Tim,

With your indulgence, I'll cross-post this -- it's that deeply important to me:

----
How quickly we either forget or deny the lessons of the American Revolution. Amongst the many grievances the Americans had with Britain was of "unreasonable search and seizure". If this had not been of particular importance protection from it would not have been written into the Constitution.

Anyone who thinks that Bush's actions are in the least conscionable in the light of the law of the land and in actual study of history obviously didn't bother to wake up in history class at all. To allow such unlawful search and seizure spits on the Founders, denies the Framers and sends America on a path straight to exactly what the Revolutionary Patriots fought so hard to get out from under.

There is nothing more unpatriotic that to throw away the rights and freedoms they struggled so hard for us to have.
----

Thank you, Chairman Dean for remembering just how important it is to protect our heritage, so we can leave a legacy of American democracy for our children.

Tim, I received Dean’s memo through my email and signed it right away! To think that good respectable citizens who just want to exercise their “freedom of speech” in order to make sure there is an oversight of government that protects our rights are then put on a "terrorist list" goes beyond ridiculous, it is down right dangerous.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in order to prevent exactly what Bush is doing today.

Question: Mr Bush, what kind of government are you giving us?
Answer: A Police State, Madam, and I am doing whatever I can to create it.

King George COMMITTED A FELONY!

Does the night follow the day? Does Bush Administration feel they deserve absolute power? Have they always conducted themselves as they do? Why is the Nation so surprised about recent revelations? Didn't you know?

What can we do? Isn't it the majority that rules? Even the Supreme Court is on their side?

Before I add my name to this FOIA request, what happened to the last FOIA request the DNC made in August for documents regarding John Roberts' documents when he worked in the Office of the Solicitor General?

Thank you Dr. Dean. I have added my name. Now, since I have FAXED the following letter to the White House, Condi Rice and all of my Congressional Representatives, and am sending a copy to each newspaper mentioned, please keep your ears open to see whether or not I have been arrested by this monstrous President via his NSA drones. I will be the public case for those Americans upon whom they have been spying. It should be very interesting to learn how a 53 year old, white, disabled American veteran is handled by this Administration. Here is my letter:

BY FAX TO: George W. Bush 202-456-2461
Richard Cheney 202-456-2461
Dennis Hastert (202) 225-0697
The Cabinet of the United States (202) 736-4397
Ken Salazar, D-CO.(202) 228-5036
Wayne Allard, R-CO.(202) 224-6471
John Salazar, D-CO(202) 226-9669

BY FAX

Dear Mr. Bush, Cheney, Hastert, and the entire White House Administration,

Please place your resignations in full page ads with the following newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun, The Denver Post, The Los Angeles Times, the San Fransisco Chronicle and the Seattle Post Intelligencer. As of January 1, 2006 you are no longer "in charge" of my country.

You have breached the faith that you swore to keep with American citizens. You have lied, cheated, pillaged, and plundered for the last time on my watch. Your autocracy is a violation of the US Constitution, which you have plainly stated is merely "a goddamned piece of paper!". Such disrespect for the documents that founded this country are intolerable to true patriots; and I find you all to have betrayed the nation willfully and with malice aforethought.

The Declaration of Independence gives me the right, no, the duty to mount an insurrection against a tyrannical government. That right is never to be taken lightly and must be executed with all speed and determination. Our Founders expect that of we present-day Americans. Who we are is who they were: patriots who loved this country enough to sacrifice their lives for it. Never let it be said that I am a lesser patriot than they. Here is their directive:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Therefore, should you fail to submit yourselves to the will of the people of this nation by volunteering your resignations from positions in government, you shall be subject to a new enactment of Revolution. You shall be responsible for bringing a civil war upon this country, the likes of which have not been seen in 230 years. We will not allow you to tarnish our principles and trample our freedoms any longer.

I sincerely hope that your spy technology is picking this overt threat to you up and recording it. I am proud to defend my country from liars, thieves and murderers such as you. I am proud to declare war on a government that has become a dictatorship. And I am ready to bring about your destruction if you will not honor the oaths you took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, it is no longer a matter of "if". It is a matter of fait accompli.

Therefore, do as you have been ordered by the American people. Resign your offices and leave the government of this nation to the people who you have bullied, spied upon, lied to, murdered, and betrayed. Go now with your lives. Refuse and you will be punished. This warning was given to an earlier King George. Do not follow his example.

Leslie Taylor
Cahone , CO

IMPEACH!

Cahone, CO...For Real!? I applaud your courage. I am signing the petition because it is one of the things I can do at this time. Is there a process for notifying people of the outcome of the request for release of documents. Thanks

Why don't you have a poll that's easy to use? I don't think President Bush broke the law....this is about the only thing I agree with the President since he's been in office....I wonder if the Democrats had done the same thing...would there be this much negative discussion....I'm a registered Republican voting mostly Democrat....because I can....but I do agree with the President on wire tapping, if needed for security reasons...period....

arlene said:
Why don't you have a poll that's easy to use? I don't think President Bush broke the law....this is about the only thing I agree with the President since he's been in office....I wonder if the Democrats had done the same thing...would there be this much negative discussion....I'm a registered Republican voting mostly Democrat....because I can....but I do agree with the President on wire tapping, if needed for security reasons...period....

Then I have to ask you, at what point do you consider the law of this land broken? Is it when there is a knock on your door because you said something the President didn't like? Is it when a single, elected individual usurps absolute power and declares such usurpation perfectly legal merely because he has a title? Is it when the President has placed himself above the law because of his own paranoia? Is it when he seeks retribution against those who exposed his illegal activities but does nothing to punish the people in his own administration who consistently leak classified information that will benefit only him?

You need to wake up! This is Richard Nixon multiplied by a thousand. No President is above the law and no President can unmake the essential documents of our nation because they don't suit him at the moment. Turn a blind eye and deaf ear at your peril. I hear you can get yourself a nifty British "Red Coat" uniform on Ebay. Align yourself with Bush and you'll need it.

Thank heavens for Howard Dean. Also John Conyers who is doing much work to get hearings.

Impeach, that's the only solution. The Republicans may want to cooperate at this point.

TO Arlene on December 20, 2005 at 02:55 PM-- I can see how you, and many, many others do not see how Bush broke the law. But he did, and here's how.

It is illegal, under ANY circumstances--without exception, to wiretap inside the U.S. without a court order/warrant.
But, to accomoadte the Govt's need to protect the U.S. from terrorism etc., the FISA Court was set up in the 1970's to give the spy agencies and the president the ability to wiretap AND THEN LATER (retroactively) get the court order to do so.
Well, Bush has decided that he can wiretap and NEVER have to ask the FISA court, even retroactively, for permission to wiretatap.
THIS is how Bush broke U.S. law and violated the Constitution of the U.S.
All Bush had to do to NOT break the law was to ask FISA, afterwards, if he could do what he already did.
That was FOUR years ago. He still has not asked FISA for all the wiretaps he has ordered, and he has stated that he doesn't have to because, "he's the president."

Sorry, but even the president--especially the president is not ever, ever allowed to do whatever he wants. Plain and simple.

Wow, lets impeach him, and maybe we can fire Dick Cheney, and maybe we can fire Condi. Yeah lets really get worked up about this, whine about it, place hope in incompetent leaders and give money to our little poor peoples grass roots effort. Oh my Gosh, the President broke the law!!!! Oh the humanity. This is just too much for me. Now we have 339 reasons to impeach bush. We are gonna be winners I just know it. Us democrats are too smart. We are winners we are winners

Democrats are smart, yeah.
Democrats are smart, Yeah.
Woohooo. We are really sticking it to the man. We are the real champions. Yes we will never win another national election but atleast we are winners in our hearts. Golly gee its all about our civil liberties. Yayyyyyy

Concerned Citizens,

Have you seen this (below)? It's taken directly from the White House web site - transcript of Presidential speech (4.20.2004 - URL below) - with his verbatim commentary on wiretaps:

"So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Here's the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Very disappointing...

Dr. Howard:
Bob Beckel, renowned party strategist recently said on nationwide TV that your problem is that you never had a thought you did not express. It looks like you have lived up to this penchant for impulsive behavior in your current Freedom of Information Demand. I urge you to calm down and realize that not all Democrats are on board with MoveOn.org. Please try to speak for the moderates also.

hi folks...i must say i can't even watch the "president" speak on television anymore. everything that comes out of his face to me is just another lie. i've come to the conclusion that he really believes he is king of america and can do anything he wants.
i've tried to figure out why the american people voted the way they did, and can't for the life of me understand. the rich get a pass while the working folks pay the freight.....what the hell has happened to this country?
i know at my age (53) i really don't count much anymore. this country is geared for the young folks. but, i'm very scared for my kids and grandkids. i just found out that my second grandchild is on the way, and wonder what kind of u.s.a. she/he is coming into. we seem to no longer honor working folks. people that earn their living with their hands are looked down on as "substandard". wake up people. this country was built on the sweat and callouses of working\
people. seems people are more concerned about what the "movie stars" do, than what our president is doing to us.
i'm proud to say that i live in vermont,voted for howard dean, and sure wish he would have stood his ground when people made fun of his "screem" on tv.
howard is ten times the man that gw has or will ever be.
w has been a failure his whole life. failed at school. failed in business. drunk and drug abuser.
then, a failure as a president.
if we continue on this path of greed is good, and might is right, are we a snowball headed for hell?
rome fell, the soviet union fell too. are we next?

Again, I remind you of why Bush acts as he does:

'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' – - President Bush in November 2005, describing the Constitution of the United States.

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

This is a radical right wing administration that has no resepect for the individual rights and the constitution.

The reason 9/11 happened was because this administration stopped the focus on the Al Qaeda. There was enough intelligence to catch the 9/11 hijackers. The ineffeciency of the intelligence agency was the reason they were not nabbed. It is ridiculous for Dick Cheney to claim that if the administration had spied on US citizens, 9/11 may have been avoided.

Mr. Vice President there were no US citizens involved in 9/11. All of them were foreign nationals who could have been easily nabbed if your only concern wasn't your oil friends and Halliburton. Stop lying to the American public.

Mr. President, we are still a democracy. Stalin had it easy. He could move very swiftly and get rid of anything or anyone at will; he could use torture, he could spy on his citizens. Unfortunately for you, we are still a democracy. There is a due process. There are checks and balances. There is freedom of the press. Fox News is quite good at being a radical right wing propaganda machinery. But please don't expect every newspaper to become that. Yes things tend to be a little slow in a democracy. I am sure Stalin would have hated it too! Maybe you haven't realized, there are a lot of benefits being a democracy; for one we are still standing and Stalin's Soviet Union is dead and gone.

Where does Senator Lieberman stand on this issue. Is he all for the Presidential power to spy on its own citizens? Where are the "moderate" Republicans? Too spineless to contest their radical right wing "masters"?

Does this smell of Watergate? Does this smell of Dick "I am not a crook" Nixon? What more does the Senate need to start the impeachment process?

President Bush did not violate any law.As a matter of fact, former President Clinton also did the same exact thing,he too authorized wiretapping. But this is a time of War and as a legitimate response to a horrible act of terrorism and an act of War on the part of the enemy,Muslim's and Islam, our current President should be commended for his heroic act's. At least he has the backbone to retaliate against the enemy,instead of Clinton,who put his tail between his leg's and did nothing.Clinton had a few terrorist's attack's to deal with, he did nothing.He however, did attack in the Czech region, and without the UN's or anyone else's approval! I could go on and on, but I will say that our President we have now is the only one to take a great stand for our Country! You guy's are not doing anything to help our Country in our time of need, except show how infantile you really are.You guy's love to try to keep our Country divided and keep spreading lie's.It will show at the ballot box in 06' and 08'.The Dem's will not win very many seat's anywhere.

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Impeach George Bush now!

Hello Everyone,

This is my first time posting, however, I want to thank Mr. Dean for giving me the opportunity to sign the petition. First of all, let me say that I was absolutely shock that our President, Mr. Bush is allowing American citizens privacy to be invaded. I am totally against this because I live in a government apartment housing where I feel our privacy is always being invaded. This is wrong, it is against our constitutional values. I understand the President's concern for the safety of America, but because of his support of this invasion of privacy, I believe this is giving people the authority to mis-use their authority, they are over-stepping their boundaries. Some American have taken this to the extreme. I am a living witness, that my privacy was invaded and it does not feel good. When someone is constantly going into your apartment when you are not at home, searching and bothering into people belongings. Spying on people's personal privacy is wrong, and a dis-grace to America. I arrived home early one day from school, and someone just openly entered into my apartment without any warning, I was standing in the kitchen in my slip, bra, and panties. I was very embrassed and so was the man who entered. I am writing this in hopes that President Bush will change his mind. What would he do or how would he feel if it was his wife? These are the kind of incidents that will take place if the President don't get stern and put a stop to this invasion of privacy. Some people will take it as an opportunity to do just what they want to do in innocent people lives. I pray Mr. Bush will keep his word that he want freedom for America, and freedom does not mean allowing someone to spy on the American people telephone conversations, or take pictures of their private quarters, or search and invade into their homes. I had that to happen also, someone just barging into our homes without asking, looking all through our home. I was so upset I contact the local mayor, and I told him I felt as if I had been raped. It is a dis-grace and shame for someone to violate a person's privacy. I pray President Bush will change his mind. Thank you for letting me comment. Wanda G

This is another situation in which Georgie uses 9/11 as an excuse to take away our constitutional rights. This is BS! John Kerry called Georgie "lame" for what he did. Once again, John Kerry calls it right. I look forward to seeing John Kerry in the White House on January 20,2009. It'll be the end of Communism in America.

Why don't you have a poll that's easy to use? I don't think President Bush broke the law....this is about the only thing I agree with the President since he's been in office....I wonder if the Democrats had done the same thing...would there be this much negative discussion....I'm a registered Republican voting mostly Democrat....because I can....but I do agree with the President on wire tapping, if needed for security reasons...period....

Dr. Dean,

This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. Is this party truly committed to the ideals of democracy? Is it willing to fight for those ideals? Does it have the courage of its convictions?

It is mandatory for every elected Democrat, from the lowest county official to the highest-ranking senators and governors, to unify their voices in one powerful, irresistable message of outrage and righteous anger. What this Bush administration is doing is so far beyond the pale of what Americans stand for, and so far past what we should tolerate as a free people, words cannot describe.

This goes past any kind of "gotcha" political game. This must be opposed, heart and soul, with every fiber of our collective being. Republicans have learned that as long as Democrats are willing to treat their crimes against America as political footballs, they can weather the criticisms and keep on breaking the law and dismantling the Constitution. This administration doesn't need a "reminder" of what's right and wrong. It has long ago made its choice to betray our Constitution and our ideals in order to fulfill its own criminal agenda. Face it, Dr. Dean, they are no longer just our political opponents. They are enemies of America. They must be defeated.

This far and no further, Dr. Dean. We must draw the line here. We must demand accountability. We must not only demand change, we must enforce it, by any legal means necessary.

This issue transcends politics. This strikes to the heart of what we are as a nation. Are the Democrats merely political animals, locked in an endless dance of political one-upmanship and spin, or are they the party of America? As citizens of this country, we all took the responsibility of defending this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Right now the most fearsome enemies of this country occupy the White House. Do we fight them, or do we play political footsie with them? The choice is clear.

We are watching the Nazification of the USA. Just like Hitler, der Furher Bush (oops, President Bush)is hijacking a Consitution, our Constitution. In my reading of the Constitution, I have yet to find any distinction between wartime and peacetime powers. If some one can tell where it says so, I will be happy to learn.
So, our elected Democrats, if you have any backbone, you will immediately file articles of impeachment. For starters:
1. The president knowingly violated the prohibition against unreseanable search and seizure (domestic spying) and obstructed justice by not informing Congress.
2. The president knowingly violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by approving torture, putting enemy prisoners in danger of being tortured (foreign jails in eastern Europe) and committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
3. The president knowingly abused the power of his office failing to obtain proper judicial review of his and his administration actions in attempting to suspend civil liberties.
4. The president knowingly violated his oath of office by failing to protect US borders, sea and air ports, etc.
That at least should get things started. Feel feel to include lying to Congress about WMD in Iraq, violating a covert operative's cover, etc.
And, while you are at it, I would ask Judge Alito about how he thinks on these issues. Perhaps, he can explain where in the Constitution it delineates between wartime and peacetime powers.
Thanks for letting me post.

I too am a grandparent (almost as old as andhow) and am relieved that GWB is in the Whitehouse as opposed to Kerry or Gore. People need to wake up and remember the events of 9/11 (Which weren't precipitated by Bush but languished under the Clinton years). WJC had Osama Bin Ladin basically handed to him on more than one occasion and chose to chase interns instead. And some of you have the audacity to question the morales of GWB! BTW- He isn't perfect, either. I don't support him in all he does, but I do stick behind my president when he is trying to fight the terrorists.

I have looked over the platform of the DNC and see no new ideas, no real help for the poor (They had the power for over 40 years and the poor are still poor!) Let's tax the businesses because they are making a profit- NEWS Flash- Businesses don't pay taxes, consumers do! All increases are added to the cost of producing goods and who pays for the goods? Look at curbing the illegal aliens from the south, so our hardworking folks can stay hardworking. make EVERYONE come in here legally and we will be safer and more prosperous.

Calling the Republicans Nazi's or Communists is similar to calling Democrats Friends of GWB, neither is true. It is pretty sad to refer to either party as a Nazi or a Communist because the perpetrator doesn't understand either and has no concept of the heinous behavior of these groups. Neither party has ever done ANYTHING as atrocious as these groups did. This name calling plays well in the press, but shows the stupidity of both the name caller and the "unbiased" media.

Get some fresh ideas, leave the current bosses of the DNC out and get some levelheaded spokespeople in charge and you may have a chance at winning some important elections.

Have any sitting elected officials formally stated on the record that the President has committed a crime?

We, the Democrats, are upset with the President, which is nothing new. But we armchair commentators can talk impeachment until we turn blue. It's pointless to even consider the idea, if no members of Congress, Senators, Cabinet members, Judges, or foreign heads of state, just for example, want to bring it up.

Yes, I realize you don't do diplomacy and politics that way, but maybe it's time someone did.

In particular, have any Republicans yet voiced the conclusion that Bush and the administration may have committed crimes?

Without a few hundred Republicans on board with the opposition, the fact of the matter is, Bush *is* above and outside "the law." He can do absolutely anything he wants, until a majority of Congress decides otherwise.

Winter 2006 is a long, long way away, and I for one am not convinced the Democrats are going to deliver a majority in Congress.

I signed the petition.I just hope that it doesn't get me put on some "list" LOL. I'm kidding.I'm not afraid of them anyway.

Dear COPPERHEADS...
President Lincoln set such precedent(as President Bush is employing)during the first Civil War. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus April 27, 1861; September 24 1862; and again...because of McClellan/Kerry-&-Dean-like scheming after Gettsyburg & Vicksburg...in September of 1863.

You COPPERHEAD homocrats are a disgrace...
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Arthur F. McVarish
Houston Texas; 26 year former resident of The Commonwealth of mASSachusetts.

Thank the Lord Jesus for Howard. With all the screw ups the Republicans are making some of us Conservatives were really sweating what 2008 might bring.
Despite his pro-gun leanings, Howard’s Liberal ‘Joie de Vivre’ makes him so inept when aiming at the giant Republican target, he is continuously shooting himself in the rear. (It would help if he wouldn't repeatedly be trying to sit on the end of the gun barrel.)
Please, Howard, keep this stuff coming, we beg you. Please, move to impeach the President.
I see a big ticket ahead for you all- 2008 Howard for President and Juan Cole for VP! Republicans will finally be able to Take Back America. Perhaps when the foul spirit (foul wind?) of Moveondotorg has been exercised we will find you once again the party of Franklin Roosevelt and the Greatest Generation. The Lord moves in mysterious ways.
Merry Christmas.

"Support Dean and put a Republican in the White House till 2020."
Sponsored by Republicans for Dean

There is a difference in the way that the Clinton administration handled security issues and this administration. It is called simply, an abuse of power. It is called "We still had the moral high ground and stood by our word". I remember the days shortly before President Clinton left the Whitehouse, I remember him sitting with Bush Jr.. He just shook his head, no words. He knew all the things that Jr. didn't.
There is a symphony called the Overture of 1812. The story that goes with it is about Russia letting the German Soldiers come up north to invade. The Russians knew the winter was coming and they let them come burning everything in their path deep into the north. Then the blizzards came and froze all the German soldiers.
General Washington crossed the river once too and that made all the difference in our Revolutionary War, that and all the help from France.
Saddam sat at a table smoking a cigar and patted his fellows on the back and said "I will be gone, and my sons, but no problem...you will know what to do, you will not only be my human shields, but my human weapons". And so, they waited while Jr. shouted down the inspectors and charged in. And they were just waiting for Jr. to take the bait, for years they were just waiting because they thought they could take down America...crazy as it sounds to us, they really did have that opinion.
Now I have heard some comments about horrible things by our born again right wing angry uptight ethnocentric my way or the highway folks that troll here and there is nothing more horrible than torture, or chopping off heads or drawing and quartering. Nightmares indeed.
They, who condemn so quickly, are told never to read anything outside of the front and the back cover of the good book, the King James Version of the Bible.
King James was James Stewart, son of Mary Stewart, raised by Queen Elizabeth, daughter of King Henry the Eighth who began the Reformation in England and chopped off the heads of his wives. Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, cut off Mary Stewart's head, many others and finally Sir Francis Drake's with the help of her Star Chamber. She was one of the most formidible intelligent women who ever reigned and she believed in a strong navy and a strong defense, later Teddy Roosevelt would say, "speak softly and carry a big stick". Defense is good, triggerhappy is a problem that some cowboys have had in the old west. Then there is the other problem, trumpet blurting. Reagan was the big trumpet braggatto and the rest of us had to muster up to back up the bravado...rather than speaking softly with plenty of preparation and punch, but then, he was shooting for star wars.
Getting back to the good book, the King James Version of the Bible is a translation of a translation of translated and dated scriptures such as the Pentateuch and the Talmud and the Torah. The New Testament was not written until the first scriptures in about 70 A.D. and that is included, that which was accepted after the council of Nicea in about 300 a.d..
Nazareth was a city not even existing until about 70 a.d., and Isreal had been in a civil war for nearly 300 years when the Roman Legions marched in long after the area had been Helenized by the Greeks.
However, if one reads the recipes within even the King James Version, one will find a key as to how one deals with the "man on the mountain". I guess they missed it, one holds the man on the mountain on his honor by possessing honor, and the only way to stop the eye for an eye is to...turn the other cheek. No honor, no leg to stand on while pointing fingers or throwing stones in glass cathedrals. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword...so now let us look at this...
Imagine, just hypothetically. You are home minding your own business being a normal person. Someone knocks at your door because of your creed or whatever, handcuffs you and takes you away to the Gulag in some other country and rapes, drugs and tortures you, what protection, what lawyer, what will you have to protect you outside these borders? Is that familiar or American? Is living in such fear freedom?
I think that what is so upsetting to so many who worked so hard for so long to achieve a higher more civilized and wise planet for the future is that when W came to the fork in the road, he took that first awful leap down that tricky path that just keeps getting more steep and the brakes are burning out as one after the other blunder and tragic event occurs. Now that this administration and congressional majority have gotten what they wished for and brought a whole country to this place, it seems harder than ever to get back to that bridge. Worse yet, is how the hypocracy, the contradictions, the travesties have broken apart this country's righteousness within our own psyche and our reputation world wide.
Rather than blind faith, it is safe to know that we can find our way back to a stronger understanding of why we must practice what we preach, why the only business that lasts is an ethical business, why we follow always, the golden rule; not out of duty, but out of the larger karmic sense that the notion came from. Perhaps Solomon would ask America, "If you could choose which you would be, would you rather be David or Golliath?
David knew he was righteous, "Do unto others as ye would have done unto you, look deep within your own concience and to thine own heart be true."
Liars are always weak. They lack sureness, righteousness, conviction. I wish they would just go back to their corporate headquarters in the little compartment of the industrial military complex tricks and gamble games where they came from, they have no place and not the education of philosophy to rule the entire nation. Furthermore, many We's were not a part of this, had nothing to do with it and resent being sacrificed for or dragged into something that we never even voted for or approved of.
We, as a country, need our checks and balances back and to present a coherent, neutral, sensible, friendly, ethically consistent, trustworthy face to the rest of this world. The whole world is watching and waiting, and I do believe that the whole world is hoping that America will find it's way back to that bridge. Why? Because in some ways, America is still the hope of the world, though that is fading and other nations are now being watched for the lead.
The internet has levelled out enterprise as well. It is past time for America's old gatekeepers to go back to those file cabinets of bought off patents, open the doors and change to progressive innovation and energy efficient technology. We can do better than fall off this precipice into an abyss of fear, greed and chaos.
There once was a crooked man who walked a crooked path and now one man and some of his friends charged onto a path and took a whole country. Today he tells us how horrible it was for some, in a time of war, to leak out this secret information on spying within America, and how it will help the enemy. But it is not the security for defense that bothers Americans as much as the lack of proper protocol and oversight which provides a way that with a retro warrant, can in a fast moving emergency, allow fast efficient action.
The other thing is something within that shows out as intrinsic character...This man talks rough and tough about the enemy all the time, he lives every breath thinking in terms of enemy this and enemy that. He cannot turn his cheek because he is not working with honor, he is alienated from the other side and now it seems he is becoming alienated from those who trusted him.
He brought a private antagonism to the Whitehouse. There were words like terrorist, insurgents and yes, they do exist and must be dealt with but what will stop such acts of misery and human destructiveness, what will stop the pain that continues to be passed on and on? Where does the pain come from, what is at the root of the problems? Why do they hate the Americans or is it just the unpopular Bushies and Co.? Is it ignorance, self centered arrogance, Yankee Imperialism and exploitation, is it privateers abusing resources abroad from here? Is it some involvement in the black market? Is it addiction and drugs? Is it the blocking of innovation and opportunity here? Is it the growing class distinction, the struggling economy? Is it corruption from without and/or within? Is it immorality and hypocracy? Is it something we should stay out of and not try to be the world police? Is this a false notion of a country with a false consciousness? Is this ignorance and arrogance? What is causing the resentment, our violence, bullying, interfering, competing, not understanding another culture?
It took centuries to stop the pain and bring a peace to some countries in history, our most recent victory was the peace achieved by Ireland, and almost in the near east, so close, worked on by many when Clinton was our president.
Clinton may have been forced to exercise defense, but it would have been different. The towers never came down on his watch so we will never know and we will never know if they would have come down at all had Gore become our president. It seems that Clinton bought us time with his good works. Some day we will know why...but not as long as the enemies are in this President's head and not as long as he carries a long dark oozing shadow of bias dragging behind him like a ball and chain.
It is time really, for change. W is too biased now, too caught in his blunders to be believed any longer by the world. Instead of wondering how much bigger this war may get, how much bigger the guns will be that are used, or where the big bombs will drop...perhaps we could better use a president that is believed. We have a problem, a legitimation crisis. America no longer can trust it's president. Too many things have happened that have revealed corruption and dishonesty. There is too much abuse of consumers, too many foreclosures, too much debt that is not able to be paid off, too much interest accumulating, harder bankruptsy laws, less benefits, less services, more risks and a lower status quo. The haves have, the have nots will never have. Polarization is growing, nothing is guaranteed. No one can afford the insurance, rates keep rising. Credit is gone.
America needs a neutral fair unbiased leader like the one who should have been given his rightful seat in 2000. Is there any way that The People can get that back? Is there a way, a case that can help the People finally get the justice of winning their rightful leader back, the one who won the People's vote?
One can only wonder at the possibilities, one can only wonder at the what if''s. Many can work together to make such a dream come true. WE can do better together to mend this country and bring back the balance and the world we knew in 2000.
Could there be a Gore and Dean somewhere in the future? Hmmm....right now we can only pray that cool heads prevail and that checks and balances bring a civilized and just outcome. Rather than worry about destructive or hateful nightmares, we will wait patiently, and work toward a more inclusive, democratic, innovative, peaceful and prosperous America in the near future and achieve this - not by just focusing on one civil servant in the executive branch, but by reaching out, organizing, educating, and COALESCING together All of the ordinary People, by the People, for the People in All the seats in All the states we can win!!! Together WE can make it happen by welcoming everyone back home to this great American Party! (And when you get here, roll up yer sleeves, we've got a lot of home improvement to do!)

From Think Progress:

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

Posted by VannaB on December 20, 2005 at 06:40 PM

Many dictators in the world have taking hold of an entire country by slowly taking away rights. I don't think Bush's intentions is to be a dictator... but I feel our rights are slowly being taking away! This is not a good sign for our future!

George W Bush andmembers of his administration has so far demonstrated too many deceitful agendas to even consider that he is being legitimate with concerns of only going after terrorists. It is highly likely that he has used NSA to spy for means against those who wish to expose corruption within his administration. With George Bush's obsession and dilerium his political, whether Democrat or Republican, opponents could equally qualify as terrorist supporters or in thier own words unpatriotic and socalled traitors. George Bush, Cheney and many others within his administration has dug themselves deep with many illegal activities and the truth is they are simply trying to avoid thier criminal and treasonous acts from being exposed.

I am infuriated by Bush's so called legal right to "do whatever it takes to protect the american people".

The last time I checked, we were not supposed to be living in the United States of Bush.

Where and when is this going to end? We still have two years to endure this egomaniac and I am hoping to God that they start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Today, in the Los Angeles Times, when asked why he (Bush) had skipped the basic safeguard of asking the courts for permission of the intercepts, Bush completely did not answer the question. He simply went on about the initiation of an investigationg to regarding leaks in the current administration.

This has me wondering, a. does Bush speak English?, and b. when are we going to be able to get a straight answer from him?

Instead of instantly jumping to some partisan position, how about you all use your computer and actually do some research on the law.

Taking it from the top: the Government needs to have a court approved order for surveillance if the government intends on using the information gathered as part of a criminal prosecution and/or if the initial catalyst for such an order is the suspicion of a criminal act being performed.

HOWEVER, Foreign powers and their agents, which included terrorists, spies, etc,, even though their acts can be considered "criminal" in intent and by the letter of the law, fall outside of this definition as they present a national security threat. As such, information that is gathered is primarily intended to be used to prevent this agent from jeopardizing national security and/or performing acts against the United States and it's citizenry.

[Begin Quote From Souce Linked below]

Congress did not impose any restrictions on thegovernment’s use of the foreign intelligence information to prosecute agents of foreignpowers for foreign intelligence crimes. Admittedly, the House, at least in one statement,noted that FISA surveillances “are not primarily for the purpose of gathering evidence of acrime. They are to obtain foreign intelligence information, which when it concerns UnitedStates persons must be necessary to important national concerns.” H. REP. at 36.

That, however, was an observation, not a proscription. And the House as well as the Senate madeclear that prosecution is one way to combat foreign intelligence crimes. See id.; S. REP. at 10-11.The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreignintelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is notappears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980).

That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power. In approving the district court’s exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government’s investigation became “primarily” driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” Id. at 915. Targets must “receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 916.

[T_Rye Edit]This case and several others, have been reviewed by the Circuit Courts, (1st, 2nd, 4th and 11th), all which opined or ruled in favor of the governement's position as described above.[/end edit]

* United States v. Megahey,553 F. Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd sub nom.
* United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2dCir. 1984)
* United States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. 1306,1314 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)
* United Statesv. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1075-76 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1010 (1988)
* United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458, 1464 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 937(1988)
* United States v. Johnson, 952F.2d 565, 572 (1st Cir. 1991) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 816 (1992)

Neither Duggan nor Johnson tied the “primary purpose” test to actual statutory language. In Duggan the court stated that “[t]he requirement that foreign intelligenceinformation be the primary objective of the surveillance is plain,” and the district court was correct in “finding that ‘the purpose of the surveillance in this case, both initially and throughout, was to secure foreign intelligence information and was not, as [the] defendants assert, directed towards criminal investigation or the institution of a criminal prosecution.

Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77-78 (quoting Megahey, 553 F. Supp. at 1190).13 Yet the court neverexplained why it apparently read foreign intelligence information to exclude evidence ofcrimes–endorsing the district court’s implied dichotomy–when the statute’s definitions of foreign intelligence and foreign agent are actually cast in terms of criminal conduct. (It willbe recalled that the type of foreign intelligence with which we are concerned is reallycounterintelligence, see supra note 9.) And Johnson did not even focus on the phrase “foreign intelligence information” in its interpretation of the “purpose” language in section 1804(a)(7)(B). Johnson, 952 F.2d at 572.

It is almost as if Duggan, and particularly Johnson, assume that the government seeks foreign intelligence information (counterintelligence) for its own sake–to expand its pool ofknowledge–because there is no discussion of how the government would use that information outside criminal prosecutions. That is not to say that the government could have no other usefor that information. The government’s overriding concern is to stop or frustrate the agent’s or the foreign power’s activity by any means, but if one considers the actual ways in which the government would foil espionage or terrorism it becomes apparent that criminal prosecution analytically cannot be placed easily in a separate response category."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

[T_Rye Edit] So, unless something else comes out that we don't know about as of now, the Government IS within it's legal right and jurisdiction. You would think that lawmakers (Congress) would know this stuff.

BTW, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton signed Executive Orders for Wire-Taps WITHOUT warrants: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
and
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Yesterday Cheney gave a VERY unintended compliment to Clinton yesterday.

When commenting on the wiretaps to justify them he told reporters "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it -- and to some extent that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them." To see the Washington Post article that contains this, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858.html

What I think should be noted in discussing the controversy is that we have not been declared in a state of emergency, we are not in a combat zone, and we are not under marshall law as far as I know. So where does Bush get off extending executive powers to include domestic wiretaps and spying as though we are?

This issue not only set the Democrats in a fury, but it appears to be rapidly becomming a wedge issue that is dividing Republicans. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

oops... sorry for the redundant first paragraph above. I just felt it was interesting that Cheney hoped this administration left the office in as good of shape as they found it (although we know this won't be the case)

After weeks of seemingly endless scandals involving Republicans (Senators Frist & DeLay, Congressman Cummingham, Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Scanlon, and Mr. Libby), the crescendo may be the disclosure of the apparent abuse of power by the Executive Branch in performing wiretaps that circumvented the rule of existing law. Representative Conyers is suggesting that the President be censured for authorizing these wiretaps. I would prefer that we not endorse Representative Conyers call to censure President Bush.

The reason I believe that we should not endorse Representative Conyers request to censure the President (or any equivalent within the Senate) is to portray the necessary picture of Democrats standing on the political high ground. Congressional investigations are an enjoyable contact sport for political junkies like myself, but would only cloud the positive message that Democrats must continuously send in order to gain votes in 2006 & 2008.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that Democrats lower the rhetoric or quash any additional reports of Republican indiscretion. Rather, I would prefer that the overtly critical dialogue be kept in the realm of journalism. Only then can Democrats stand up to govern and lead our nation towards an open political debate, increased personal freedoms, and liberty for all.

If there is time for investigations, then Congress should really find some time to be more productive. Let Representative Conyers speak about censure and continue to capture the headlines of the media cycle, but do not lower the bar of decency under which the Republicans are all too quick to slither. Censure and impeachment are not the only price a President must pay. Eroding the faith of Republican support is more important to long-term success for Democrats and will occur if/when Democrats offer an obvious alternative and positive message to non-believers. Investigations march all of us backwards.

I felt compelled to write this comment because I was struck by a clever observation I saw on another ‘blog’ that criticized the President. Specifically, the blogger pointed out the hypocrisy of the President failing to apply the “strict constructionist” arguments that seem to serve convenient means to an end when it comes to discussing personal rights (i.e., a woman’s right to chose), but were ignored when the Executive Branch was faced with laws that it found to be a nuisance or quaint (i.e., wiretaps and torture). While I believe that the policies and actions of the Presidents will continue to hurt him politically, I also believe that we are capable of helping Democrats find a way to heal the country. Endorsing investigations will only open new wounds on an already ailing nation.

But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States

OPPS the dems past TWO admins have done the same thing... http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm Carter
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp Clinton

Guess we need to lock them up first!!

Conservative columnist George Will has called the President's action illegal. Republican members of Congress are running scared and asking for an immediate Congressional investigation; they have to face the electorate in '06. They know what the President did was wrong and illegal.

Dick "Halliburton" Cheney is saying we need a robust executive branch and what the President did is correct. He forgets in our democracy there are two other branches of government which was intended to be just as robust. That is the reason the country is still a democracy. Maybe Dick has to be reminded we are not a banana republic dictatorship where the President has absolute powers and is the law. He and Rummy may have been secretly running the country that way. But there are legal consequences when information on what this administration has been doing starts coming into the open.
W has called the free press shameful. We Americans who believe and cherish the democracy we are in, need to salute the free press that has consistently exposed the power grab by those in power. Watergate would never have happened but for the free press.
Now the Democrats need to show some courage of conviction and counter the propaganda unleashed by this administration and its radical right wing media mouth piece, the Fox News Channel.

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

when you guys get serious, the rest of us will be waiting for you.

I think we all need to hit the streets for some freedom of speach. I believe George is impeachable.

Mr. Bush needs to be TOLD to PROVE he/they have not tapped the Democractic Party lines, nor Mr. Kerry's nor Mr. Deans lines pre-2004 election. In addition, he needs to PROVE they and poltical others have not been in line for wiretapping this past year.

psv

davidporter said:

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”"

Where are your vaild references to confirm that these words are the actual quoted words of President Bush.

This country is a divided country. We are basically in a civil war, only this time we are not killing each other physically; we are mentally damaging and manipulating each other. If this country keeps at this rate, we are going to be caught with our pants down. I am not defending President Bush, nor am I opposing him. I am simply saying, that if we get our head out of our butts and look at the big picture, we (as a country) might actually get somewhere instead of going in circles. The constant war between the Democrats and the Republicans limits our capabilities as a country. We are so concerned with out-doing the other party, that we forget (or don't care)to look at what's right in front of us; "United we stand, divided we fall". When we as a people choose to close our minds to all other aspects but our own, then we become fools, because the whole truth would then NOT be spoken or heard. We fool ourselves into believing false truths. "Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions," (Proverbs 18:2, NLV). It is like putting an innocent person to death before hearing their testimony. One does not care if they are innocent or not, they just know what they saw and know what should be done for that supposed crime or wrong-doing, regardless of the person standing behind him/her with a knife.

Many American citizens do not realize what structure this country has and is capable of. If anyone has ever been to a third-world country and really looked at it, they would know. We have it good. We act like spoiled brats. We abuse our constitutional rights and laws, work through them, find some way around them, avoid them completely...

To make a long story short, this country would so much stronger if we would actually agree on something. Until America decides to get of her a**, we are going to be running around in circles for the rest of this country's existence, which at the going-rate, we probably will end up destroying ourselves.

Maybe America should make a New Year's Resolution for 2006 to unite?! I wonder what would happen then. Probably nothing, because we wouldn't be able to agree on how to write the 2006 Resolution; by the time we did, we would have to start over because it would a new year.
(Personal Opinion)

Have a great day and a Merry Christmas!

I just want to thank SCOTT RITTER for his appearance on C-Span today. THANKYOU GOOD MAN - WELL DONE!!! YES! You have the facts!!

Thanks for confirming in fact and detail what I wrote about above and what we already watched and suspected from the beginning. Also, for providing proof of politization (and bias) of the intelligence, U.N. bashing, motives for the removal of Hussein, and so much more.
So much was there! You were particularly helpful in adding clarity and objectively pointing out the differences of strategy in the two administrations, Clinton and Bush.
Then the outcome, the difference being internal covert strategies and overt war. Outright pre-emptive aggressive unilateral WAR applied to a criminal event and phenomenon which has led to disasterous consequences and loss of lives. The inadequacy of executive logic, lack of patience, other ulterior motives and biased judgement in treating a criminal event as a war on the part of the Bush Administration, was only a part of the catalyst for that first step down the slippery slope, which has led to what is finally being revealed and which has already, so unfortunately, taken it's toll.
Yes, I also wish we had listened and waited for facts from the experts way back when, this must have been so frustrating for those who knew and cared. Still, complex issues and fresh evidence continue to appear.
It is good for All to understand at this time so that blame games and wrongheaded notions are dismissed, and so we can get on that bridge to Century 21 on the same page and ready for more constructive work in building a better future.

Suggested Reading:
It is all outlined in his new book...
IRAQ CONFIDENTIAL: The Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Go to: www.amazon.com and search Scott Ritter
also check out his other books and reviews.

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

Bush's Lies for War, December 15, 2005
Reviewer: J. M. C., (Washington, D.C. USA) - See all my reviews

"As I said it for another book ("The New American Empire"), Ritter's book is also of great help to see through Bush's lies.

Now, George W. Bush says that he accepts responsibility for taking the U.S. to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence. -This is all wrong.

It was not the intelligence that was faulty; it was Bush's intentions to wage war against Iraq no matter what were the intelligence and the facts. He twisted the intelligence reports and invented lies around his already decided policy.

That's why he is guilty of having launched a war of aggression on lies and deception, and on having violated, in so doing, international law. He should pray that he will never be brought before an international court of justice."

review/Amazon Books.com

*

Breaking the law is breaking the law. The law was written very clearing. And much of the spying was done on peace activists. Also, the Admin has used the IRS to pressure a Church that preached peace and a different coarse of action. What about the churches that are pro-war??? How did the Admin know about this? Spying seems to be the obvious answer.

The magnitude of the spying and using the IRS is greater that Nixon did. Why is this even a debate??????

Has America's moral compass changed so much that spying is not spying and breaking the law is not breaking the law???

john cook

Time for a new DNC tagline:"Promote Democracy, De-throne King George."

Fits nicely on a bumper sticker.

I believe this is all fallout from our congress passing legislation that we all now know as the Patriot Act. Bush is just acting on the power granted to him via the Patriot Act.

What is required to fix this legalized abuse of authority is for our congress to act with legislation to repel the Patriot Act.

We need our elected leaders to act responsibly and be accountable.

Let us all remember what brought about the Patriot Act. Think back to that infamous date in history know as 9-11.

Remember. The Republicans claimed the system failed. The Democrats see an administration that failed.

The Democrats are in fact right to claim that it is not the system that is flawed, but instead, Bush and his administration.

Americans were killed because President Bush and his administration looked the other way when we were threatened.

Now Bush likes the power to preempt the Constitution. He says it is a great tool to keep us safe from the terrorists. It is also a great tool to get around those nasty checks and balances build into our system of government to insure that our government is responsible and accountable to its citizens. Bush really likes this.

What is the bigger threat to the USA: Bush, his administration and the Patriot Act, or the terrorists?

We must decide.

United States Signal Intelligence Directive, 27 July 1993

SECTION 4 - COLLECTION
4.1 (S-CCO) Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx not be intentionally intercepted. [1 line redacted.]
a. With the approval of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the conditions outlined in Annex A of this USSID.
b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:
(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
(a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
(b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]
(c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).
(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and
(3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.
c. With the approval of the Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service (DIRNSA/CHCSS), so long as the COLLECTION need not be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Attorney General, and
(1) The person has CONSENTED to the COLLECTION by executing one of the CONSENT forms contained in Annex H, or
(2) The person is reasonably believed to be held captive by a FOREIGN POWER or group engaged in INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, or
(3) The TARGETED [3 lines redacted.]
(4) [3 lines redacted.]
(5) [5 lines redacted.]
(a) A non-U.S. PERSON located outside the UNITED STATES, or
(b) [1 line redacted.]
(6) Copies of approvals granted by DIRNSA/CHCSS under these provisions will be retained in the Office of the General Counsel for review by the Attorney General.
d. Emergency Situations
(1) In emergency situations, DIRNSA/CHCSS may authorize the COLLECTION of information to, from or about a U.S. PERSON who is outside the UNITED STATES when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical because:
(a) The time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE and would cause substantial harm to the national security.
(b) A person's life or physical safety is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.
(c) The physical security of a defense installation or government property is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.
(2) In those cases where DIRNSA/CHCSS authorizes emergency COLLECTION, except for actions taken under paragraph c.(1)(b) above, DIRNSA/CHCSS shall find that there is probably cause that the TARGET meets one of the following criteria:
(a) A person who, for or on behalf of a FOREIGN POWER, is engaged in clandestine intelligence activities (including covert activities intended to affect the political or governmental process), sabotage, or INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM activities, or activities in preparation for INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM activities; or who conspires with, or knowingly aids and abets a person engaging in such activities.
(b) A person who is an officer or employee of a FOREIGN POWER.
(c) A person unlawfully acting for, or pursuant to the direction of, a FOREIGN POWER. The mere fact that a person's activities may benefit or further the aims of a FOREIGN POWER is not enough to bring that person under this subsection, absent evidence that the person is taking direction from, or acting in knowing concert with, the FOREIGN POWER.
(d) A CORPORATION or other entity that is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a FOREIGN POWER.
(e) A person in contact with, or acting in collaboration with, an intelligence or security service of a foreign power for the purpose of providing access to information or material classified by the United States to which such person has access.
(3) In all cases where emergency collection is authorized, the following steps shall be taken:
(a) The General Counsel will be notified immediately that the COLLECTION has started.
(b) The General Counsel will initiate immediate efforts to obtain Attorney General approval to continue the collection. If Attorney General approval is not obtained within seventy two hours, the COLLECTION will be terminated. If the Attorney General approves the COLLECTION, it may continue for the period specified in the approval.
e. Annual reports to the Attorney General are required for COLLECTION conducted under paragraphs 4.1.c.(3) and (4). Responsible analytic offices will provide such reports through the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) and the General Counsel to the DIRNSA/CHCSS for transmittal to the Attorney General by 31 January of each year.

approved in the Clinton administration

My lone question is, in wake of all these lies spewed about by our Presidential administration becoming manifested, why is Bush's impeachment not being requested and sought for more extensively? Especially when it seemed that the call for Clintons impeachment, which was over lying about a BLOW JOB, was so swift? One's lie caused embarassment, the others' lieS cost; lives, taxpayers money, security breaches..,etc.

Allegiance is to THE CONSTITUTION, NOT to the president.

Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 6.
2. This Constitution, and the