White House Derails Attempts to End Illegal Wiretapping 647
P. Rivacy writes "If you recall, last month we discussed Congress's attempts to outlaw the already illegal NSA wiretaps authorized by the President. The White House is now using delaying tactics to derail the passage of that bill. Their tactic is to stall on providing documents related to the President's warrantless wiretapping program, despite requests from the Senate Intelligence Committee that is currently reviewing the proposed legislation. '"Another critical priority for congressional oversight is government wiretapping of Americans, conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and, illegally, under the President's warrantless wiretapping program," Senator Russ Feingold said. "When the program was finally placed within the FISA process, an opportunity arose for the Administration and the Congress to move forward, under the law. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to demonstrate a real interest in doing so."'"
This is new how? (Score:1, Interesting)
What I find astonishing is... No impeachment yet?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dubya and his cronies spy on EVERYBODY, brag about it, torture people to death, invade other countries for personal gain, "out" CIA agents, fire U.S. attorneys, get cozy with the commies in China, kidnap people (extraordinary rendition)...
And nothing! Not a whimper! And the Red States think he's a Good Ole' Boy!
Seriously, people -- WTF???
Re:Legalities and such (Score:5, Interesting)
The only real question is whether the court will agree with Bush's interpretation of the Constitution. The question of whether he complied with FISA has already been answered. And somehow I doubt the Judicial branch will agree that the Judicial power of granting warrants is irrelevent to the Executive branch.
Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
As the Cypherpunk Tim May used to say, these people need killing . While I don't advocate such extreme measures myself, all these people do need to be replaced on November 10, 2008. If the ballot box is not effective (if the election is stolen again) there's always the ammo box.
For now, let's put the soap box to good use.
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Interesting)
Come, come. 6 years? Ever heard the official term Contempt of Congress [wikipedia.org]? This administration is yet to have an official to be so condemned (in six years!), but the list [wikipedia.org] is long, and even the previous administration is on it.
No government is a friend of privacy... (Score:3, Interesting)
While blasting the current administration as the enemy of privacy, it is useful to remember the attempts of the previous one — whom most illiberals want back — to saddle us with those two nice little thingies called Carnivore [wikipedia.org] (currently known as "DCS1000"), and Clipper [wikipedia.org]...
No government is a friend of privacy of its citizens. They think, their job is more important, and they are sure, they will not abuse the possibilities. And there is little reason to doubt their sincerety — they are just wrong, and we must defend ourselves, but we should not single anyone out — they all want our privacy, for it often makes their job easier.
This is not unlike a geek wanting to, for example, break out of their employer's firewall. The geek knows, they will not abuse the freedom nor expose the employer's network to viruses, etc., but the employer is justly concerned...
Doesn't hold water (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I predict... (Score:5, Interesting)
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Tyrant (...)
1. An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty. [1913 Webster]
2. Specifically, a monarch, or other ruler or master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by taxation, injustice, or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government do not require; a cruel master; an oppressor. "This false tyrant, this Nero." --Chaucer. [1913 Webster]
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is quite parallel to Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon - probably lost him the next election, and considered a horrible move at the time - but it is now (generally) considered to be a good thing. It allowed the nation to heal, and it allowed the government to move on, rather than dwelling, and dwelling on a scandal.
What we don't need post 2008 is to keep thinking about Bush. I'd rather forget about it and try to fix our tarnished image, and try to have some logical foreign policy objectives than get bogged down in a domestic quibble over the wrong-doings of the previous president..
Re:I predict... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I predict... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you even read the wiki page you linked to? (Score:3, Interesting)
From Pelosi's page:
Pelosi's trip was know ahead of time. No one in the administration is considering invoking the Logan Act. Republicans had done the same thing previously.
Just out of curiosity, you must be some sort of lawyer, or an expert on constitutional law, yes? I mean, you wouldn't just repeat something like a parrot without looking into it or thinking about it, right?
Erring on the side of liberty (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Or whatever. How retarded are the Whores of Babylon (or is that how retarded do they think the citizenry is), passing another law to outlaw what is already illegal? In the first place, why do so many people seem to assume that passing laws against bad behavior somehow will make that behavior stop?
It's quite clear to anyone paying any attention that Congress is Bush's bitches. And he'll continue doing whatever the hell he wants because Congress hasn't got the balls of a baby field mouse. They're really only there to steal our money (tax) and buy another term in office (spend) anyway.
The proper course would be to impeach, then convict Bush & Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors. Then ship them to the Hague for their war crimes trials.
Just Arrest the Tyrant Already (Score:3, Interesting)
What the hell does it take to impeach a criminal tyrant as awful as Bush, anyway?
Re:Geneva is a red herring. (Score:1, Interesting)
Which is not the issue. The issue is that countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are implicitely treated like combatants instead of like civilians as they should be. That it is hard to tell the difference, especially for foreigners unaware of local customs and inable to speak the local language is no excuse. That the terrorists/insurgents are war criminals for hiding amongst civilians is no excuse either.
Apart from being criminal, it is also stupid - if there is no protection in being a civilian, then you might as well join the insurgency. The U.S. military has shed so much civilian blood in Iraq that by now, most Iraqis think attacking U.S. troops is morally justified - which was not the case in post-invasion 2003.