President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe

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.'"

There's your answer:

> President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of
> who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place

He sure as hell wouldn't have done that had it been an opportunity to point the finger at any of his rivals. Even if he wasn't responsible, he's now responsible for the cover up. If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out. I'm sure by the time of the next election there'll be some other bogeyman to deal with - presumably lebenese or syrian terrorists, angry at all the US built/paid for planes and tanks pounding lebenon.

Re:There's your answer:

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. But the only things I can do, is spread the word, and send a letter to my congressman. Then hope my congressman helps set up the process for impeachment. So, technically, the only way this is going to get started is if my congressman wants to discipline the president. Otherwise, everything I do and say is for naught.

Re:There's your answer:

Wow what a wuss. In the past Americans have died for our beliefs. But you won't support a political party because (contrary to any actual evidence) you believe you may be spied upon and some "great unknown" may happen? Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend.

Re:There's your answer:

I've considered your words and you are right. It will take some time to consider my actions, but thank you for calling me out in such a blunt way. What good are ideals of freedom if no action is taken to protect and regain personal liberties?
Again, thank you. I will take this to heart.

Re:There's your answer:

Personally I could care less if the NSA wants to spy on everyone. Good luck with that. I have nothing to hide.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
- Cardinal Richelieu [wikiquote.org] (translated)

Re:There's your answer:

Freedom implies being free. If the government controls everything you do and can selectivly persecute based on random unknown criteria then you are not free by any english definition of the word that I or oxford am aware of.

Furthermore making the statement that only people with something to hide should fear the government ignores 2000 years of governments taking any chance they get to increase their power and violate citizens rights. Do you really think that the party in power would be able to resist the temptation to spy on citizens who would pose a threat to their political power and/or policies ? Not terrorism, just plain old politics. Hell the republicans have already been found guilty of spying once in the past generation, now they have gone hi-tech and tried covering all of the bases for anyone to find out whats actually going on. No, the democrats are no better, and thats a large part of the problem. With two ultra-corrupt all-powerful groups like this, how can anyone stand against them and fight for their rights.

The govenment doesnt need to know everything to investigate terrorism. Not to mention that even with the computers analyzing the calls and emails it doesnt change the fact that we knew a good deal about 9/11 before it happened. Having knowledge means NOTHING, the most important thing is what you do with that knowledge. The government is too damn big and full of know-nothings to be able to handle information correctly, especially large amounts of information. Just look at katrina, iraq, social security, global warming and countless other things they continually fuck up because they mishandle or misunderstand the simplest data sets and concepts.

We need a smaller government who handles our country and its needs first. Freedom is not free, but sacrificing freedom for security is a bad exchange and will make our entire society bankrupt.

Re:There's your answer:

Right. And right now about the only people with "freedom isn't free" ribbon bumper stickers are people who support Bush. Those things piss me off royally, because this administration has done more to make me less free than any other, and it just keeps getting worse.

However that ~50.5% of the people who voted for Bush are going to read this and think, "oh, that liberal press," or "they'll (? who is they anyway ?) say anything to make little old Bush look bad," or "but he just seems no nice and down to earth." Really, we just don't want to hear anything [sciencedaily.com] that doesn't fit with our already held beliefs.

Re:There's your answer:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So it is ok for the founding fathers to stop their government from abusing its power, but it is not all right for us?

Re:There's your answer:

How is it fortunate? Even the right side of the isle is starting to leave support for this president in droves. Illegal wiretapping, two (that's right, two) botched wars (the Taliban just took back two towns in Afganistan), extreme secrecy, Vallery Plame, calling for the State Secrets privledge across the board, botched operations after Katrina, Scooter Libby, Carl Rove, prosecution of reporters, prosecution of private citizens under the Espionage act, Free Speech zones, Halliburton, $7 trillion national debt, between $200-$400 billion spent in Iraq against estimates of $8B, depletion of the National Guard, NSA blanket collection of phone records, NSA collection of airline records, secret laws that dictate conduct at airports, secret laws that you are governed by but CANNOT READ. The tip of the iceberg.

And now the ability to squash investigations against himself. It's like killing someone and then having the power to say "um, no - you can't investigate me".

This presidency is perhaps the worst in the HISTORY of the United States. Its abuses of power, power grab, secrecy, and corruption know no bounds. The president has lost the support of all but the most extreme NWO right wing. Clinton was impeached for "lying" to the public, but Bush has been involved in every scandal listed above, and sits atop his throne with pure immunity against the checks and balances of this country.

Never before have I come to expect to learn of some new executive branch abuse on a daily basis.

Besides, over 700,000 people already HAVE voted [impeachbush.org] to impeach him, as useless as this website may be.

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

This presidency is a farce, and I shudder when I think that 2.5 years remain.

Re:There's your answer:

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

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.

The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.

Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!?
Seriously, wake up.
The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.

The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".

Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.

Here is an article [rationalrevolution.net] that lays it out very clearly.

If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.

Re:There's your answer:

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

How can you vote out a re-elected president limited to two terms? Congress has to impeach & convict him, which has nothing to do with the voters, judging by the last impeachment.

Re:There's your answer:

Clinton was impeached because a powerful clique within the Washington beltway thought that he just had to be culpable for something illegal, somewhere along the line. After spending a couple of years and more than $50 million on an incredible investigation, the Monica Lewinski episode was all they could come up with.

Lying about the blow job wasn't the cause of Clinton's impeachment. It was simply the only excuse for impeachment that the Lord High Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr could find.

Re:There's your answer:

The coming election will see any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data.

Why bother when the electronic voting machines make it so much easier to change the vote count to anything they want?

Re:There's your answer:

"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."

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:There's your answer:

Yes, but it's not likely to ever happen... Nixon would have been an obvious target for indictment after he resigned, but the following president gave him a pardon for all crimes that may have been committed during his presidency. That action is likely to be pointed to as a precedent, though in the case of Nixon the following president (Ford) was both unelected and of the same party. The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president. I doubt that would be the case, though, as any Democrat who assumes the office would presumably want to push their own agenda and not get muddled down in such a big and ultimately pointless fight.

Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would never

get the party nomination in the first place.

The Democrats have a history of silencing voices within the party who have the nerve to push for real change or accountability. The party would never allow their presidential nomination to go to anyone who was pushing for an indictment of Bush or his cronies. Radical or even strongly progressive voices within the party are either ignored completely (see Dennis Kucinich), or they seem to end up in mysterious plane crashes like Paul Wellstone.

The Dems and Reps are BOTH beholden to corporate interests and Wall St. bankers. Choosing which of the 2 major parties to vote for is simply choosing WHICH set of corporate swine you want pulling the strings in DC.

war?

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:war?

Wars end when when somebody is defeated.

And there is the rub. If you declare war, you can declare an end to the state of war. If you don't declare war, you run on "political expediency", and effectively you have a state of "war" without end.

I argue that Congress -did- abdicate their responsibility. It is not just their privelege to declare war, it is their responsibility to recognize the necessity and play their part. Then, yes, they get out of the way and let the CiC run the actual war.

By abdicating their responsibility to declare war, they have set us up for a constitutional crisis.

War declarations are not a prosaic artifact of the Constitution, they are a serious responsibility to be used as necessary.

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time.

I'm not sure I've heard that, though I have heard that such "extraordinary powers" most certainly do not extend to denying constitutional rights, no matter what Hollywood may tell us.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the suspension in 1942 of civillian rule in favor of military courts in Hawaii was also unconstitutional (and this was a territory, not yet a state, that had just been attacked by a foreign power's military, and even under those incredibly exceptional circumstances the constitution wasn't permitted to be suspended).

Here are some remarks by the former Chief Justice in 2000 [supremecourtus.gov], and again in 2002 [supremecourtus.gov], that address the question of civilian versus military judical authority in wartime.

Can anyone provide clear case evidence of the court determining that the President *can* suspend certain civil rights or federal laws in wartime? So far as I've ever been able to ascertain, every single time a President has gone "too far" with the wartime powers argument, he's been rebuffed years later by the Supreme Court, which tells me, at least, that any argument that a president has special lattitude in wartime is a crock, at least from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, though, since it's always taken the Court years to get around to it, it's certainly been proven true. (though if the Court can decide a presidential election question in a matter of days, you'd think they could handle these other serious issues more quickly, too...)

Re:war?

Perhaps this is an exerpt from a longer bill wherein the Congress declares war? Granting the president war powers != declaring war, although the outcome is largely the same. Nonetheless, the person you're arguing against is correct. This is not a declaration of war. That involves 1.) declaring war, and 2.) declaring who we're at war with.

Bonus question! This authorizes force against those responsible for attacks on the United States. Please explain how this bill justifies a multi-year occupation of Iraq?

Re:There's your answer:

What illegal activity?

That's kind of the point, isn't it? We can't find out because investigators can't be cleared.

And if somebody Authorizes it, is it still illegal?

Maybe. It depends on the activity. The President is not above the law.

If Foreign terrorists are calling you here in the U.S, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is legal or illegal.

If my government is spying on me, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is illegal or legal.

Now that we've gotten our wish lists out of the way, let's focus on reality. This country has elected and appointed officials and laws that govern them all. Just because the President says it's legal doesn't make it so.

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude

That's a big if. Congress hasn't declared war, and only Congress is empowered to do so. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) The "War on Terror", as with the "War on Drugs", is a slogan, not a declared state of war. Commander-In-Chief he may be, but the President does not have the Constitutional authority to declare war in this country.

Your blind faith in the government is your right, and don't let me stop you from having it. I don't have that same faith. I believe that a government with nothing to hide does not deny security clearances to ITS OWN AGENTS. (Remember, DOJ is Executive branch.) I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power that goes unchecked and unquestioned is absolute. I believe that the administration has been doing things in my name (as a citizen) that I don't approve of, and the legislature and courts are complicit.

Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about all my suspicions regarding the President and his staff.

Problem is, I can't know, because the President has blocked investigators from finding out.

Comming soon to a theater near you..

"Watergate II"..

twice the scandal, twice the criminal activity, twice the obstruction of justice..

*movie rated "R", all viewers must take delivery of dealer stock, offer void in utah, west virginia, and texas*

This is surprising why?

Of course, he is going to block it. Funny thing is, this investigation had no teeth to start off with. It basically said that we are going to do everything in our power to check every little corner if you will allow it.

Re:This is surprising why?

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. What I think you mean to imply is that he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians. For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Re:This is surprising why?

For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Had to be repeated.

/Christian
//supports abortion rights, stem cell research, and gay marriage

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

Christianity really isn't a philosophy that can be adapted individually, like buddhism. It has well defined principles guiding morality, as defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures.

I agree completely.

Now excuse me while I sell my daughter into slavery, murder all the people at the seafood resturaunt, and anyone I can find eating pork.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

God is not malleable, the bible is not malleable, Christ's teachings are not malleable, they are there to read and to live by.

First of all, God may not be malleable, but your idea of him definitely is. Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.

So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.

Re:This is surprising why?

I would bet that 60 years ago, a majority of Americans would have been against interracial marriage. Does that mean that the government in power should have pushed for an amendment banning it? (Maybe they did, I honestly don't know.) Of course today that would be an absurd proposition to most people, hopefully because they would see that it's discrimination and infringes on people's liberty. I wonder if our society will ever feel that way about gay marriage...

There's a difference between following the minority and protecting the minoritiy's rights.

Article title: "Bush blocked surveillance probe"

Just aim the probe out of the garden, for God's sake!

Don't forget, kids...

We need to revoke your rights in order to protect them. History will look back upon George W. Bush as the undoing of what it means to be American.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

I'm sorry, but could you explain to me in what way George W. Bush has prevented the American public from remaining fat, ignorant and watching reality shows?

Re:Don't forget, kids...

"Yeah. You know that whole Watergate hotel thing you guys are investigating? I'm going to have to ask you to stop. New policy, you know. You got that memo, right? Great. So if you could just not look into that, that'd be great." - Nixon

Re:Don't forget, kids...

BTW, what 'rights' are being revoked?

The Fourth Amendment. Currently, under the rule of King George, law enforcement can invade your home at will and without a warrant.

Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?

We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.

I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off.

What I say on my calls are none of yours and the governments business. Especially if I make those calls in the privacy of my own house. Making such calls on a cell phone in public is another matter since everyone around you can hear your yammering.

Doesn't anyone work on corporate email systems?

That is a private entity who owns the equipment and the communication pathways. That is completely different than having a publicly financed telecommunication system where everyone and their grandmother are communicating.

Juvenal delinquency

Juvenal is the ancient Roman who asked "Who will watch the watchmen?" [dbms2.com] For George Bush, the answer is evidently "Preferably, nobody."

Democracy in action

I am so proud today to be an American, where the rule of law.... errr..... I mean.... What I mean is ......

errrmmm.........

Nevermind :/

Apperantly...

...this is how one "restores honor and dignity to the White House."

Conservatives against Bush

I'm a pretty strong social and fiscal conservative. As you may guess, this also means I believe in the rule of law.

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. :/

Vote for checks and balances!

The best vote that you can make when you don't care for either the Democrat or Republican candidate is to vote in a way that will cause the government to become divided. In other words, you want to try to elect people in a way that the different branches of government are controlled by different parties. That way the checks and balances will keep the government from doing too much damage, as it keeps the branches fighting eachother as opposed to fighting its citizens. Right now the Republicans control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.

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.

Where are the Islamist spies?

Something that's been bothering me for the last few years about the cry from the administration for utmost secrecy in its actions is the way they never get around to saying exactly whom they're trying to hide information from. When all is said and done, is there any reason to believe that al Qaeda has intelligence gathering capabilities beyond watching satellite television?

We've had secret court cases before, we've had secret sessions of Congress, we have a whole series of safeguards that were apparently deemed necessary and proper when our foe was something as formidable as the KGB, why are we to believe that a non-state has the resources to do better? It would seem all that is needed to maintain secrecy from al Qaeda is to keep the information from being stored on USB drives in Baghdad. Does the administration really believe there are al Qaeda spies that highly placed in the United States government?

Nothing will change, get used to it

Lot of comments going around about impeachment and possibly having the other retake congress in the midterms. Unfortunately nothing will change for a number of reasons:
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!

Dear USA,

Good luck with this stuff. Seriously.

It seems you've already started to vote away your freedoms. If the rest of your country is going to take this lying down, maybe it's time for the rest of you to start taking up the arms that you've so rigoursly been defending the right to own (regardless of the cost in your society) to start taking control of your country back from the religious oligarchy that is currently in charge.

You dragged one President through the mud because he cheated on his wife. Now you've got another one breaking your laws and turning your country into the sort of place that people fifty years ago used to write books about to prove points totalitarianism.

Instead of posting about it on Slashdot, maybe the time has come to start educating your less savvy friends and family that maybe they should stop watching Fox and start engaging their brains to figure out what is best for their country, their family and their friends.

Until you figure out a better way to spend untold billions of dollars and priceless amounts of human life, we, the undersigned, consider ourselves at great personal risk of your policies, attitudes, and actions.

Signed sincerely,

The Rest of the World. (Please consult an atlas for our exact location relative to the United States.)

PS, if you could take money out of politics, you might find - as a completely surprising corollary - you make your country a better place for your citizens.

Re:There goes Democracy...

And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.

While I would agree that this administration seems bent on creating an all-powerful executive branch and removing the independent judiciary, that really isn't what is going on in this case.

The OPR is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is a huge part of the executive branch. That's why Bush has so much power over the DOJ. The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.

Re:Get real.

To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay.

Posted by an Anonymous Coward. Now that's irony, Alanis.

Not Necessarily

Just because people are willing to part with their freedom, liberty, and happiness does not mean that they want to risk something serious like losing karma on Slashdot.

Re:Get real.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin (maybe [wikiquote.org])

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?

Re:Get real.

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?

Simple. Let America become a totalitarian state. It won't last, but it will scare enough people for the time that it does last to buy another two hundred years of freedom, after maybe a twenty year civil war.

We have failed to learn history. Now we have to take our medicine and repeat it.

Re:Truth

Then too he has an odd definition of freedom. He seems to think freedom and democracy are exactly the same thing.

Don't get me wrong... Democracy and voting play substantial roles in assuring freedom. But they're not the only things.

Take for example the cohabitation law struck down in North Carolina recently. A democraticly elected majority said: an unrelated man and woman can't live with each other under the same roof unless they get married. Its fornication and society won't stand for it.

That's not freedom. Freedom says you can run your personal life pretty much any way you want to and its nobody else's business.

I don't think Dubya gets that.

Re:Biased much?

Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions"

The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal.

But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide, you still go to prison for murder.


Bush (or someone VERY high up, which the proposed investigation would determine) broke the law (again). I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So do the majority of Americans at this point - It might have taken most of the sheep six years to catch on, but they've finally noticed that every time the wolf appears, some of them vanish.

Someone who gets it

It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Precisely!

So why is the President using it to block an investigative probe into misconduct? If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.

Re:Illegal Actions?

If any entity can declare itself immune from investigation or oversight, then they are effectively declaring themselves immune from the law. Ergo, the probability that the acts in question were "illegal" are inversely proportional to the odds that President Bush authorized them. Okay, so I'm being facetious, but the fact is that the acts can't be considered "illegal," ever if he can block investigation, and thus any chance of impeachment. I'd like to see someone, anyone, explain this in any way where it means something other than "the law doesn't apply to President Bush."

What sickens me is not so much that a politician would do this (who wouldn't want to have veto power over any investigations into their own conduct?) but that so-called "conservative" pundits will side with him. The side that ostensibly sides with limited, toothless government will enthusiastically support a President's authority to place himself beyond the reach of the law, just because that President is from their own party. It wouldn't be so grating, but I'm a conservative, one who believes in limited government, the fallibility of man, etc. I actually have the political principles that they claim to have (at least when a Democrat was in the White House) and so, in calling myself a conservative, I'm placing myself in the same wacko, Orwellian club that they've infected. But what else do I call myself, politically? I was reading James Bovard when Clinton was in office. I was concerned about runaway government. I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco. I even agreed with a few David Horowitz articles.

But at the time the Republicans were right about where I was (though I couldn't have cared less about Clinton's sex life). After 9/11, they all went effectively crazy and I was left feeling like a schmuck because I actually thought they believed in small government and freedom, as I do. I'm effectively left without a party, because the Democrats are no better. I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that. It's a bit surreal to vote, to care about politics, in a nation where no one really cares about freedom. There is no political principle at work in either main party, and there isn't really a fiscally conservative/Amnesty International/ACLU/Torturewatch/anti-death-penalty etc party for me to vote for even as a weak compromise. There is just nothing. No, I don't believe it's a conspiracy. I'm just part of a ridiculously small minority of people who are abhorred by what's going on, and would be regardless of what party was running the show this week.

I'm beginning to understand how the abolitionists felt at the very beginning, when they were the only ones saying "slavery is wrong." When I tell people "torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the rest of the day. No one cares. I don't really see any way we can prevent a headlong slide into totalitarianism. If Bush outright suspended the next election, I'm convinced that at least 40% of Americans would support him. His base, the evangelicals (especially the Christian Reconstructionists) would definitely support him, because that's what they're after anyway. But I just don't think Americans at large think or care about any of this. It's not a very encouraging outlook to have on things.