Jordan .

What has happened here I believe will be discussed in 100 years with some rational perspective. I think it will be looked back on as the era where the media was distrusted to such a degree that massive fundamental change took place in education and journalism. I hope it only takes 100 years and not a Dark Age of superstition, conspiracy webs and loss of all critical thinking. Well, I'll never know.

I wish I could work up some outrage over this. I know, I know. I seem to say that often. Like over Valerie (lest we forget) Plame, this seems yet another Tasmanian Devil of twisted hate for Bush. Because of that blinding rage, it is impossible to see the forest for the trees. Because the anger is so intense, the patient cannot say to themselves, "well, that's not such a big deal" without a dissonance clanging around in the head. The head says, "I cannot feel this burning rage unless there is a REALLY REALLY BIG REASON." Well, then, in order to justify the emotional response, it becomes necessary to conflate the perceived offenses.

IMPEACH.

TREASON!

ILLEGAL!

Bushliedpeopledied.

Dr. Sigmund Nuart Master Diagnostician of BDS* (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

PS There's something about this courier font that makes me less restrained than I was back in the old days. Or is it simply "holiday" jolliness? Ah well, it's nothing a little spanking from Danwhy, herofix, JVSCant or wowBOBwow couldn't cure!

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

A president abusing his authority while in office!!! Oh my god,  Hold the phone this must be a revolutionary idea while sitting in the oval office. I think we can all honestly agree that all our presidents have done some sneaky underhanded tricks while in office,  how the hell do you think they got elected; honest voter turn out???

If the this story had leaked out shortly after 9/11 it probably wouldn't have been news worthy but now its four years later, 2000 plus soldiers and marines have been killed in Iraq, and Bush's approval rating is down and now is enemies are looking for anything to discredit or embarass him.

The thing is, Bush is the "you're with me or against me" president, so he brings the polarized opinion of people on himself.  I'm not with him, so by his own structure, I can only be against him and not neutral.  His arrogance though remains unparalleled.

Oh, and Jordan, your Drudge stuff above isn't holding water:

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Not to double post, but in another related story about Bush's Kingdom we have a staunch conservative judge who was considered for the Supreme Court by Bush now saying some pretty scathing things.  And Jordan, maybe you need to change the title of your thread in light of Drudge's make believe story.

 Update 2: Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla  (AP)

In a sharp rebuke, a federal appeals court denied Wednesday a Bush administration request to transfer terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian law enforcement custody.

The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused the administration's request to vacate a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil.

The decision, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month.

Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts" by appearing to try to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing the extent of the president's power to hold enemy combatants without charges.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the United States from Afghanistan. Initially, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft alleged Padilla planned to set off a radiological device known as a "dirty bomb."

But before federal courts in New York and Virginia, the administration argued that Padilla should be held without charges because he had come home to carry out an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings in New York, Washington or Florida.

Last month, a grand jury in Miami charged Padilla with being part of a North American terror support cell that allegedly raised funds and recruited fighters to wage violent jihad outside the United States.

Administration lawyers immediately asked the appeals court to transfer Padilla from a U.S. military brig in South Carolina to the custody of law enforcement authorities in Miami.

Luttig said the Supreme Court must sort out Padilla's fate, either by accepting or rejecting an appeal by his lawyers of the appellate court's decision in September that the president has the authority to order his detention indefinitely.

Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the agency is disappointed by the appellate court's decision. She said the government should be able to charge suspected terrorists with crimes, as well as hold them indefinitely as enemy combatants.

"The department is in the process of reviewing the court's order and will continue to consider all options with respect to pursuing the criminal charges as expeditiously as possible," Scolinos said.

Padilla's attorney, Donna Newman, said she had "little to add" to what Luttig had written. "He says things better than I," she said. "I just hope that it's an incentive for the Supreme Court to grant our petition ... and hear this matter, which is of extreme public importance."

Luttig also chastised the administration for failing to explain why it is using a different set of allegations against Padilla and forcing the appeals court to rely on media reports about the government's motivations.

The appellate judge pointed out that anonymous government officials were quoted in news reports saying Padilla was charged in Miami because the administration didn't want the Supreme Court to review the appeals court's September decision.

In a filing with the appeals court, the administration said it was willing to walk away from that ruling - considered a major victory for its legal war on terrorism - to justify its argument before the Supreme Court that Padilla's appeal is now irrelevant.

Luttig said the administration's actions leave the impression that Padilla has been held "by mistake," and that its tactics could prove costly.

"These impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be a substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today," he wrote.

"While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be."

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Well, maybe Drudge intentionally or unintentionally made that out to be worse than what it was, but one thing is for sure, the Judicial Branch has given the Executive Branch lots of lee-way when it comes to security issues, including protecting hte homeland. Time and time again since the 70s when issues like this has come up, the courts have continually agreed that the Executive Branch does have  power to do some of these types of things in the name of security - 100% Constitutional.

Quite frankly, it's possible Bush overstepped his bounds, but here's the fly in the ointment - if he hadn't, I wonder if we could have ended up with one or two more attacks? I wonder how many people may have been killed? The govt has released a number of situations that were stopped because of this type of info.

So if Bush hadn't done this, and we were attacked, the argument would be "Bush is not doing enough." Now it's "Bush is doing too much." Either way - Bush is screwed.

I'm still waiting for the cries of Democrats to investigate why this information was leaked to the press, and how this information puts our country, allies, and citizens in jeopardy, like they did with Plame.....

UPDATE

This doesn't make sense. I found this regarding Clinton's signing of that Exec Order:

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

So the Clinton admin WAS arguing in front of the Senate that it's okay for the president to conduct warrantless searches for intelligent purposes by his AG Jamie Gorelick, as long as the delegation goes to the AG. Maybe it's all the Christmas food, but I'm confused because it sounds like who ever checked the facts above didn't quite check his facts.....

And Danwhy - did you get your little fact check from a LIBERAL website like this one? http://thinkprogress.org/

Jordan .

Staring man, you are right in that those who oppose Bush are going to virtually any length they can to keep him looking bad (I won't get into how much he does or doesn't do that all on his own).  The thing is Bush himself says you are either with him or against him so there is no room to be neutral about him by his rules.

Jordan, why does the source of my information matter as long as it's true?   It's not semantics here, it's cut and dry.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

What does semantics have to do with this? I'm not trying to argue semantics.

Here's a fact that the fact checker didn't dispute - Clinton's AG said it was OKAY for a president to do searches without a warrant. What was signed when, etc is one thing, but when you have Clinton's AG saying what Bush has done and saying then that it was legal, then you've got a small problem when discussing whether or not Bush went over the line (which I still say is possible).

Semantics - wemantics. I'm not talking semantics. I'm talking about what Clinton's AG said, the fact that the fact-checker didn't dispute that important piece of information, and we are still left with at least one fact - Clinton's AG argued then what the Bush admin is now arguing.

Plus, there's this whole other issue of how the judicial branch has handled these issues in the past, but that's a whole Constitituional issue that I doubt few will want to get involved with here.

So yes, it's pretty cut and dry - Clinton AG said the president has the authority to do what Bush has done....

Jordan .

And that makes it right?  Just so I understand, what Clinton did (or what his AG said he could do) was all 100% so he is used to justify this?

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Jordan .

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

For those who like polls:

"December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. "

Dems may be hurting their chances in the 2006 elections by yelling high and wide about this subject. That and Harry Reed joyously proclaiming " We killed the Patriot Act." could come back to haunt the dems who are weak on home security to begin with.

Most folks are O K with the eavesdropping. It may have prevented more 9/11s.

I would like to know who leaked this dangerous info to the New York Times. And where are the folks who were outraged by the outing of Valerie Palme's questionable status on a truly serious security leak ?

Jordan, My point is that Clinton's AG may have said he thought it would be okay, but as far as anyone knows, Clinton didn't do it right?  That's probably why no one was upset.

Raymond, Bush has done more than intercept phone calls from possible terrorists, he has potentially been tracking your phone calls and what web sites you are visiting (do you want the gov't to know about your TP fetish?)!!  That plus the Patriot Act allowing him to know what books you are reading from the library etc. it just seems from afar that 1984 is coming in extremely tiny little steps (and 22 years late) .  Most Americans do seem fine with this so God bless and good luck.  I haven't seen the Dem's making a big fuss over it either.

And finally, I do agree that anyone leaking classified information should be pursued.  It seems though that Bushco could have done this through the courts and his excuses seem a little lame.  It's like the election all over again, Bushco trying to convince everyone they should be very afraid and he's the only one who will tuck them in at night and keep them safe and make all their decisions for them.

P.S. - It's the Reps who did the temp extension to the Pat Act, the Dem's helped but couldn't have done it without the Rep's.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Jordan .

bu$hco and not bushco?  I'm just pretty sure that's the way I've seen it in the past.

Cuz see, it's all this big corporation type deal, his administration.  They sit around in their corporate offices acting all corporatty and stuff.  HAHA.  And the rich get richer!  And Halliburton.  WMD.  Valerie (who?) Plame.  KKKRove.  Hitler! AmeriKKKa, f*** yeah!

Phew.  Lost my train of thought.  And one of my hinges.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm not getting this whole thread, must be a cultural thing.  I don't see anyone crying too loud over this so I'm not getting the points.  It's not just listening to to suspected terrorists though, it's "broad" sweeps of spying.  So be it and God bless.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Jordan .

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

Earlier this month Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times () "a shameful act." He said he presumed a Justice Department leak investigation into who disclosed the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation would get under way.

Justice Department officials would give no details of who requested the probe or how it would be conducted.

The disclosure of the covert domestic spying program has triggered concerns among both Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers questioning whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Several lawmakers have backed a planned hearing on the issue by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania.

Bush and senior administration officials have argued that the policy of authorizing -- without court orders -- eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails by Americans suspected of links to terrorism was legal and necessary to help defend the country after the September 11 attacks.

The White house has sought to play down the impact on civil liberties, saying the program was narrow in scope and that key congressional leaders were briefed about it.

Jordan .

 I agree, it must be a different interpretation of the facts.  For instance, to your point about being forced to wait a few hours to eavesdrop, as I understand the facts this is not the case.  FISA allows you to eavesdrop first and then go back and get the warrants after the fact within a certain amount of time.  Secondly, if more comes out we will understand if "broad" is the right word but I do read reports that say the govt has been monitoring large data streams (and getting this info from the telecommunication companies) and then looking for patterns within that data.  So the data I send through the internet when I hit "post message" here could be scanned by the govt.  Now, scanned is surely it, no one has time to read all the data streams, but if I type "terrorist" enough, or "9/11", maybe one of the scanning program detects me and then people start watching more closely.  I believe this is the way pattern recognition programs are set up to operate, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

Finally, I agree with your last point above, it is up to you guys to decide what you want, and you're a pretty smart bunch, and as I've said, God bless and good luck.  It just seems to me though that it isn't decisions right now but reactions and I don't agree with your interpretation of either "security with reduced liberty" or "keep liberty and lower security" but that's a whole 'nother thread and a much longer discussion!

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Jordan .

Well, we'll have to wait and see if we find out just how "broad" these internet and phone searches were / are.  My hunch is they are broader than many may realise but we'll have to see.

My attention is somewhat divided by our own lame elections that are taking place right now with lame party leaders and platforms and oh so boring scandals about income trusts.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Yes yes yes, it's from the ACLU, but I happened to think it was pretty funny!

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin