"You've stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche"

Q I wanted to ask you a question. Do you think the government has the right to break the law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely not. I don't believe anyone is above the law.

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never --

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --

Q You're never supposed to spy on Americans.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice O'Connor -- and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention" --

Q -- into wiretapping everybody and listening in on --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information about our enemy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html



So, Gonzales claims that they can attach any subject they want to Justice O'Connor's ruling on the authority to detain American citizens and the authorization to use force. Anything, no matter that it may be illegal, is magically justified and lawful if Bush does it, according to our Attorney General, because Congress authorized Bush to use force. All Bush has to do is label the target an 'enemy'.

It's kind of scary. And Rush was very clear that nobody (in Rush's mind) has the legal right to question the Presidents determinations of what an enemy combatant might be.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

"I am an Enemy Combatant" in large bold letters across the back.

As a political statement

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:yQlQ6uE6lRQJ:

Insert pic of Quaker Oats (Can't post it for some reason)


If Willian Penn were alive today, he'd be thrown in prison and so would Jefferson and all our founding fathers because they want too many freedoms.

Arrest Me
Hold me without reason
Refuse me legal counsel,
Tap My Phone, Read my email,
Search my house and
Seize my belongings and
Harass my family + friends

BACK:
Am I a Patriot Now?
Vote Against Bush in Election '04

still getting wear out of it, unfortunately

from the Signals intelligence and human rights- the ECHELON report
http://cryptome.org/sigint-hr-dc.htm

"In all cases (absent a warrant or other authority to target a specific citizen), the information that NSA may process and pass on is governed by the overriding requirement that it be relevant to “foreign intelligence”. But this critical restriction, which was carefully and precisely defined in FISA, has been re-interpreted in a way that greatly weakens the protection given to U.S. citizens against unreasonable search and seizure of their personal communications and information. In restricting the use of NSA surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress defined “foreign intelligence” to be “information that … is necessary to the ability of the United States to protect against actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power … or sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” (see 50 USC § 1801). But internal NSA guidance, including USSID 18, instructs Sigint staff to use the much broader meaning of “intelligence that relates to the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations, or persons” (emphasis added).

It is arguable that this definition places little effective restriction on the communications that NSA may collect, process, retain or disseminate. As has been frequently observed, the occasions on which the First Amendment most matters is when those exercising it are lawfully championing an unpopular cause. The activities of international non-government organizations, or any dissent within the U.S. which has an international component, will inevitably involve the “activities” of “foreign persons”. Thus, if a lawful U.S. organization has any foreign connection, this can under existing regulations be used to authorize dissemination of the “incidentally” intercepted communications of its U.S. members.

"This is exactly what happened to the antiwar protestors of the 1960s and 70s. During the Church Committee hearings in 1975, Senator Walter Mondale observed that among the MINARET intercepts which he had inspected was one from a “leading U.S. antiwar activist – and we know him to be a moderate, peaceful person … sent a message to a popular singer in a foreign country… asking him to take part in a peace concert”. NSA Director Lt-Gen Allen testified that such messages nevertheless fell properly within the tasking given to NSA at the time. They involved a U.S. peace group, an international communication to “an overseas location where foreign support and funding was requested”. He added:

It’s certainly true that at this moment in time one would have certainly a different view of that than at the time.

Such testimony appears to confirm that NSA regulations, then as now, can make the lawful the targeting of legitimate dissent within the U.S., provided only that NSA can detect some foreign component within their activity. Very few protest groups would avoid falling under such a definition, whether concerned with the environment, privacy, international trade, racial or gender issues, or many others. Even if one administration did not wish the intelligence community to conduct such surveillances, the next could take an entirely different view.

( Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church), 94th Congress, First session, Volume 5, “National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights”, p37.)

now, just think how much money you'll save in legal fees. Once you inform the gov't that you'll no longer being fighting them to keep your own information private, what do you think will happen next? Think your CNN slut will come for conjugal visits? I'm sorta of the impression that she'll find someone else with power and access.

disclosed to the Florida Supreme Court twice?

Now that he's lost his own personal battle, he's back on the side of the government.

...all elected Democrats get rounded up 'for their own protection'.

They're all "enemies", right? :eyes:

So says Dubya of Borg.

The borg had a collective mind. They thought as one individual, but had the mind of billions. The Bushbots have just ONE brain and they have to share it.
The Professor

But you would think that they could have at least found one brain that worked before they crowned it "king".

Good one! Well, if the brain worked, it wouldn't be a bushbot, now would it?
The Professor

Jung said that what we hate most about other things is a reflection of ourselves. I.E. the GOP is in deep denial that they're all clones of each other.

on NBC's Today Show:

"Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States…. The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6124.html

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales misled the Congress about issues related to Bush’s secret domestic spying program.

from Think Progress.org:

Gonzales said, “It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”


Michael Hayden, director of the National Security Agency, also misled Congress. He told a committee investigating the 9/11 attacks that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with FISA. From Hayden’s 10/17/02 testimony:

GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act.

GOSS: Well, lets — again, I don’t want to get into details. I’m aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let’s just suppose this sniper is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?

HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it.

Actually, Hayden was pursuing U.S. persons at the direction of the President outside of the FISA statute.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/nsa-director/

He could just as easily ignore the 22nd amendment as the 4th, the requirements to be re-elected, the term of office, or anything in the Constitution. That's why it's not a valid defense for his crimes.

"I was doing it to protect the people" is a very common excuse heard from dictators.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL