I really like to believe that that was a dirty trick intended to scare off Ms. Amanpour’s sources.
that would be a nice bit of disinformation–kind of like when you pick up a gang member, then let him go in half an hour and spread word that he snitched.
It would sure fuck up a journalist if her name went out as “hot”, whether it were true or not.
otoh, it would be naive to think that among the admitted 500 individuals (changing over time, I guess) none were journalists whose “contacts” with al-q types were not for purposes of carrying out terrorism, but to inform the public (ostensibly a laudable goal…)
late breaking “denial” from nsa
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007382.php
Says Ensor: “A senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Thursday that the National Security Agency did not target CNN’s chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance.”
What we may have here though is an issue of terminology."
So much for half the Bush rationale; now on to the commander in chief bullshit.
The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress “does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance,” the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless.
“Nope. Not listening to her. Not at all. Nosiree. Go ahead and call her. Call her all you want. Talk for a lo-o-o-ong time. Yep. Totally safe…”
You are too cynical–they AREN’T listening to her–its Rubin they want…They figure he’s getting calls from fat Bill who’s passing along leaks from Bush 41 who is pissed out of his mind at the mess boy George has made…
I missed the second part of your cite: the one where the Congressional Research service was named by a new Constitutional amendment as the branch of government responsible for interpreting the law.
It came right after yours, designating that function to the Executive branch.
I think that for public relations purposes,( which as you point out is the limit of the authority of the congressional service), the admin lawyers may consider their wrists to have been slapped.
Virginians for Impeachment?? Has it come to this?
I went to northern Virginia Rep. Jim Moran’s Town Hall with Rep. John Murtha last night. It was a huge crowd–the overflow room overflowed, and they had to turn hundreds of people away!–and the crowd gave Rep. Murtha a very warm welcome. The most interesting thing that happened all night, however, was the spontaneous, loud, sustained applause that erupted from the crowd when one questioner said the word “impeachment”
these assholes can’t get their story straight…but they’ve got some fancy footwork for sure.
Leahy today on Lehrer:“they say they only tap people in contact with Al Q. And they tap five thousand. So what, there’s 5000 al q conspirators running around and they can only capture 8?”
paraphrase–i’ll retrieve transcript later.
Don’t bother.
Go to this site and avail yourself of their product instead.
you are sadly misinformed. The most recent research at MIT reveals the fopil beanie (and may I say, irrespective of the shiny side in or shiny side out) actually CONCENTRATES the harmful rays.http://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=200511112730.afdb_effectiveness
I conclude, therefor, from you recommendation, that you are in league with the government in their attempts to carry out electromagnetic mind control…
although I suffer from pathological optimism due to an excessive number of serotonin receptors in my cerebrum, it is hard for me to imagine that corrupt and venal as they are, the pugs would be unable to muster 34 senators to vote against conviction.
altho impeachment alone would be a sautary bitch slap for that cracker who wakes up and takes his morning piss on a copy of the constitution.
(or so I’m told)
I take it that on the substantive issue, neuropsychosartorial recommendations aside, you have no problems with the posture of the admin which, as close as I can tell, is “we didn’t follow the law, because it wasn’t operationally convenient, but we didn’t break the law, and if we did it’s ok, because as soon as we break a law it becomes an unconstitutional law that we would be violating our oath of office if we didn’t break”
LEAHY: How do we know? We don’t know who – If as was suggested in Mr. Chertoff’s statement that thousands of Americans have been spied on, do we really have thousands of al-Qaida operatives in this country and are we so incompetent in our law enforcement that there are thousands of them? We couldn’t catch, oh, maybe nine or ten or twelve or thirteen.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/leahy_1-23.html
" it is hard for me to imagine that corrupt and venal as they are, the pugs would be unable to muster 34 senators to vote against conviction."
let me modify that.
with bullshit moves like this, praise jesus, Bush may snatch conviction from the jaws of the fix, withal
White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers
while the katrina stonewall no doubt deserves (and will get) its own thread, there is such a concatenation of catastrophic failures coupled with desperate concotion of bizarre excuses for the erection of barriers to accountability, that even the sold out Senate might have to convict, once the articles are coherently before them.
The dodge and weave of these guys is awesome…
How do they have the chutzpah, after swearing to do “whatever it takes” to clam up about the drama?