President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe 1063
scubamage writes "By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"
Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Good move George (Score:3, Interesting)
Christ on a stick how much more hysterical bullshit, civilian deaths and money grubbing do we have to put up with from these maniacs.
Re:Get real. (Score:5, Interesting)
I decided to reply to this one because I think it's important for those of us who actually care about our country and the Constitution to realize that there are a lot of people who believe the parent's logic. It's basically a "think of the children" argument balanced against a "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" mindset. It's a very, very scary argument for our country but I think a lot of Fox viewers believe this and no amount of parroting the Franklin quote or modding down anonymous postings will get them to change their mind.
So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?
Fascism (Score:2, Interesting)
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
Bush Makes His Own Rules - I Do What I Want! (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, he can do whatever he wants and not even the US Justice Department can overrule him.
Now I have to ask, do we really live in a 'Democracy?'
For futher reading, see: '1984' and 'V for Vendetta'
Re:As a foreigner... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am pretty sure we (the majority) didn't vote for him.
Through a series of tricks and covert maneuvers this administration effectively stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. (see Robert Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone).
Now, since these same people now control all 3 branches of our government there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion.
I believe we (again, the majority) are angry at what is being done, but the only tool available to change the situation is in the hands of those in charge.
What would you suggest we do?
Conservatives against Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
It's painful to consider, but I'm actually considering voting Democrat in the upcoming elections to help put the Democrats in the majority of at least one, but ideally two, houses of Congress. I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment. Apparently the Republican Congress/Senate that I voted for last time is unwilling to perform their duties in this area. I'm going to want to take a shower after I leave the voting booths this time.
war? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war
Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war.
I agree, if we -constitutionally- declare war, then the president has exceptional powers to prosecute that war.
But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
So please, save your "He's the president, he is above the law" line for the RNC. No man or entity in this country is supposed to be above the law. And in answer to your "illegal activity" question. If I am a buck private in the military, and a 5 star general tells me to shoot an unarmed civilian, and I do so, guess what, it's an illegal order and I get tried along with said 5 star general. If the govenor of any state in this union orders one of his state police officers to shoot an unarmed citizen who is walking down the street, unarmed and not molesting anyone, it's illegal. More to your point, if a police officer plants a wiretap on anybody's order that isn't a duly appointed and sworn in judge, it is illegal, and you bet your ass he's going to get in a world of shit.
well DUH? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not much different with Bush is it really? He's doing illegal things, and our screwed up executive system allows him to simply cancel any investigations into his behavior. I don't like to say people are guilty by denying their guilt as that is a very slippery slope, but in this case he is VERY actively blocking investigations into his actions, justifying it with laughable invokations of "national security", and that raises one giant red flag that we need someone he cannot override (grand jury?) to haul his can into court and expose whatever it is he is hiding.
He did not do this for "reasons of national security", and the whole world knows it. He did it to keep himself IN office and OUT of jail.
As long as he's there he can play, but that only lasts a little longer. I will find great entertainment seeing him locked up in a few years.
It would be intersting to see them impeach him, but he's doing a good job of stalling for time so far so I don't know if that'll actually happen or not. There is certainly pleanty of talk about it tho.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
It has everything to do with the voters. If there was enough of an outcry and Democrats were voted in during the mid-term elections in sufficient numbers in both the House and Senate impeachment could be a real possibility.
That is the scare tactic that Republicans will be using to try and get disenchanted former supporters out to the polls. I ended up on several Republican mailing lists because I supported and donated to the McCain campaign in 2000 and I've already seen the mailings urging donations to the Republican Party to prevent Democrats from getting control of one or both Houses of Congress. These mailing mention specifically that the danger is that if they gain a majority in one or both Houses they would then have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses. They also go on to quote some Democratic lawmakers who have spoken of impeachment. It's pretty fucking pathetic.
Wakeup America (Score:2, Interesting)
Impeachment is the LEAST this asshole deserves.
Waiting for the revolution... harry
Re:There's your answer: (Score:4, Interesting)
Hence the reason I don't support my political party, the Libertarians, more publicly. With all the spying and neo-McCarthyism I feel like a criminal just for wanting to regain some basic civil liberties. If I were to wear my political ideals on my sleeve, who knows what Big Brother might do?
Re:Illegal Actions? (Score:2, Interesting)
existing relgulations and government authority establish limited liability for corporate owners. as fallible men they obtain tremendous power which corrupts them, and unlike the government, which has limited accountability at best, they have none, and are able to hire behavioralists to determine exactly how to rob consumers and labor in a way which will divide and stymie any backlash.
please tell me you support at least some regulation to support the common man against unaccountable corporate beheamoths as much as you do checks on an ever more invasive government.
Re:This is surprising why? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's quite remarkable how so many issues trumpted by the administration actually have nothing to do with Christian beliefs at all. Immigrant rights, for instance. It's a classic case of a situation that can be tolerated without too much discussion, but by forcing the discussion on the nation, the administration splits the American people into, what was it, FOUR? camps of opinion.
The US is not a Christian-run state. It is not a theocracy but a kleptocracy. It is a state run by gangsters. They are well-dressed, well-educated, well-connected, modern, slick, and very powerful gangsters, but they are gangsters nonetheless, and they use the instruments of the state for personal and collective profit just like any tin-pot dictator.
Congress will never impeach Bush because Congress was corrupted and castrated a long time ago. Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power that removes competition and the need to deliver value to the citizen.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Incorrect Assumption (Score:4, Interesting)
Not even the DOJ disputes that the program engaged in domestic surveillance.
I quote [usdoj.gov], you jackass:
That's the whole damn controversy, here-- domestic surveillance without FISA warrants. Nobody except wingnut wackjobs are arguing that this has not occurred. The administration itself has taken the tack of inventing fatuous legal "justifications" involving the AUMF (which anyone with half a brain can see were conclusively kicked to the curb by the Supreme Court in Hamdan).
Furthermore, by all accounts this surveillance is performed by 'tapping' everything in sight and sorting it out later, so it's even worse than the DOJ admits it is.
If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.
Re:well DUH? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hah.
He could whip out an M-16, gun down a half dozen pedestrians on the front lawn of the White House in mid-afternoon, then pleasure himself on the dead bodies, and it MIGHT annoy some of our elected representatives enough to issue a mild public rebuke.
I'm voting every single incumbent out of office, of whatever stripe, this fall and in 2008. They've all just got to go. I want my f---ing country back. Here's hoping that others are with me.
One other thing - if we're at war, I must have missed the declaration. Surely it's somewhere in the Congressional Record?
Re:Juvenal delinquency (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe the reason this is falling apart is because this type of system doesn't work. And by that I mean, it fails to protect our basic natural rights of property and freedom from tyranny.
I don't understand why people will continue to advocate a system that has failed, as you so readily admit. They say "oh, if we could just pass these few extra laws it will fix the system". But then those few laws don't work, so we are back to square one. Rinse and repeat. People have been tweaking this system for 300 years, yet have never been quite satisfied. The inevitable result is that there is injustice done to some at the expense of others. The only solution I can see is to have everyone be the watchers. Let us learn how to set up systems that will protect freedom without having to be watched by a Police State.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
But there within lies the problem.
If forced to testify about doing something that is not illegal, serves no purpose but to embarass, and the two individuals that have a legal right to know (i.e., the wife and the object of the adultury) have stated they want nothing to do with it...would you answer truthfully?
I know I wouldn't. I also wouldn't put myself into a situation that required me to lie, but that is beyond the scope on this rebuttal.
In this, I too support the congress's right to impeach a lying president. But where does the line start and stop? Fat Clinton claiming on television that he was exercising in the White House weight room, when you know he was stuffing his face in the kitchen? Is that impeachable? Bushes statement about finding all life sacred and thus vetoing the stemcell bill, while killing over 30,000 Iraqis and leaving 10 times that disabled? Is that impeachable?
What is the scope for a president being impeached for lying?
Personally, I find it inexcusable that Clinton cheated on his wife, and I find lying about it a tragic thing for a president to have done under oath, but even the worst critics admit that the line of questioning had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case (i.e., he inappropriately hit on a woman that came to his hotel room in the middle of the night knowing full well that he was a notorious horndog -- and yes, I lived in Arkansas in that time -- and that he didn't want anything other than a roll in the hay...if you know that, you tell the guy you aren't interested and move on...God knows I pulled out the willy at in appropriate times, and no one ever had to take that to the supreme court -- a nice smack across the face was enough to let me know to put it away). In the end, it wasn't something that should have been asked as it went to no relevance, the case should have been thrown out and woud have had it been any other public figure, and it should be expected that if anyone asked this question, no matter what the truth is, the answer would be "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" -- regardless. I don't hold it against him for lying about this -- I hold it against him for adultury, but that should be between him, his wife, the adulturer and his God.
Nothing will change, get used to it (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Bush doesn't care he is the decider.
2) Congress will not act because they are his rubber stamp.
3) The voters can't do anything since redistricting has given the Republican congress a comfortable majority in the house.
4) The courts, now packed with right wing activist judges (esp. the supremes), will do nothing to restore democracy.
5) The constant state of war can be used to manipulate information and therefore the public.
6) The Senate is not subject to redistricting and could be taken back but that would take 6 years. Also the Senate cannot begin impeachment, only the House can.
The only it is going to change is if the Dems take over more state legislatures, redistrict, then retake the House. This will be difficult due to pork barrel politics (by voting in a Rep. a district will get more money) and campaign contributions. And if the Reps. get into trouble again, they just trot out the terrorists and homos again.
Get used to it. It will probably be 'One Nation, One Party, One Deceider' type rule for the next 20 years.
Enjoy!
BUSH IS NOT A CHRISTIAN (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There's your answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?
Re:essentially, yes (Score:1, Interesting)
Capitalism is supposed to run on a principle of enlightened self-interest; what could be more self-interested than a bunch of co-owners equally committed to making a buck?
Re:There's your answer: (Score:3, Interesting)
more specifically, more bush supporters are becoming former bush supporters as he proves himself to be a total fecking moron. at least the WMD thing we had numerous intelligence agencies going along with the claim that iraq had WMD's. now we have bush claiming he knows better than climatologists, medical researchers, and doctors (not to mention his own Generals)
Re:Classical Conservativist (Score:4, Interesting)
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:
- Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.
- A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.
- Spending cuts on health care & social services - most effecting poor single parents.
- Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine [travelandleisure.com] at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired [wired.com] tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.
So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem isn't that voters are stupid (thus responding better to propaganda). The problem is that the Democrats' platform is mushy goo with no distinct identity or purpose. Go see the agenda on DNC.org [dnc.org] and tell me what kind of person really supports all those points. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to be a Democrat these days.
Democrats want better health care but aren't willing to nationalize it; they want "better" national security but also want to pay down the debt; they want fairer elections but say nothing about making Election Day a federally-recognized holiday (forcing companies to pay overtime for workers who can't reach the polls between 8-5pm); they love the troops but can't acknowledge the atrocities the troops are committing in our names; they love Social Security but don't care about unemployment insurance or welfare; they love higher education but still think we should all pay individually for it.
It's a platform that says essentially: we want to help America, and we're convinced that we can do so without incurring much more taxation or changing much about how we go about doing things. On foreign policy we are Republicans except for a few quibbles; on domestic policy we are Republicans except we don't cater to the Christian Right in name or deed (prayer NOT in schools, abortion legal, homosexuality ignored) and we want minor tweaks to medical financing and some minor environmental legislation. In other words, the DNC is still Diet GOP.
Here's a real platform:
1) Make impeachment functionally easier via Constitutional amendment. (And pass the Equal Rights Amendment already.) Allow criminal charges against both elected representatives and appointed officials for actions that violate the law while in office (such as passing FDA approval and then taking a position on the board of a company that benefitted directly from that approval (time-shifted bribery); or deliberately disregarding the FISA statute for mass wiretaps).
2) Make Election Day TWO days and make them both federal holidays. Hype them up like July 4. (We can celebrate ancient military victories over BBQ, but we can't vote without making special arrangements at work?) Also make any US citizen anywhere in the world eligible to vote regardless of past criminal history; when millions of people can't vote on the very issues that stripped them of their right to vote, democracy is broken.
3) Roll Social Security payroll taxes in with both income and unearned income taxes and lift the $85K ceiling on it already. Acknowledge that SSA is here to stay, and we ALL pay for it (even those wealthy investors technically earning "nothing"), and it helps everybody; roll welfare and unemployment into SSA. Begin sending SSA checks (even if only $15/mo) to everyone over 18. Pull the retirement age back down to 60.
4) Put an end to the American Empire: begin a serious phased withdrawal of US troops at all overseas bases. Prepare to close many (but not necessarily all) of the bases not on USA soil. Acknowledge that with the Cold War over the international US military is now a diplomatic liability. Relocate the personnel to USA bases and use the money saved for a general pay increase.
5) Begin denying funding for many military boondoggles (especially jets). Use the money saved (which is VAST) to increase public school teacher and administrator pay 2X make them more in line with corporate pay standards. (Did you know that a school superintendent with 2000 white-collar report-to's makes only about $80K? In corporations you'd have to pay at least $150K for a manager at that level.)
6) Increase funding for both science research and science education. Vastly increase funding for EPA to hire real engineers. (EPA is notorious for having bureaucrats close down businesses based on blatantly faulty science reports; more
Re:There's your answer: (Score:1, Interesting)
In the past Americans have died for our beliefs.
Don't you mean the beliefs of the power elite? Common sense tells me that individuals who fly off to faraway lands to fight other individuals whom they've never met in their lives cannot possibly be fighting in self-defense. When you consider the absolute certainly of innocent deaths, the notion that those individuals are "dying for their beliefs" is simply absurd. They die for the agenda of government, plain and simple.
I hate to rain on your parade, but soldiers who agree to be sent to faraway lands to fight and die -- at the request of their rulers who run the business of government -- do so because they're gullible. A standing army employed for offense abroad, instead of defense at home, couldn't possibly be formed through any other principle.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
At this point there is enough evidence to at least start an impeachment, and this time have to go all the way. Bush has committed actual crimes here. There might even be a few in there that can be considered treasonous! But will Congress even whisper the word 'impeach'? Nope, because the Republicans have the majority. Even if, as you say, there is a big fracture in the Republican party right now, they won't lift a finger to actualy do anything to stop Bush or punish him.
This is Bush's last term, he knows this, and he knows he is pretty much untouchable, so he does as he pleases. This was actually my greatest fear in giving him another term. His behavior during his first term was horrible and put the safty of the American people in more danger than any terrorist with bombs strapped to their bodies.
And yet, the Republican party cheered him! They called him our savior and a good leader and a good person. And they came out of the woodworks to vote for him again. And now you are saying that a big chunk of them regrette their decision? You'll excuse me if I don't find this reasuring or think very much of Republicans right now. They helped get a criminal elected to office. If they really hate what he is doing, they have the power to remove him, legally. But I double we will ever see a Republican Congress convict a Republican President.
Re:Illegal Actions? (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't worry. If any president pulled something like that without a damn good reason like alien invasion or China declaring war on US, then we'd find that president and his vice president dead at the hands of the either the secret service or the military. Our military would not put up with a dictator. It would feel wrong for our army/marines to kill a US president, but if a president was attempting to turn himself into Stalin or Hitler, than that president would end up dead faster than anyone could really believe possible. The sitting US president is a rather unimportant figure head for our government. Any one could be an equally good president if we had one go loony.
Re:Conservatives against Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems I have no party anymore. I'm very fiscally conservative, and do not believe in deficit spending, socialized medicine, or the current state of welfare/social security. Supposedly that what's the Republican Party believes in, yet I see no evidence of it. On the other hand, I disagree with the Patriot act, the dmca, torture, domestic surveillance, and basically any government snooping that isn't under a warrant. Personal freedom, and the right to be anonymous are core, as well as the right to own a firearm. I'm also very pro-environment and pro-science, being a chemist.
Oh yea, I hate being PC. If my religion/beliefs offends you, get over it. I'm not going to change what I say to keep from hurting your feelings.
Republican is out, Democrat is out. A third party is a wasted vote. What's someone supposed to do?
Vote for checks and balances! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hence the best option in this upcoming election, if you don't care for either party, is to give the Democrats a very small majority of the House and Senate. That way the executive branch would be 100% Republican, the legislative branch would be %40 Republican, and the Supreme Court would be 50% Republican. While voting this way is not ideal, it is better than not voting at all. Furthermore, our country was founded on the idea of a government consisting of checks and balances. If you believe in that ideal, then VOTE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES!
In 2008, if you still don't like what is going on, then continue to vote in a way that keeps control of the government split between parties.
Re:There's your answer: (Score:2, Interesting)
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".
The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.
"Right" and "Left", "Conservative" and "Liberal" do not define complete political philosophies. You can be a conservative without loving the wealthy elite. You can be a liberal without supporting invasive egalitarianism.
For a good example, look at a country like Norway. They have a pretty flat social hierarchy, and could be considered liberal or socialist. Yet they don't seem to be making everyone "equally poor".