IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you...

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

And you are aware, of course, that there are plenty of Republicans who will say it was there intent to give the prez exactly the powers that he claimes to have. So, where does that leave us?

In a country where plenty of crazy Republicans claim they meant to give the President 1984-style Big Brother-level surveillance powers.

At any rate, they’ve got majorities in both houses of Congress. If they want to make explicit the President’s supposed authority to conduct domestic warrantless wiretapping, they’ve got the ball, and can ensure that such legislation is voted on by the full House and Senate. If I were a Congressional Democrat, I’d look them in the eye and say: put up or shut up.

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

@ElvisL1ves

With you providing cites. Which names of those “plenty of Republicans” do you have?

And which of those Republicans said this before Bush claimed they had written him a blank check with that vote.

I wonder. Suppose Hillary CLinton is elected in 2008. Will Republicans agree that she has the right to spy on anyone she chooses in the name of national security without any need for a warrant?

[John_Mace]

@Captain Lance Murdoch

And which of those Republicans said this before Bush claimed they had written him a blank check with that vote.

Why should they have?

I wonder. Suppose Hillary CLinton is elected in 2008. Will Republicans agree that she has the right to spy on anyone she chooses in the name of national security without any need for a warrant?

Well, I don’t know if its fair to say that Bush is spying on"anyone he chooses", but who knows the answer to your question? Maybe they would and maybe the wouldn’t.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

At any rate, they’ve got majorities in both houses of Congress. If they want to make explicit the President’s supposed authority to conduct domestic warrantless wiretapping, they’ve got the ball, and can ensure that such legislation is voted on by the full House and Senate. If I were a Congressional Democrat, I’d look them in the eye and say: put up or shut up.

Acyually, they cannot force a vote in the Senate.

[alaricthegoth]

@Bricker

Acyually, they cannot force a vote in the Senate.

See, now this is why people say,

Aww, that Bricker. He’s slick. He’ll look you in the (internet) eye, so to speak, and lsmile, and blow smoke up your ass

BECAUSE

He knows perfectly well that the nuclear option is certainly as appropriate to defend the constitutional prerogatives of the C in C as the advise and consent obligation of the senate vis-a-vis judicial appointments.

But he pretends that by virtue of that thrid single malt, he forgot abou that when he made this otherwise telling debatying point…

[Hamlet]

@RTFirefly

At any rate, they’ve got majorities in both houses of Congress. If they want to make explicit the President’s supposed authority to conduct domestic warrantless wiretapping, they’ve got the ball, and can ensure that such legislation is voted on by the full House and Senate. If I were a Congressional Democrat, I’d look them in the eye and say: put up or shut up.

The thing is that Congress has already considered this issue, back in 1978. They debated the issues of how much power the President should have when eavesdropping on citizens, even in the realm of foreign intelligence. And, after those debates, they enacted legislation that lays out when and how the President can order warrantless wiretaps. It was called FISA, and seemed to work pretty well.

At least until our current president decided he and his administration were more important than our silly little laws.

[Bricker]

@alaricthegoth

See, now this is why people say,

Aww, that Bricker. He’s slick. He’ll look you in the (internet) eye, so to speak, and lsmile, and blow smoke up your ass

BECAUSE

He knows perfectly well that the nuclear option is certainly as appropriate to defend the constitutional prerogatives of the C in C as the advise and consent obligation of the senate vis-a-vis judicial appointments.

But he pretends that by virtue of that thrid single malt, he forgot abou that when he made this otherwise telling debatying point…

That’s a fair rejoinder. (The reminder about the nuclear option, not the insinuation about The Macallan).

So far as I know, the talk about the nuclear option has always been that it would be used to force a precedent change only with respect to the consideration of judicial appointments. That is, the Senate would still adhere to the normal cloture rule when considering legislation, and only steamroll the filibuster when it was being used to block judicial appointments.

However… that, too, is not set in stone.

So you’re right.

[E-Sabbath]

http://mirrordot.org/stories/4304d7ba9ca62892ce72f6d09fefbb12/index.html
(Mirrordot mirror of the NY Times)

Hum. Oh, BOY.

Yeah. That’s pretty widespread. You know, they really should have gotten warrants.

[alaricthegoth]

you are correct on both points–I would go further and say that once employed for judicial filibusters, the option will be burning a hole in bill frists holster.

Might I consult chapter 8 of Bricker on Jurisprudence,Constitution, star chamber courts not permitted by…

put more cogently (ed not, hard to fail THAT standard…)
are you troubled by the several varieties of secret justice practiced by the Crawford Junta?

[alaricthegoth]

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0552,ridgeway,71265,2.html

…and the beat goes on…

[BobLibDem]

I must say that I’ve seen no mention of this in the SDMB, and only know of it because of a Democratic site. Anyway, the NSA spied on diplomats at the UN in order to get leverage for the war in Iraq.

“As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,” the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an “aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates.” The smoking gun was “a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency – the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world – and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency.” The friendly agency was Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters.

This raises some interesting questions:

1. why did the US media completely ignore this one?
2. is it a crime to spy on UN diplomats?
3. does this add any fuel to the impeachment fire?

I don’t have an answer for any of these. The most disturbing thing in my mind is that the media killed the story. Personally, I think this pushes the administration off the moral high ground and even if not a crime in itself, illustrates the depths to which this administration will go to get its way.

[alaricthegoth]

@BobLibDem

I must say that I’ve seen no mention of this in the SDMB, and only know of it because of a Democratic site. Anyway, the NSA spied on diplomats at the UN in order to get leverage for the war in Iraq.

This raises some interesting questions:

1. why did the US media completely ignore this one?
2. is it a crime to spy on UN diplomats?
3. does this add any fuel to the impeachment fire?

I don’t have an answer for any of these. The most disturbing thing in my mind is that the media killed the story. Personally, I think this pushes the administration off the moral high ground and even if not a crime in itself, illustrates the depths to which this administration will go to get its way.

I remember when it went down–at the time it made barely a ripple–I think it was at the root of Bush’s flip flop on the "we’re gonna lay down our hands and see who holds’em and who folds’em"vote on the second security council resolution–the one that would have made the war legal if we had been able to get it–You would tnink it would get more prominent ink.

[alaricthegoth]

US intelligence service bugged website visitors despite ban

I suppose we may presume that the abovementioned cookies did not come with one of those pop-up messages that says: “attention, incoming cookie;”

Query:which other government sites have (no) cookies?

(I mean to imply that it is easier to count the execeptions, for those grammar fetishists who are irony challenged–I know you are out there, we have already met in the pit)

[alaricthegoth]

When John Ashcroft has doubts, you know that your ass is WAAAY over the line…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=51dcd73cfc5cb1a6&hp&ex=1136091600&partner=homepage.

“Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue”

[marshmallow]

The only way Bush is getting impeached is if a tape leaks out where he clearly talks about how he’s been misleading the American public about the Iraqi war, torture, or any other number of issues. And hey, what with all the leaks in the news over the past couple of years I’m almost surprised this hasn’t happened yet. But even if that were to occur, I doubt it’d lead to impeachment. It’s a leftist fantasy, pure and simple, in the current political climate. It’s one I share – I’d love to see that smirk wiped off his face and his shiny cowboy star ripped off his shirt.

But no. Just no.

[RTFirefly]

@alaricthegoth

When John Ashcroft has doubts, you know that your ass is WAAAY over the line…

Indeed.

Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.

It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.

:eek:
And they buried Pincus on page A8 of the WaPo this morning, but:
NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance

But other agencies, one former official said, have used phone numbers or other records obtained from NSA in combination with wide-ranging databases to look for links and associations. “What data sets are included is a policy decision [made by individual agencies] when they involve other than terrorist links,” he said.

<snip>

Those Northcom centers conduct data mining, where information received from the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, state and local police, and the Pentagon’s Talon system are cross-checked to see if patterns develop that could indicate terrorist activities.

Talon is a system that civilian and military personnel use to report suspicious activities around military installations. Information from these reports is fed into a database known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, which is managed, as is the Talon system, by the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the newest Defense Department intelligence agency to focus primarily on counterterrorism. The database is shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies and was found last month to have contained information about peace activists and others protesting the Iraq war that appeared to have no bearing on terrorism.

Military officials acknowledged that such information should have been purged after 90 days and that the Talon system was being reviewed.

Doesn’t prove a connection between the domestic warrantless NSA wiretapping, and the military spying on gays, Quakers, vegans, and whatnot, but…

[alaricthegoth]

@RTFirefly

Indeed.
:eek:
And they buried Pincus on page A8 of the WaPo this morning, but:
NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From SurveillanceDoesn’t prove a connection between the domestic warrantless NSA wiretapping, and the military spying on gays, Quakers, vegans, and whatnot, but…

I’m waiting for word that they bugged William F. “don’tbogartthatjoint” Buckley

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9601/legalize_drugs/

Maybe then the repugs will quit with the “hey, my name isn’t Habib, why should I worry?”

[alaricthegoth]

CHRISTIANE AHMANPOUR This bug’s for YOU!

What it means to John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and Bill Clinton if Bush...

[alaricthegoth]

I don’t know why the moonie daily times is running this seemingly anti-bush story, nor exactly how it fits in to the program prompting the thread, but it certainly seems to come under the heading of

impeachment, shitstorm gathering re:

NSA whistleblower asks to testify

[alaricthegoth]

wow-this is weird, apparently nbc has “cleaned up” the transcript of the mitchell interview seeming to highlight amanpour as an eavesdroppee.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10697484/page/4/print/1/displaymode/1098/ see also:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/4/194639/7332