Prez will get away with this like he does everything else. God help us all.
Posted by Mal Feasance at December 17, 2005 03:58 PMThose "congressional leaders" are also guilty of violating the fucking law.
Posted by Vinnie at December 17, 2005 04:52 PMWA Post finally bringing out lack of oversight.
Listen to this stat on the House Govt Reform Committee:
"Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents."
Three fucking subpoenas for all of the crap this administration has done vs 1,052 for a blow job. Who is getting screwed now?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Anjha at December 17, 2005 06:26 PMDianne has been on my suspicious list ever since her husband Richard Blum wona $600 million contract from the Army. The award preceeded a couple of votes in which she supported the (mi$)Admini$tration position and made me think that it swayed her vote toward maintaining her personal interest over the good of the nation.
She is hardly alone. I suspect that the vast majority of the Democrats, except for Dennis Kucinich, and Russ Feingold, along with Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords, are about the only members of Congress that haven't been tainted by the friends of the modern day Tammany Hall at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Posted by pessimist at December 17, 2005 07:14 PMDiane Feinstein should answer the questions about her finances before she calls anyone out!
Posted by Reddog at December 17, 2005 07:40 PMThe acronym, WHIP, stops too soon. Take the entire 'White House Iraq Policy for Deceiving the United States', and you get the further descriptive WHIP'D US.
Whipped us, they did. Again.
Posted by oregondave at December 17, 2005 08:55 PMVery good point, oregondave.
Despite the fact that Diane is a disappointment for us on a number of her policies, on this matter, she is absolutely right in pointing out the obvious. And she has the ability (via her position) to get this information into the general media. Let's support her on this point.
Posted by Mary at December 17, 2005 10:03 PMHotline On Call notes that the law required the White House to notify the leaders of the House and Senate about the domestic surveillance program confirmed earlier by President Bush. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admited she knew about it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV)office hasn't responded yet. Hat tip politicalwire.com
Funny thing, Gephardt and Daschle knew, Pelosi and Reid knew, the NYTimes knew for a year, and none of these folks thought ANYTHING was illegal and unlawful nor Unconstitutional!
Amazing
peter, did you actually read my post? What Diane Feinstein said is she knew about it, but she had been told about it as part of a top secret briefing which made it illegal for her to discuss it. Everyone of the leadership in Congress was under this restriction. It was a perfect Catch-22. They know the president is operating illegally, but they can't disclose it without being charged with disclosing top secret information (a very serious charge indeed).
If you read eRiposte's piece, he showed that the Bush administration had put our representatives into Kafkaesque handcuffs because of this tactic. Today, Pelosi and Reed can disclose what they heard because the information is no longer top secret simply because it was exposed publicly. Your charge that they didn't think anything was wrong at the time they learned from the White House about this is simply bunk.
Posted by Mary at December 17, 2005 11:15 PMIf all of this is supposed to be top secret and anyone discussing it would be charged with "disclosing top secret information" then how did the Times get ahold of it? Should not someone be charged? Perhaps this is irrelevant but if it is top secret then how did someone find out? A leak? Guess someone told who wasn't supposed to. Guess all of your guys get to be investigated. Who was the leak, who was the person who illegally discussed top secret information? Perhaps that is where your questions should lie. Because whoever did isn't trustworthy enough to be holding high-level security clearance. Maybe it was one of your guys maybe it was one of ours, but our guys have nothing to gain so that pretty much leaves the Democrats as the only people with motive enough to commit an illegal act. So you can pat your guys on the back for dislosing secrets, good job they just completely invalidated the oaths they took upon entering office. Good job guys!
Maybe you guys should have listened to the President when he questioned the legality of the information being disclosed, because no matter how good a reporter one is, one can't unveil government secrets without help from the inside.
By the way, what about the President's order was illegal? The fact that the White House counsel told him it was okay? Or the Attorney General said it was okay? What did you want him to do? Go consult the Pope before making his decision? The 2 highest ranking lawyers in the United States approved the order, what more is needed? It can never be deemed illegal either unless you can find a terrorist willing to bring charges against the United States.
Actually, if the Leadership knew and thought that what the President was doing was illegal, why didn't they ask the President to stop? Did they even ask? Did they agree? Perhaps they did agree, perhaps the intelligence gathered outweighed the means used, maybe your guys said that it was okay. Has anyone asked them? No, because they have been too busy questioning the President about the legality of his order. Don't you love the media and politics? Screw logic, endorse the Mob.
\\//,Erik
Posted by Erik at December 17, 2005 11:53 PM"screw logic, endorse the mob?" The people, the citizens, are not the mob. The president has, in fact, violated the constitution by deliberately abrogating laws and statutes approved by congress. He took an oath to uphold the constitution and our laws and nothing that anyone tells him--not his lawyers and not, of course, the pope, excuses him from coming to the correct decision for himself. It was not the correct decision because it was not legal. More, it ws not necessary since in 25 years only one request for wiretapping/surveillance has been rejected by FISA. In addition, the law allows the government to go ahead and surveille without acquiring permission for 72 hours and to then go and get retroactive permission from FISA. That being the case there is literally, factually (no mob about it) no reason not to use the laws and tools at hand unless you are planning mass wiretaps of non-enemy, non-terrorist, but political oponents. Those are the kind of wiretaps and surveillance that you want to be able to do in a one party authoritarian state but you don't want to have to clear with any non-partisan authority like FISA.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see, Erik but I'll still attempt to clear your eyes. The debased, subject mentality that says the master knows best isn't suitable for a free, democratic people. MOve to an already existing dictatorship please, don't bring your feeble, fear ridden excuses here to shore up Bush's attempts at subverting our democracy.
aimai
Posted by aimai at December 18, 2005 05:26 AMEric,
You need a warrant not an opinion from one of your employees. This is not complicated. It is a fundamental tenant of a free and democratic society that the government can not set aside the law. Period. End. Of. Sentence.
Posted by tersuki at December 18, 2005 10:19 AMWhen was I saying that the people are the mob? I was suggesting that the media and politics are the mob. Sorry, if that distinction wasn't made.
So when Lincoln freed the slaves, to the discontent of the South, he was commiting an illegal act? Wow, we gotta put those blasted slaves back in there chains then don't we? Oh wait, the President is allowed to create directives which can evade current law, so it is okay. I'm glad that Lincoln's lawyer, himself, didn't let the democratic process get in his way when he freed the people who form one of the Democratic party's primary voting blocks.
Laws are highly bureaucratic, they create paper, paper that could get leaked, paper that could compromise long term investigations. You see in the intelligence business, laws are one of the biggest obstacles a spy must bypass.
I also enjoy how you both completely sidestepped the issue, good job ignoring the things you can't deal with and going after easier prey. Your own guys had access, given to them in the briefings, to lists of people who were being spied upon and they didn't do a thing, not a thing. Why? Because they could not? No, because they couldn't find anything wrong. Well, except for one of your guys, they leaked the information to the Times. So before you go pointing fingers at the President you gotta point the fingers at your guys.
How is democracy infringed upon with us knowing what people are saying? I mean is not Deomcracy contingent upon the people telling the government what they want done? Can this not be more easily attained if we already know? Though we don't live in a democracy we live in a republic. That is why I find Arlen Specter's recent appeal to democracy so funny, he is in government and doesn't know the difference.
\\//,Erik
Posted by Erik at December 18, 2005 11:42 AMThe Bush administration spies on about three dozens Americans in contact with suspected foreign terrorists, and you are talking about a police state, empire, hegemony.
Seriously? Police state?
I can't understand how illogical and hyperbolic some people can be. Partisanship is a vicious, vicious thing.
Posted by Seixon at December 18, 2005 05:19 PMseixon,
A little bit of illegal activity will get you or me thrown in jail. A little bit of unprotected sex can give you AIDS. A little "white" lie leads to bigger, "blacker" lies. A police state starts with a little bit of unconstitutional power grabbing by the government.
A little bit of wrong leads to a lot more wrong.
Posted by code cooker at December 18, 2005 09:19 PMSo a little bit of food will lead to obesity? No, a little bit of nothing will immediately cause the most extreme negative end. You see logic is a funny thing, if it can't be applied everywhere, it isn't logic. Your "little bit of wrong leads to a lot more wrong" concept is what you call a slippery slope fallacy, otherwise known as bullcrap. What your concept assumes is that all people will do wrong when given the opportunity, however, this is not true. Moral Hazard, the thing that makes you pay a copay with your health insurance, suggests that things given freely will be treated as worthless, however, this is also untrue. You cant create an across the board generalization, it is not only cynical but unethical and illogical.
\\//,Erik
Posted by Erik at December 19, 2005 12:25 AM