzles me is why do this? Why did he personally sign these orders? He had already issued a general directive that the NSA should ignore any legal restrictions on tapping phones. So who is so important who is so hush hush that he had the sign the order? I can only assume the names if and when they are revealed will cause a huge shit storm - I mean why else all the hush hush? The terrorists know we're looking for them. Shit they probably assume their phones are tapped all the time. So I'm guessing the folks that got the special wiretaps were political opponents of the ape's invasion of Iraq.

I can't get my head around this - it's insane that's what it is, completely and utterly paranoid insanity.

Bush might have been sent out to cover for the mess by using his elevated authority as a shield against congressional judgement. It seems to have backfired. We'll have to wait and see how much will Democrats have to collectively force an investigation or rebuke.

You're on the right track -- he's not the brightest bulb on the holida--er, Christmas tree. Presidents in the past have had such an enticement dangled in front of them, usually by a man named Hoover. Hoover carried out domestic spying, no doubt about it. But he did it unofficially, off the books. When he died, his loyal secretary burned all of his secret files, so we'll never know the full extent of what he did.

Several times over the course of his long career, presidents would send emissaries to Hoover to find out just what he might know about political adversaries. Hoover, who knew better than anyone the value of his surveillance files, was more than willing to share everything in them and spy on anyone the president wanted . . . if the president would just sign this little executive order authorizing him to do so. Every president knew exactly what signing that sort of an order would mean, and what a serious breach of the constitution it would be. Every president from FDR to Nixon refused to do any such thing.

But Chimpy? Well, Chimpy's not the most intellectual man ever to sit in the Oval Office. Someone probably told him that this is the way the White House has always conducted itself, and just go ahead and sign this executive order. He's signed so many executive orders that were unconstitutional from the earliest days of his presidency. But when, for example, Congress didn't challenge his countermanding of the public law that required that the presidential papers of Reagan and his dad be publicly released, he figured he had a handy tool to overrule any laws he found inconvenient. And with a remarkably compliant Congress, run by greedy men grasping for ever more power, Bush was absolutely right. So why would he stop at domestic spying by the NSA? Who would say no to him? Congress' laws aren't binding on Bush. No court ever rules against him. Who's going to stop him?

Paranoid insanity is surely part of it. Overweaning arrogance and unstoppable hubris fills out the picture quite nicely. And since neither Congress nor the courts seem inclined to rein in this out-of-control administration, who's left to defend America?

for anything.

What you say rings true. Today's news appearance may have been an attempt to explain away an act that seemed routine at the time and who's consequence has only recently occurred to Bush. This is either Bush covering his own ass or Bush put out there to cover for the ones who put him up to signing the authorizations. I agree he's much too dim to have initiated any of the orders to spy. Likely just routinely signed away our constitutional protections like he has everything else sacrosanct to our democracy.

Methinks you <em>'misunderestimate'</em> the true George Bush. A very evil man!

I do think they love the power. And the fun of keeping secrets. Remember, * has the emotional maturity of a seven-year-old.

Press!

"Paranoid insanity is surely part of it. Overweaning arrogance and unstoppable hubris fills out the picture quite nicely. And since neither Congress nor the courts seem inclined to rein in this out-of-control administration, who's left to defend America?"

but, but....didn't * say that the constitution was "just a piece of paper"? :shrug:

Bush is not that hands-on (of course, you have to consider that he doesn't care about most things; but he cares about extending his power). I wonder if we'll find the NSA was spying on people w/o any terrorist connections at all. And it makes me wonder (tinfoil hat here) if this has anything to do w/the Sibel Edmonds story. She translated wiretapped conversations - I wonder if some of these wiretaps were of people the gov. had no legal right to spy on. That could explain why the Administration went so far as to claim "State Secrets" in order to keep this info secret.

I doubt corporate media has been digging for it. I would like to think so, but I doubt it.

I'm sure there's many patriotic NSA officers who are disturbed by this program. They apparantly were talking to the NY Times over a year ago. It's the corporate media that refused to publish until now. It does seem more & more like there's a struggle within the Executive Branch agencies between the Bush loyalists & the professionals - hopefully the professionals are gaining ground.

Apparently, the people at NSA resisted doing it. After the scandals of the Nixon administration, there were legal checks and balances put in place so that this wouldn't happen again. From what I've heard on the news here in DC, several NSA people refused to do it, for fear that they would be prosecuted. It had to be signed off by the President himself before NSA would do it. I mean, when you're in the position where the President or the SecDef want something done, it's done. Period. No questions asked. The NSAers made damn sure that their butts were covered.

...that will tell us all we need to know, and probably more than we EVER wanted to know.

He seems to be working very hard lately. Is it my imagination?

"Maybe it's the Bolton link"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/29/bolton_endgame/
"Bolton's views on the UN are hostile. He is known as a short-tempered martinet. He got poor reviews for his last job as undersecretary of state for arms control. For instance, Bolton was a skeptic of a US joint program to keep Russian nuclear fuel from reaching terrorists. The effort was tied up in legal minutiae during Bolton's tenure, but soon after Bolton's departure early in 2005, the logjam was broken and agreement with Russia reached.

The Washington Post reported that our allies so distrust Bolton on the sensitive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program that they made sure to exclude him from high-level meetings in Washington last January.

More ominously, Bolton is suspected of using ultra-secret National Security Agency wiretaps to snoop on rivals in the intelligence and defense community. Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware demanded to know the names of people on whom Bolton requested wiretapped information. For anything but legitimate national security purposes, this use would violate US law. But the White House has stonewalled this request, intensifying Democrats' opposition.

As the Senate debated Bolton, Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, declared that a recess appointment ''would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States," but he soon recanted, very likely after some prodding. His first impulse was right. This recess appointment would insult both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and the institution itself."

PS I wonder how Bolton likes Brewster Jennings being put out of business?

"During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20

good observation katinmn.

Why now? He's really being weird lately. Is something going to come down big? Does he know he no longer has support from the "powers that be" or what? :shrug:

When he burps, you can smell the sulfur of hell.

and the President has this authority, while others say it is illegal".

It's the old "balance" game.

"Some people say the sun rises in the West. Others disagree and claim it rises in the East."

That seems to be the gist of Bush's claim.

Competing responsibilities...

Protect against terror vs. Geneva Convention

Protect against terror vs. Privacy Rights

Protect against terror vs. International Law

And Bush makes the judgment call.

And the Corporate Media snaps to attention and salutes smartly.

I know I heard or read it somewhere - did Congress give that idiot the legal right to spy on US citizens in some incarnation of the damn Patriot Act? I'm not saying it's legal - the whole thing disgusts me beyond measure. I may have dreamed it, but I thought that if it was "terrorism" related, or they lied and SAID it was terrorism related, they could spy on anyone they pleased,wherever they live.

AND if that's true, we ALL need to be marching on Washington.

My first inclination is always to say that if anyone listens in on my conversations or checks my library records, they're going to be awfully bored. But then I thought about it, and this administration probably feels they could make saying you can't stand the president an act of treason.

Even the Patridiot Act has some expedited form of Judicial Review.

Way to go, Bush--have a temper tantrum on national television. That should fire up about 15% of the elctorate; all the knuckle-draggers will love you for it, and your ratings will go down another five points or so. I agree with a previous poster that the media itself is so shocked it doesn't know how to report it or what to say about it. Should be interesting.

It's up to US to make sure that they DO think of what it means.

This is also an issue where we can work in tandem with the Libertarian Right. It's a potentially truly bipartisan issue -- and it ought to be.

Every time I think Bush has gone as far as anyone can go without losing it completely -- he goes a little bit further.

--p!

after all, it's "those" people that are getting spied on.

What is that old adage... it goes something like this, though I'm sure I'm butchering it:

first they came for the students, but I said nothing since I wasn't a student
then, they came for the media, but I said nothing because I wasn't in the media
Then, they came for the intellectuals, but I said nothing since I wasn't an intellectual
and then they came for me, and there was nobody there to help me.

Pastor Neimoller's story is an interesting one. Google his name for this quote and more.

Sibyl Edmonds' site is http://www.JustACitizen.com/ She did say when it came out high level people were going to do time in jail.

Please give her site some traffic, I think she is worried about her safety and she asks people to spread the news about her site and her petition there to remove the gag order. She should have more than 10,000 signatures after all this time after all she risked to do the right thing.

There are interviews with Sibyl on her site and she asks people to think about some very pointed questions she asks since she is not allowed to discuss the very deep corruption she found out about and testified to.

If we subjugate this right, we give up all.

Impeachment NOW!

for some still, especially in the Media?
He is The Dictator and always has been since 2000.

Clinton had done the identical thing? We all know that impeachment would be beginning right now.

which would have lead to impeachment hearings had they been attributed to President Clinton. It's become such a cliche that I think some of us don't even try to make the point anymore for fear of sounding...well...cliche, but the point is still valid: the double standards which the RW have constructed in support of the ape are mind-boggling both in number and in sheer brazenness.

...he failed to uphold the Constitution (4th Amendment), which means he broke his vow to uphold the Constitution.

If that's not a "high crime" (see Article 2, Section 4) then I don't know WHAT is.

Well, other than a blowjob. :eyes:

That's a high crime or misdemeanor.

BTW, Scalia deserves impeachment too for his authoritarian misuse of the federal Marshals by confiscating those tapes and violating reporter's first amendment rights.

He violated the FISA Act. It's a felony. See my other posts.

The Administration seems to want to make this some "balance of power" issue, where one branch shouldn't be able to tell the other what to do.

He actually went counter to the Constitution, which was *not* written by a separate branch of government, but rather by the Founding Fathers.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you...he is bound by the same laws as everyone. :toast:

William Howard Taft IV, both are lawyers that provide this administration with quasi-legal justifications for patently illegal acts. It's like a mob boss (or CEO) that constructs a defense before the crime is even committed, just in case. It seems to me that the premeditated nature of their methods is an indictment in its self. One more crime for 'The List' - it's getting kind of long, can anyone can still see the bottom, is anyone still keeping track?

Ciao!

"He promised to uphold the constitution" "Do you believe in the constitution" "Impeach NOW"

or at any government building in every city.

Presidents Day is Feb 21. Good day to converge in DC again. Hell with permits.

and all guilt for not upholding the U.S. constitution. Idiot.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000513.html


"Comments

It's beginning to look like John Bolton's ostensible duties and his actual endeavors were often two different things.

You've done such deliberate and generous work educating readers on the Bolton appointment. However, I'm still confused about the NSA intercepts and wonder if you could explain how those work. Are they wiretaps actually conducted by NSA or does that agency request the operations from other intelligence organizations like the FBI or CIA? Thanks for any clarification you can give.
Posted by: cs at April 25, 2005 10:47 AM

They are not wiretaps - they are the product of sigint and elint intercepts of satellite-to-ground or ground-to-sattelite emissions, collected primarily by the NSA and the service security agencies. Given a source telephone # or a destination tele # anywhere in the world , the NSA can pretty reliably collect incoming or outgoing traffic including voice/email/fax. It can also monitor for keywords.
JohnStuart
Posted by: JohnStuart at April 25, 2005 11:10 AM"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050704.html

"And now, Bolton's conduct, as well as his contemptuous views, is directly at issue. Bolton is suspected of using National Security Agency wiretaps to investigate rival diplomats in the intelligence field. When Senate Democrats requested information on whom he had investigated, the White House resisted mightily."

Stunning.

Nothing, Nothing trumps that.

re: The Constitution as it applies to electronic eavesdropping of US Citizens (relevant sections bolded) (from Findlaw):

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the guarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.  


The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard.

So he goes on national TV and ADMITS TO IT? Like it's something to be proud of, eh? Is there anything in the two paragraphs above that suggest he's UPHOLDING the Constitution? I don't see any! WHY AM I NOT HEARING "IMPEACHMENT" from the House members? Oh, that's right .... it's PARTY before COUNTRY!

Just to be clear - BEFORE 911, there was enough intelligence floating around to be able to decipher the terrorist's intent (had the IDIOT actually bothered to read his Daily Briefings). You think Al Qaeda doesn't know about our abilities to eavesdrop? They're very likely using hand passed notes to circumvent the surveillance .....

It's taking everything I've got NOT to send an expletive laden missive to my Congressional Rep and Senators - but they will hear from me. I want this dumb fucker's head on a plate!!

Bush says he OK'd eavesdropping in U.S. dozens of times
Associated Press
Last update: December 17, 2005 at 9:46 AM

Bush says he OK'd eavesdropping in U.S. dozens of times

WASHINGTON — President Bush said today he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.


"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States,'' Bush said.


The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,'' he said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5788263.html

democrats, gays, and anybody that dare question this illegitimate pResident!

http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_rovegate_boltongate.pdf

Do not know source or reliability. Not allowing copy and paste. There is an html link available to the same article.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:LPqtZ7ZF_G0J:www.nogw.com/download/2005_rovegate_boltongate.pdf+Bolton+wiretaps&hl=en&client=firefox-a

bunch of Repugs. They are totally supportive of what Bush is doing. They are saying that anything he wants to do to protect the country is fine with them.

I can't stand it. Had to leave the room before I created a major family rift. Also drug my daughter with me. We can't understand where these peoples' logic and patriotism actually is.

...a couple of months ago where Lewis Lapham tells us exactly how the "greatest generation" allowed facsism to insert itself into America's politics.

"Terrorists"? The only terrorists we have to fear are those that occupy the WH! I'd like to hear how your relatives respond to the details in PNAC 101 at the link below.

They said that Bush had told us his policies had already protected us from attacks. I told them that he also told us we had to go to war because of WMD, and that was a lie, too.

What amazes me is that they have no problem with our rights being chipped away. To me, that says they don't really value our rights, nor do they understand how those rights make us different from, say, Iran.

if they knew he was involved in perpetrating 911?

Really, you've GOT to print out a copy of "PNAC 101" at the link below and given it to them. I want to hear how they try and talk their way around some very damning facts. And who knows...maybe it will open up some sensibilities and shut them up! (It's certainly worth a try!)

They are protecting the country from US. :crazy:

(IOW - protecting the country from people who disagree with THEM. US - being people who would like to prevent THEM from all the illegal things they are doing.)

Living amongst such people is bad enough. Being related to them must be rough. I, too, would be sorely tempted to go off on them and ask how it is that they love * for the same things that made them want to put Bill Clinton in front of a firing squad. Wait...I know!...they're...uh-oh...I better not dis your peeps.

both of my parents to dis the other siblings who have been brainwashed. <g> So far, so good. The bulk of them leave tomorrow. I only have one other that is staying until Tuesday, but she's outnumbered by the rest of us.

Poor You! I take comfort in the fact that most of my Rethug relatives have died off, and the rest of them live more than 1,000 miles away, so I don't have to deal with them most of the time. :hug:

yesterday. H's sister got remarried, and Lets just say her new husband made a couple of nasty comments about pictures of Sheehan that were on the computer that my H brought along. I was polite, but gave her new H a much-too-long glare, and walked away to where his much more sensible teenaged boys were, and enjoyed a conversation that was no politics...strictly great music and style interests that they have(their dad and new mom HATE goth, rock, esp. metal, etc...church goers of the strictest kind) and I encouraged the boys to continue what they loved.:evilgrin: hey, All I said to them was" so long as you respect yourself and others, you dont have to give up the things you love!"

Later, another family member took out photos of the family which included two personal photos of her with Bush, and another with Perry. I avoided them and asked no questions, which probably chapped her hide a bit, but I actually like this lady other than her poilitics. ahh well. Glad its over, and my super-liberal sister will be down next weekend, so I can finally have some FUN!

of God, is above the law and above morals.

:puke:

They are in place as a series of checks & balances.

:grr:

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this strikes me as patently silly. Article II, section 4 of the US Constitution states:
So clearly the constitution assumes that it is possible for a president to commit a high crime or a misdemeanor. Am I missing something here?

Cheney is basically saying that the president is an emporer.

What a dangerous asshat

Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.

``I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,'' he said.

The president contended the program has helped ``detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad,'' but did not provide specific examples.

He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5486504,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

What a spurious argument. It was the failure of communication from one branch of intelligence to another in our government which caused that grievous "oversight." If bush had fully comprehended (and cared about) the danger to our country before September 11, he would have had briefings from all his intelligence agencies, gathered them into the same room and said, "Give me an update and spare no details."

He just didn't want to work that hard.

FISA ...

Randi has gone on and on about how there isn't a single instance of a FISA warrant being declined. Bush wants these powers because he wants to spy on political opposition ... PERIOD. Most judges would NOT tolerate this.

"for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat"

we didn't need that constitution thingy anyway I guess...

The argument I hear from Republicans over and over- that it's all acceptable so long as it's done "in defense of the country" is just pathetic. It's not acceptable. If you have to break the law and erode civil liberties simply to defend the country, then you're incompetent.

"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:445

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"The attempt which has been made to restrain the liberty of our citizens meeting together, interchanging sentiments on what subjects they please and stating their sentiments in the public papers, has come upon us a full century earlier than I expected." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1794.

"I said to President Washington that if the equilibrium of the three great bodies, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, could be preserved, if the Legislature could be kept independent, I should never fear the result of such a government; but that I could not but be uneasy when I saw that the Executive had swallowed up the Legislative branch." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:318

"The President is bound to stop at the limits prescribed by our Constitution and law to the authorities in his hands, would apply in an occasion of peace as well as war." - Jefferson

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat..." --George W. Bush

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier...So long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush, Responding to the difficulties of governing Texas

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." George W. Bush, New York, October 20, 2000

"Well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on."
2002 Jan 5, convention center, Ontario, California — there was no live broadcast of the first 9/11 crash

"I don't know where Osama bin Laden is. I'll repeat what I said: I am truly not that concerned about him." Bush
Brady briefing room, Mar 13, 2002

How dim is this guy? While I understand the need to occasionally spy on an American, it cannot be legal to do this without a warrant. This is lunacy. Chip, chip, chip. (Sound of rights being lost.) On the up side, he's now on tape admitting guilt. That and a majority of Democrats in Congress and he's outta here.

PB

you've never done anything wrong.

Someone upstream said this must be the tip of the iceberg; the righteous indignation admission of an illegal act done to save us all. That hat has to be it. The only great lies are spun around a truth, this admission is the truth that will shroud the lies to come.

PB

Not to be evasive and duck and weave, but just come out swingin' with his dukes up.

The fweepers aren't apoplectic because they think everyone on the list is a brown-skinned Muslim.

His remarks didn't contain any of the usual word parsing denials we have come to expect, like "We don't torture (anymore, since we got caught)". The little punk ass figures he can do whatever he wants.

Wait a second...
At least one premise in this system is true.
The president is allowed to break the law.
That's why we don't need a law specifically allowing torture. the president is allowed to break that law in extraordinary circumstances (i.e. the ticking bomb), where his conscience demands that the law be disobeyed. Then, he would face the appropriately grave consequences if he were mistaken. However, he would be quickly forgiven in the ticking bomb scenario if he were to, say, save New York City, and would certainly not face any criminal charges.

Of course, Bush has risked his presidency several times over already, and lost.

These were not exigent circumstances. This is bush playing dictator.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

war on Iraq- are????
First Degree Murder on how many counts????-

To prevent someone from breaking the law is called 'prior restraint' and is a violation of civil liberties.

So, everyone is 'allowed' to break the law ... but everyone is ALSO subject to indictment, prosecution, and conviction for breaking the law, as well. That's the entire basis of a free society ... and the entire meaning behind "liberty and justice for all"!!!!!

TahitiNut and Straight Shooter ...yes, agreed.
I was just trying to point out that law-breaking alone is not enough to condemn a president (contrary to some of the outcries I was reading here)
It depends on the mitigating circumstances.
In this case, yeah, I deem the Pres's disobedience to be unjustifiable.

I guess that applies to everybody, if that's how you choose to think about it.

Breaking the law is breaking the law.

Enjoy your brief stay here.
:hi:

:banghead:I am not saying that it's okay to break the law as long as you don't get caught.
:banghead:I am not saying that the President should break the law.
:banghead:I am not saying that the ends justify the means.

I am saying that Bush's argument that we need to change laws so that he can legally invade our privacy or use torture in extreme circumstances are total BS and a cover for trying to grab yet more power for himself.
If he really needed to do either of those in an extreme case, he could and would probably come out a hero for saving the day. He's not grabbing these powers to protect America, he's doing it to protect his presidency.

Stop making excuses for this clown.

The FISA Act allows the President a 72 hour grace period to conduct surveillance without a warrant. He must get a warrant from a judge in that time period. The 72 hour grace period covers the ticking bomb scenario, so sorry you're wrong - he has no excuse. Violating the FISA Act is a felony punishable by 5 years and 10k/count.

Check out my other posts.

Doug De Clue

Bush just admitted to breaking the law! What more does it take!?!

Fuck Bush!

The Royals hate us for our (limited, whatever small amount of liberty they give us) freedoms. So nice to know I'm 'free' to talk on the phone without being ILLEGALLY spied on by my own gummit! Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose!

Just like Watergate. Presidents do NOT have the right to do whatever they want, terrorism or no terrorism. How can anyone support this guy anymore?

I can't imagine even he would do something like this without keeping, in his mind, a strategy which he believes will minimize the potential damage from this. Of course, given his amazing track record of success...

His lawyers.

Remember that his lawyers have twisted things to find legal justifications for almost everything. Since the balance of power in the federal government is so completely out of whack, he has been able to run to his lawyers and find justification for just about anything he has endeavored to do.

...And I don't believe the Department of Justice is letting much get past them these days.

two Supreme Court justices. Once Alito is on the Court, there is no turning back for Bush. Note that every single person Bush has nominated for the Court has worked at one time in a Republican White House and believes in a strong, if not imperial, presidency. Bush feels certain that his Alito nomination is going to fly -- so he has nothing to fear from thumbing his nose at the American people.

the rest of us. We got the late memo.

Did you not understand what was happening that day when the U. S. Supreme Court backed Herr Busch???

isn't really happening. Just a figment of your tinfoiled imagination.

Carbonless paper ballot + stubby pencil + handcount = VERIFIABLE VOTING!! How simple can it be?
:bounce: :think: :patriot:

and go after the press and whomever leaked to the press. The best defense...etc.

and was only used against people with terrorist ties. We know that, according the news reports, this spying has been used on about 500 people at any given time.

So if this is all true, what happened to these "500 people at any given time"? Were people arrested? Are there U.S. citizens being held that we have never heard about and that are being held against their Constitutional rights.

I think that there is a lot more to be learned and investigated about this. What were these plots that were thwarted? Are U.S. citizens being held secretly? Do they know about U.S. citizens with known terrorist ties that are just wandering around loose? Are there ANY U.S. citizens that were spied on who weren't terrorists? Those are just a few of my questions right now. I'm sure as the news further develops, I'll have a lot more.

Copied from my post elsewhere, regarding "what happened to those 500 people?"

Man oh man do I remember this line vividly:

"and many others have met a different fate." His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: "LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, THEY ARE NO LONGER A PROBLEM."

That was GWB's idea of being cute and coy and was code for "USA death squads went out and assasinated anybody and everybody we guessed might be a terrorist or has ever thought about practicing terrorism.

GWB was so proud of these bold actions, which basically urinate on every principle this country used to stand for. The Constitution is now truly a mere "Goddamned piece of paper."

We now stand on the exact same moral ground all terrorists all over the world are currently standing on.

-85% Jimmy

(quote as written from the Chris Floyd link above)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5611529

Either way, he doesn't belong in the WH - he needs to be impeached immediately.

i.e. wiretapping opponents of his policies. Even if it isn't, he clearly has violated the provisions of the 4th amendment. * clearly believes the unilaterally declared "war" gives him unlimited powers. That's dictatorship, folks. Yup, we're got our very own Fidel Castro. Congratulations, America.

This tyrant, this would be King George, has unilaterally taken it upon himself to attempt to repeal the fourth amendment and sought to dispense with the requirement to appear before a neutral Magistrate and show probable cause to justify a search. Hence there is no record of who or what the NSA is spying on. As we learned from the abuses of Hoover and the well documented litany of CIA abuses documented by the Church Committe when government, any government has the ability to act with impunity and without accountability they will use that authority for the most odious and perfidious ends and engage in the most vile abuses imaginable. So we do not know who he is wiretapping, nor will we ever know unless this practice is ended immediately and those records disclosed to Congress post haste.

It is clear that he has sought to transform the NSA into essentially his own private spy agency. His own willful and admitted, indeed his proud boastful violation of the constitution is the most egregious and intolerable violation of his sworn oath to uphold that very same document.It is time for his reign of destruction to end and the constitution provides the means in which to do so. This wanton act of betrayal of our nation's most basic and founding principles as reflected in our fundamental constitutional tenets is the highest possible crime and misdemeanor. This should be the immediate basis for impeachment proceedings. Nothing less will do if our constitutional democracy is to survive.

...on American citizens, he'll get it wrong anyway! Just look at 9/11 and Iraq WMDs for starters...



:sarcasm:

So he has problems with "faulty intelligence?" I'd like to know if he EVER gathered intelligence pre-911 on al Qaeda and bin Laden. Don't forget, Pres. Clinton WARNED him about bin Laden and told him during the customary meeting between incoming and outgoing Presidents that Bin Laden was the NUMBER ONE concern. So did Bush authorize "increased surveillance?" And when the PDB of 7/6/01 told him that "bin Laden determined to strike inside US," did Bush authorize "increased surveillance?"

If it turns out that Bush failed to increase security during these periods, but authorized increased intelligence on Americans, I'm going to be one pretty POed citizen...

What more can happen before the rest of the sleeping sheep in this country realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg - Yes, we need to be vigilant for God's sake, but at what price? Do we have to give up our right to privacy for this to happen? I think not! If we think "keeping track" of private conversations with no alleged link to unlawful activity is OK then why isn't Rove, Bush and Rummy taped?

To me this goes back to the fact that we have a "private" Military in Iraq with NO RULES, torture chambers with NO RULES, and now a Government with NO RULES! Ask the US Marines who put those "Corporate" paid military insurgents in a room and kept them for a week and asked them, "How does your money look now?". I wish more of our Military would speak out! We need RULES and they need to be followed! Where is McCain on this issue? I wrote him in 2003 about this and he wrote back that he thought it was OK to have these "private" paid military corporations over in Iraq - well maybe he is finally going to realize that you can't have TWO military's and have ONE that is run by CEO's for God Sake!!! That is just like the Private Government our President is running!

This is what happens when the voter's in this country give up because they feel that they have NO vote and the so called righteous hypocrites put Repub's in no matter what their ethics are!

:patriot:

Rice denies Bush ordered illegal domestic spying
Published: Saturday, 17 December, 2005, 10:29 AM Doha Time


WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied yesterday that President George W Bush had ordered illegal domestic spying but would not comment on reports that US phones and e-mails were monitored without court approval.
The New York Times reported yesterday that Bush authorised the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2002 to keep tabs on thousands of US and foreign citizens in the US without court-approved warrants.
Rice, questioned in two television interviews, refused to discuss the reports, which suggested that Bush’s authorisation was illegal since the NSA was created to spy only on foreign communications.
On the other hand, the White House did not deny the report.
“I’m not going to get into discussing intelligence activities relating to our nation’s security and relating to our efforts to prevent attacks from happening,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Rice, the first senior administration official grilled on the report, defended Bush, telling NBC television: “The president has been very clear that he would not order people to do things that are illegal.”
“He has always said that he will do everything that he can to protect the American people from the kind of attack that we experienced on September 11 (2001), but within the law and with due regard to the civil liberties of Americans,” Rice said. “He takes absolutely seriously his constitutional responsibility both to defend Americans and to do it within the law.”.....more

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=64847&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19

Why doesn't she just give Bush fellatio, so we can impeach him?

:rofl:

our Constitution." Isn't that essentially what he says in his last sentence of the statement? I can't get over the twisted logic.

So now he sets up our humble and obedient press corps to run polls asking whether or not the American people want him to break the law--and NOT cover the fact that under our Constitution, no one, not even the President, can be above the law.

After a late night, just waking up here in California. . .with my jaw on the floor. . .

is not subject to the law (and presumably his oath of office). Of course, it is easier being dictator for a dictator could abolish that election held every four years, and could not a dictator even rig that election held every four years?

I don't want to hear about technicalities or tactical political maneuvering. He broke a fundamental law in this country of Checks and Balances.

Although I have reading DU for quite some time, this is my first post of many more I am sure to come. With that being said, would someone please explain to me the exact reason why an impeachment has not been raised. I mean we all know that ole' Georgie Boy is a stupid idiot, and he is not really the one running our great country. I just do not understand, even after today's tremendous admission of guilt, that SOMEONE - SOMEWHERE is bringing the question of impeachment to the foreground. Someone - please explain.

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :hi: :hi: :hi:

It's because America has become indoctrinated with good living, and a standard of government that they feel would never do these things. We must press our leaders and write the papers to get "normal" Americans to wake up from their slumber of tasty cookies and presents to see we're being controlled. Fascism took over in Germany because of complacency and "patriotism".

Again, Welcome, stay around and be sure to read my tag line! :) hehe

They happen to put themselves and corporate interests above the country, as well, but that's a whole different issue.

from the Congressional Record. She stated this in a printed version of her second speech on bellacio.com and rense.com but have never seen this mentioned on DU or Kos. Except for my posts.

TELL CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65

They refuse to be civilized at all, and then laugh at you for expecting them to be, then cross the line even further just to rub your face in the dirt. Now, I'm no psychologist, but it seems like this kind of psychological warfare (the frustration and stress) can only lead to extreme anger or extreme passivity. I believe those two forces are in conflict within everyone in America right now. It's so totally not healthy. The sickness must be purged before the body politic becomes terminal. In other words, IMPEACH! IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH!

The Neoconservatives have too tight a grip on the myths that have promoted the fears of their followers. Unfortunately, people do not read. The word will not get out just how badly the country has been screwed for serveral years after the golden boy in the white hat has left the Oval Office. There will forever be something for the sheep to fear and that is the way they need it to remain in power.

Information is our only ally. We have to force people to learn critical thinking to have any hope of having our privacy restored. Even once all the demons are exposed for the myths they are the Neocons will find new targets for the fear and loathing. Tomorrow, Mexicans will be the evil power, after that we must be afraid of the Canadians. Do they really expect anyone to buy this crap? Next we will be overrun by homosexuals, or women, or left-handed librarians. There must be a target for the ignorant followers and that is where the Neocons get their strength.

(new bumper sticker)

Here's the message I sent to my two Senators and Representative today:


The President admitted today that he authorized illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens. This is a blatant violation of my civil rights as expressed in the Constitution of the United States. The same Constitution that Bush held his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold. With this admission, you have a duty, representing me in Washington, to work with the House to bring impeachment proceedings against him. Anything less, and you will not be doing your duty as my duly elected official. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserves neither liberty or safety." Ben Franklin

On Sat. Dec 17, 2005 the president of the United States of America admitted that he authorized illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens. This is a blatant violation of my civil rights as expressed in the Constitution of the United States. This is the same Constitution that every president has sworn on the bible to uphold and defend.

With his admission, he arrogantly disdains my rights, your rights, and the rights of the very soldiers that he commands this day. His irrational thought process seems to say that “In order to preserve your freedom and privacy, your freedom and privacy must be covertly taken from you.”

Our president cries out that in reporting on his heinous activities, the free press aids terrorists and other enemies of this country. I do not see how this is possible. Enemies of the United States should always fear her and expect her full, focused and purposeful attentions. What I do not understand, is how the erosion of precious freedoms and privacies can be construed as contributing to the defense of our country.

The president’s outrage at having his covert activities exposed is self serving and duplicitous. His claim that disclosing these activities may harm national security seems oddly incongruous in light of the allegations that someone on his senior staff was directly involved in disclosing the identity of a CIA agent for political hay making. Indeed. The vice presidents chief of staff has been indicted for lying to a grand jury about this disgusting affair.

This president has committed multiple impeachable offenses. The only reason that he has not been impeached is that he happens to belong to the party that enjoys a majority in both the congress and the senate. And now, the president has given the members of his own party reason to pause and question.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

The man can do treasonious illegal acts that have ended the lives of thousands, go on TV and ADMIT it, and still nothing happens to him.

Whats wrong with this country?

"You goddamn right I did!!!"

Bailiff...Please place the president in irons.

we no longer have a Constitution...it's is shreds, along with our country.:nuke:

of the democrats who were briefed 12 times on this policy. I expect the repugs to go along with it but I would have hoped the democrats would have been screaming mad and gone public much earlier. I'm getting sick of all these assholes. The whole damn place (DC) is corrupt.

this, their lips are sealed about inteligence matters

Isn't this one of the things that articles of impeachment on Nixon was drawn up for by the House in August of 1974. I don't remember because I was 14 at the time, but I kinda recall something about domestic spying.

If not, it certainly seems to me that it should be. There should be a major impeach Bush movement. Lets get going, win the House and then go for it!!!!

God chose him to rule the world. We should all just bow down to his Greatness and accept him as the Chosen One and all have a smile on our faces when the only reward we get for our servitude to Him is to get nuked
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=

Dap

GREAT bumpersticker, too.

I've made one contrubution to the Rebuild the Coast Fund (http://www.rebuildthecoastfund.org) and intend to make more.

How about offering this bumper sticker...and 100% of all proceeds go to the Rebuild the Cost Fund?

Here's the sticker:

http://www.cafepress.com/impeachachimp.41452930



What do you all think?

Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec...

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1) specifically prohibits the government from doing what the President has secretly ordered and it is a serious felony with major penalties.

The penalties are severe, up to 5 years and $10,000 per count. The President has admitted to reauthorizing this violation of the law 30 separate times and thousands of phone calls have been intercepted.

The President has publically confessed to this felony on national television. He ordered government agencies to engage in spying on thousands of American citizens without a warrant when the Congress made specific provisions in law to cover all circumstances, even emergency situations so that the gov't could listen in for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant, plenty of time to find and convince a judge.

There is no excuse for this action, yet the President has done so anyways.

That the President has colluded with others to do so, also makes this a conspiracy subject to fine and imprisonment up to 5 years per count under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_se...

That he has chosen to hide it from the public, the Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts through secret findings and secret orders may also be a case for obstruction of justice under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 paragraph (b).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup...

Did anyone ever see the movie "The Firm"? I think we've just found the way to shut down the firm of Berndini, Lambert & Locke.

The time has come for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to step forward and finally take the gloves off.

It is time for the Congress to convene impeachment hearings.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL
ddeclue2@earthlink.net

FISA Act:

USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371

§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512

§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

b)

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in

an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to--

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

From Wikipedia - "The Reichtag Fire Decree":


===========================================================================================

Funny...the Reichtag Fire was eventually ascribed by some historians to a Nazi MIHOP.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire:

Dispute about van der Lubbe's Role in the Reichstag Fire

Historians generally agree that van der Lubbe was involved in the Reichstag fire. The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it is generally believed the Nazi hierarchy was involved in order to reap political gain — and it obviously did.

to put a stop to this now. There should be a public outpouring/bonfire of outrage on Capitol Hill from ALL members of BOTH parties. Unfortunately, ain't gonna happen. And you can forget the press --- what a laugh --- maybe we can get Judy Miller and Sulzberger to wag their fingers at Bush and say, "Naughty, naughty!" while they wink at each other and suppress more vital news. And if you consider them "press", O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etal. are probably 100% in lockstep with Bush on domestic spying. Folks, get ready for martial law and suspension of the Constitution. Then comes the Gestapo and the Camps. If Congress doesn't stop BushCo how, we are doomed.

he practically invites: "So whatcha gonna do about it, huh?"

Yes it is looking very promising! Knowing what George Bush is like (that too is becoming clearer every month....) he will dig in his heels and "appeal" to his "base".

But his base is eroding and his coattails aren't what they used to be...

Yes, impeachment in 1986!

A friend of mine called the White House the other day. A very friendly voice answered and asked what message would he like to leave for the President. My friend said: “I’d like the President to stop lying to us.” There was an extended pause. Then the voice said: “Which lie in particlular would you like addressed.”

There are some people who will forgive Bush for starting an unnecesary 3 year long war. However, tonight he did something unconcionable. He preempted Desparate Housewives. Oh the humanity.