What? WHAT??
This is utter horsesh*t! These Administration excuses are crap. The authorization for a military response after 9/11 "essentially" was an authorization for domestic spying? Oh, really?? Where exactly in the "strict construction" of the resolution to allow you to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age do you come up with that, Mr. Conservative Judicial Philosophy? And you parade out the former NSA chief to say that we definitely got info we wouldn't have. No kidding?? Gee, then let's get rid of all of our Constitutional freedoms from government surveillence. Then we'd REALLY get more information! Of course you get more information if you break the law, THAT'S WHY THE LAW IS THERE, A**HOLE!! I noticed that he studiously did not not say more USEFUL or VITAL information, just "we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available." Shocking, you got more information by listening than by not listening. Brilliant, General.
My next favorite part: "Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that 'we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy.'" Guess we never needed the Patriot Act then, huh genius? If going to court cannot work, then easing the restrictions never mattered, eh? What was that all about then? Just a PR move? And why, if the Patriot Act is so essential and solved the "problem" of our too-strict, namby pamby "civil rights" laws, did you continue with this extra-judicial crap?
Now THIS is freakin' impeachable stuff. No need to agonize over the exact reach of "high crimes and misdemeanors" this time. No wondering "would the Founding Fathers really have meant for someone to be impeached for this offense, or were they more concerned about more serious things?"
We're staring directly at EXACTLY what the Framers had in mind.
Step #1 must be to check EVERY SINGLE PHONE & EMAIL TAP to see if any Democrats "happen" to have made the "must watch" list. This thing could literally turn into e-Watergate...
posted by Pete @ 12/19/2005 10:02:00 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Yeah, I can't even express how utterly pissed I am about this whole thing. We are talking a complete misuse of The NSA in terms of its Cogressionally sanctioned mandate, not to mention the largest violation of privacy rights since McCarthy, and that's no exaggeration. I'm watching Bush at this very moment defend his actions against our citizens. F'ing (abbreviated for Harris's fragile ears, hehe) impeach him already. This is a gross overstep of power. Wake up Congress!!!!
From a press conference today:
"'It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy,' he said."
NO! No, Mr. President, outing a legitimate U.S. spy during a time of war for no reason other than to get political payback is shameful. Outing a secret, illegal, Constitution-flouting domestic spying program is journalism (of which we are in short supply) and trying to cover it up and avoid questions about it by saying "questioning me on my illegal act helps the terrorists win" isn't going to work.
F*ck that guy! God, I cannot believe we're stuck with THIS as our leadership. Its like the lessons of Watergate and every totalitarian/soviet regime that ever "protected" the "revolution" and its people by spying on them never happened, with this guy! I know you were high for most of the Cold War, Mr. President, but ask someone for a book on it and bone up, for crying out loud.
Another gem from the same news conference referring to the domestic spying:
"It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution," he added.
What the f*ck does that mean? That's no explanation. HOW is it legal? Under the Constitution? Where? Mr. Strict Constructionist-Boy, where in the Constitution does it say that the President may order domestic spying and line-tapping without a warrant? I'll tell you specifically where it says you cannot: Amendment IV. It states:
"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."
There are exceptions, Mr. President, but you ACTUALLY have to have one. "Because I said so while we're at war" ain't one of them.
Since you quoted his press conference, I'm sure you heard this little beauty, Pete:
(paraphrased b/c I'm lazy) "It's a great thing that Iraq is now a legitimate democracy, because democratic countries don't initiate wars."
Um, WTF kind of logic is that? Lets see, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars . . . last time I checked, The United States was a (supposed) democracy. Oh, and my name is Todd Budlong, you NSA pricks. Just add my coments to the current file the feds already have on me and the other free thinking, liberty loving Americans.
Thanks for that, Todd, I was working off of an article about the press conference (no TV access). That is one of the most ridiculous statements he's ever made. I swear, he must secretly be trying to win some kind of all-time irony prize.
However, in the U.S.'s defense, it did not really start those other wars. In Korea, the N. Koreans overran S. Korea, we just stepped in; in Vietnam it actually started before WWII - another spot where we just decided to step in; and in the Gulf War, I'd say the invasion of Kuwait started it. But your point is still true, just needing different examples.
We did, probably, start the Spanish-American War (although we thought the Spanish had blown up the U.S.S. Maine at the time), both sides in the U.S. Civil War were democracies, so whoever you believe "started" it (editor's note: the Confederate States of America), it was a democracy; and its questionable who shot first in the American Revolution - if us, then a democracy, if the British then a constitutional monarchy.
Still, Bush has managed to become one of the few, if not the only, democratically - sort of - elected leader to start a war in modern times.
I will not express my moral outrage about this issue, since others have about covered all of my reactions. (My poor wife's ears may not recover from the profanity overload that she heard from my "remarks" on this shit.)
Instead, let me give you a dispassionate, intelligence-centric reason why this is a terrible thing:
Signal to noise ratio.
As the amount of raw data increases, so does the effort required to analyse said data. This is a big problem with SIGINT, and a big reason why our modern intel policies stink. SIGINT is sexy, no doubt, but it is no fucking replacement for HUMINT.
And the CIA / NSA should fucking better know better!
OK, that was not as dispassionate as I had hoped.
Here's a damning little tidbit that I was unaware of (off CNN.com):
"Sen. Jack Reed said the president could have gone back to a FISA court after the wiretaps if he was concerned about speed.
'I'm just stunned by the president's rationales with respect to the illegal wiretapping,' the Rhode Island Democrat said. 'There are two points that have to be emphasized with respect to the FISA procedure: They're secret and they're retroactive.'"
Permission can be retroactive????? (that, by the way, is a little disturbing itself) Then the "we don't have time when dealing with terrorists" argument doesn't even have weight LOGICALLY!! They could have gone back, after moving as quickly as they wanted, and gotten permission for legitimate taps. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What does this say about what THEY thought about their own taps?? This just keeps getting worse and worse, and I forgot to take my blood pressure medicine this morning...
And a concerted hush fell over the Conservatives.... No opinions on this guys? A bridge too far? Just taking reasonable steps to protect Americans? OK in 2001, not OK in 2005? Anything?
Just gonna take a pass and wait for a tax cut debate?
Not referring to you, of course, Todd.
Thank you, Pete.
Heh, heh, start a war now so we can alleviate the THREAT of a war later. Nice thinking. Doesn't that leave us fighting at least as many wars (i.e. 1 war now instead of 1 war later)?
Post a Comment
<< Home