The Bush Police State

[lofter1]

Even when Bush goes these new provisions / practices will remain.

By granting more powers to the Executive Branch the entire concept of checks and balances -- the basis of our governmental system -- is weakened.

Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

[Ninjahedge]

Ninjahedge: Don't you think you're oveheating a bit about GW Bush and Iraq?

Nope. He spent our money, and our lives, and got us into a mess that will take a good 10-20 years to rectify.

How should I be happy that he has "only" 2½ years left.

I am not on a cruisade here. He is the religious panderer (who preaches to the bible belt, but does not live his own life in the same standards he is siting from his base), let him use the term cruisade....


I am saying, if he broke the law, and is indeed violating the tenets of the constitution, it is time to bring him to court and bring all of this under the lights so we can have a look see. He is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, and as such, should still be under the direction and observance of the people he is supposed to represent.

And no, that is not just the people who voted for him. It is ALL of america.

Seriously, relax and enjoy life. It's too short to get so worked up about something. GW Bush will be gone in less than 3 years. They will go by fast. All of the potential candidates for 2008 look pretty decent.

Um, "relax, your credit card is in debt up to its eyeballs!!! You have 10 years to pay them off!!!"

Come on man... Be realistic here. He screwed up and he should have to answer to it rather than getting up in front of a pre-screened audience, smiling, hunching his shoulders up, talking to us like we were idiots if we did not like him and what he was doing.

[ZippyTheChimp]

That news search, for "patriot act", turned up 6,270 results.

However, a news search of "patriot act" and "permanent pollice force" (wording from the act itself), turns up only FOUR results: http://news.google.com/news?sourceid...nG=Search+News

Of those four one is from Canada, the other is an Italian site on "Occupied Iraq" and the other two are US "independent" news sites.

NOT ONE result from ANY mainstream / major news outlet in the USA.

What's up with that???

The creation of a "permanent police force" is not news. The first sentence of that article

A provision in the "PATRIOT Act" creates a new federal police force

is a deliberate distortion.

The Secret Service Uniformed Division has been in existence since 1922. It was under the control of the US Dept of the Treasury until 2003, when it was transferred to the Dept of Homeland Security. But now all the blogs are running with a story that a new police force has been secretly created, and it is accepted as fact.

The problems associated with expanding the powers of Homeland Security under the Patriot Act renewal are well reported.

[MrSpice]

Come on man... Be realistic here. He screwed up and he should have to answer to it rather than getting up in front of a pre-screened audience, smiling, hunching his shoulders up, talking to us like we were idiots if we did not like him and what he was doing.

In any case, he will not be impeached for 2 simple reasons:
1) Both houses of Congress are controller by republicans and most democrats don't talk about impeachement and are not going to do it for practical reasons
2) Many of the things you can blame Bush for, are a shared responsibility between Congress and the president. After all, everyone in Congress either had access to or could request access to most intelligence information that the president used. Even NSA spying activities were known to congress. They started talking about investigation only after it got leaked to the press. And the war in Iraq, as you probably remember, was overwhelmingly supported by democrats many of whom felt that was the right thing to do after 9/11. You can say that Bush lied to the Congress about the intelligence, his administration exaggarated the threat, or went to war before they exhausted all the diplomatic means, etc. Those can be legitimate critisisms,. but not sufficient for impeachment.

So, whether you want it or not, Bush is going to be president for the next 3 years. And here in NY (thanks to the electorial system), we have no effect on who the president is, as you know.

[JMGarcia]

To stray slightly off topic, I can't help but reminsce about the years of unmitigated fury and hate coming out of the far-right about various "topics" during the Clinton years. For that matter, if you read even half of the bile coming out of the far-left during the Reagan years you would be shocked that we are all still alive today. Just an observation to file under "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

Disclaimer:
This post in no way reflects on my personal opinions of Bush, Clinton, or Reagan nor the main issues during their preidencies.

[lofter1]

Not sure if this had made an appearance here yet. If not it's worth a view ...

Dick Cheney's id ( http://www.answers.com/id ) exposed??????????

A video with a classic bit from "Scarface" imposed on top of Cheney.

http://www.youtube.com/w/If-Dick-Che...umor%20adomian

[BrooklynRider]

AT&T sued over NSA spy program
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: January 31, 2006, 1:11 PM PST

TalkBack E-mail Print
AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in San Francisco's federal district court, charges that AT&T has opened its telecommunications facilities up to the NSA and continues to "to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the suit, says AT&T's alleged cooperation violates free speech and privacy rights found in the U.S. Constitution and also contravenes federal wiretapping law, which prohibits electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute."

Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, said he anticipates that the Bush administration will intervene in the case on behalf of AT&T. "We are definitely going to have a fight with the government and AT&T," he said.

AT&T said Tuesday that it needed to review the complaint before it could respond. But AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk told CNET News.com last week in response to a query about NSA cooperation: "We don't comment on matters of national security."

A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.

If the Bush administration does intervene, EFF could have a formidable hurdle to overcome: the so-called "state secrets" doctrine.

The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case, permits the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets.

The 9th Circuit upheld a summary judgment on behalf of the Air Force, saying that once the state secrets "privilege is properly invoked and the court is satisfied as to the danger of divulging state secrets, the privilege is absolute" and the case will generally be dismissed.

The Bush administration also is defending a related lawsuit filed earlier this month by the American Civil Liberties Union, that says the surveillance was unconstitutional and illegal.

AT&T has 30 days to file a response, which could include a request that the case be dismissed or a motion for summary judgment.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report

[HGLNYC]

Really pathetic that Oprah and her not so strung out druggie writer created such outrage and media attention but no one seemed too concerned last year when L-w hired a gay male Ho to come to White House press briefings and make sure to ask him questions with not so big words and having offical data re-written to make that little global warming problem seem not so bad. If only the Hooker had given him a bj. <sigh>

[lofter1]

Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil?

Newsweek
Feb. 13, 2006 issue

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States. One former official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got too close to Washington, D.C. What if the president had strong evidence that a Qaeda suspect was holed up with a dirty bomb and was about to attack? University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein says the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

A Justice Department official, who asked not to be ID'd because of the sensitive subject, said Bradbury's remarks were made during an "academic discussion" of theoretical contingencies. In real life, the official said, the highest priority of those hunting a terrorist on U.S. soil would be to capture that person alive and interrogate him. At a public intel-committee hearing, Feinstein was told by intel czar John Negroponte and FBI chief Robert Mueller that they were unaware of any case in which a U.S. agency was authorized to kill a Qaeda-linked person on U.S. soil. Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told NEWSWEEK: "Mr. Bradbury's meeting was an informal, off-the-record briefing about the legal analysis behind the president's terrorist-surveillance program. He was not presenting the legal views of the Justice Department on hypothetical scenarios outside of the terrorist-surveillance program."

—Mark Hosenball

&#169; 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

[lofter1]

Oy ...

During the Senate Judiciary Committee "discussion" with AG Gonzalez today, Arlen Spector saw fit to make notice of the presence of Debra Burlingame.

Gotta give the woman credit. She knows how to play the political game. Whether her game is to the general advantage is highly questionable.

[BrooklynRider]

She travels back and forth from DC. She gets into the capitol for some of the most awaited hearings. She is often a sole source for stories in the NY Times. Oh, I can't imagine she is on the Bush payroll as well.

[MrSpice]

Since you all dislike Bush so much, who is your pick for 2008?

[Ninjahedge]

Since you all dislike Bush so much, who is your pick for 2008?

I am awaiting his impeachment in 2006, nevermind who gets elected in 2008.


I am a fan of McCain (if there would be a republican) but the latest thing with him and Obama (is that the right way to spell his name?) about the supposed partisan association on the bipartisan agreement formation for the regulation of lobbiests.....


geez it gets confusing!

[NYatKNIGHT]

Since you all dislike Bush so much, who is your pick for 2008?

Undecided right now, but anybody who pimped for Cheney/Bush, and anybody who is a mouth of the Christian Conservatives, will not be getting my vote, I can promise that much.

So since you like Bush so much, who is your pick for 2008?

[ZippyTheChimp]

In 2004, we would have been better off with