News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[crazycalhoun]

You may disagree, but you are wrong.

I don't think I am.

Bush et al have routinely broken laws and international agreements, claiming "executive powers in a time of war".

I think they'd disagree on both points.

There is no war - there is only US aggression against Islamic countries, which (push comes to shove) engenders insurgencies.

Your first point is philosophical, and the second is a policy criticism. Legally, the Executive and the Judiciary, since Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, agree that the US is in a state of international affairs where the President can invoke his war powers. [1]

If someone invaded the US, many of us would attack the invaders, automatically becoming "terrorists" in Bush-speak.

Which is a non sequitur. I'm not going to debate, discuss, or otherwise engage you on the ethics of the Administration's policy--not in this thread at least.

If he really believed that (and he doesn't)...

I'm pretty sure he does.

...he would have launched a pre-emptive strike against Saudi Arabia, from where almost all the highjackers came.

To what strategic and operational end?

There were no Iraqis on the planes, there were no Al Quaida cells active in Iraq, and Saddam had no connection with them, nor would he, since he actively fought rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

We'll disagree on the point whether Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, but even so this is a policy and intelligence issue, not a legal one.

During the Reagan/Bush administration, Saddam fought the Iranians, drained the wetlands sustaining the Shiites in the east, and murdered Kurds using US-supplied weaponry and satellite intelligence.

He also had his conventional force defeated by a US-led coalition in 1991. I'm not sure what your point is.

It wasn't until he attacked Kuwait that he became a "bad" man in the eyes of the Republicans.

Can you point to a single instance where he was considered a "good" man in the eyes of Republicans?

I think the term you're looking for is "war profiteering"...

And I think that's another non sequitur. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to focus on the discussion at hand. On the other hand, if you'd like to open a general discussion about the wisdom of commerce between the free world and nation-states with unsavory governments, have it at. Maybe we could have a specific discussion about the Kennedy family's political support for Nazi Germany.

...something that the Bush family is very good at.

We'll definitely disagree on that point.

When Cheney leaves office, the Halliburton board will carry him back into the boardroom on their shoulders.

Possibly. So?

This administration is a pack of lying crooks, and we are all the poorer for their presence.

I think they're a pack of capable patriots, and we're all the better for their presence. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd hate to see Dennis Hastert as president, but Bush and Cheney both should be impeached.

I'm pretty sure they shouldn't, and even more sure they won't be.

 

[SOS2008]

If certain members would stick to facts instead of personal opinions and one-line antagonism it would be helpful toward staying on topic. So briefly I'll address these points:

President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 - Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030501-afps04.htm

That was in regard to the invasion, not the occupation. Nonetheless, as stated above by turbo-1, since the invasion was conducted contrary to international law it is defined as an act of aggression, not war.

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The "war on terrorism" therefore has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Bush has proclaimed himself to be a "war time president" based on the invasion of Iraq. Aside from the point made above that an illegal invasion is therefore just an act of aggression, how does this give him war time powers to spy domestically in regard to the so-called war on terror, which is unrelated?

Regardless, as stated in post #197, amendments by definition take precedent over articles in the constitution. Therefore the Fourth Amendment negates Article 2. And some argue the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and updates since negate that--so the Bushs**t power is standing in a long line. As for the Congressional Joint Resolution (to use Armed Forces against Iraq), I doubt you can find a Republican who will tell you he/she signed this to give Bush authority for warrantless wiretaps. This resolution was signed to deal with WMD. Since Bush misled Congress in regard to WMD to get their approval, it is void--it is breach of contract.

BushCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and now is trying to wriggle out of an investigation. What's the matter Junior, do you have something to hide? I smell an impeachable offense (though I've lost count how many so far). And at this point I would take anyone as president. It is very important that an example be made, and made now--that the American people will not tolerate such lies and corruption.

You think meth is a problem? We need to get people off Kool-Aid.

 

[crazycalhoun]

If certain members would stick to facts instead of personal opinions and one-line antagonism it would be helpful toward staying on topic.

"One line antagonism." That's cute. Of course I disagree that concise rebuttal is necessarily antagonizing, or that personal opinion--which you offer abundantly--is distracting us from reasonable discussion.

That was in regard to the invasion, not the occupation.

What's the issue? Major combat operations have ended, or when was the last time you heard of two ADE strength operating in single operational concert in Iraq?

Nonetheless, as stated above by turbo-1, since the invasion was conducted contrary to international law it is defined as an act of aggression, not war.

I'm glad you share turbo-1's personal opinion. Once again, it's a philosophical point (on the definition of war) and in the US it is legally irrelevant, as the Courts have already recognized that the President is and rightfully has asserted war powers.

The "war on terrorism" therefore has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

Except it does. And Hussein's regime did have connections with the al Qaeda, as both the NCT and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded. [1, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf].

Bush has proclaimed himself to be a "war time president" based on the invasion of Iraq. Aside from the point made above that an illegal invasion is therefore just an act of aggression, how does this give him war time powers to spy domestically in regard to so-called war on terror, which is unrelated?

Ask the Supreme Court.

Regardless, as stated in post #197, amendments by definition take precedent over articles in the constitution. Therefore the Fourth Amendment negates Article 2.

I think a more accurate description of the device states "amendments add or alter the implications of existing legal language." And "Fourth Amendment negates Article 2" is such torturuous use of the English language that it doesn't even express a sensible thought, let alone a conclusion supported by either your premise or mine.

And some argue the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and updates since negate that...

So public law negates constitutional law? That's an interesting legal theory. How does that work?

the Bush**** power is standing in a long line.

I'm at a complete loss as to what you wanted to convey here. Moving on...

As for the Congressional Joint Resolution (to use Armed Forces against Iraq), I doubt you can find a Republican who will tell you he/she signed this to give Bush authority for warrantless wiretaps.

Porter Goss, for one.

This resolution was signed to deal with WMD.

Yes, specifically the threat posed by Iraq's continuing refusal to abide by UN Security Council resolutions governing its disarmament. The authorization also references the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the threat of Iraq to her neighbors. Additionally, the actual authorization language reads as follows: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107rC7HvU:: ]

Since Bush mislead Congress in regard to WMD to get their approval, it is void--it is breach of contract.

I think you might be confusing legislative with fiduciary.

BushCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and now is trying to wriggle out of an investigation.

On the contrary, I don't think any of your points are powerful enough to pass muster in any court of law, and the Bush Administration has Justice and the White House counsel to fall back on.

What's the matter Junior, do you have something to hide? I smell an impeachable offense (though I've lost count how many so far).

I'm not sure how this sort of language is supposed to energize a Republican controlled House to remit charges to the Senate.

And at this point I would take anyone as president. It is very important that an example be made, and made now that the American people will not tolerate such lies and corruption.

I understand why some are so upset at the President. I don't pretend to know why, or pretend to have much respect for what I see as the jumble of raving lunacy girding up much of it. But was it absolutely necessary to reenact this rant for the purposes of this discussion?

You think meth is a problem? We need to get people off Kool-Aid.

Now there's a non sequitur.

 

[SOS2008]

So back to the topic and provision of sources:

The uproar on Capitol Hill over President Bush's secret program to use the National Security Administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant continues to grow. But the NSA program - and the President's defense of it - are much more worrisome than many in Washington realize.

The administration makes two arguments to support the spying program. The first is specious. The second is nothing less than a threat to the rule of law.

...The first argument is that Congress "implicitly authorized" Bush to spy on citizens by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law passed right after 9/11 to authorize military action against Al Qaeda.

Of course, the text of the AUMF says absolutely nothing about domestic surveillance. FISA, by contrast, comprehensively regulates wiretapping for intelligence purposes, including detailed provisions on domestic surveillance during times of war.

Under standard principles of statutory interpretation, a general law is not read to replace an earlier, more specific law in the absence of some evidence that Congress intended to change the law. But nothing in the AUMF's text or legislative history indicates a congressional intent to override the detailed, carefully constructed FISA procedures.

In fact, during deliberations on the AUMF, Congress explicitly rejected an administration proposal to include a grant of authority to the President to exercise domestic war-making powers. Now Bush claims the statute empowers him in precisely the way Congress refused.

...Indeed, the President has already made clear that he believes the scope of his inherent powers permit him to violate other laws than FISA. When he signed the recently enacted McCain Amendment forbidding the torture of detainees, for example, Bush declared that his "inherent authority" as Commander-in-Chief still permitted him to employ torture at his discretion.

Quite literally, President Bush claims to be above the law. Americans inclined to trust President Bush should realize, however, that the precedent set here will empower future presidents. Do we really want all future presidents to have the power to disobey basic criminal laws?

President Bush's NSA program is illegal and needs to be stopped. Even more importantly, Congress must take a strong stand against Bush's dangerous reading of the Constitution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060217/cm_huffpost/015872;_ylt=A86.I2KJUPZD6a4AuQr9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Boy, a lot of people out there are just ranting away, with no research or analysis of the constitution and rule of laws. Um, no -- That would be Bush.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Boy, a lot of people out there are just ranting away, with no research or analysis of the constitution and rule of laws. Um, no -- That would be Bush.

Um, no, that would be Adam Winkler, blogger at the Huffington Post. I hope you don't intend to pass this off as authority or as an attempt to get us to argue someone who either can't or won't respond.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to the definition of war, which was covered long ago in PF, but I'll repeat some of it as an example of how to post more than just one's personal opinion:

Aggression: (1) An unprovoked attack; the first attack in a quarrel; an assault, an inroad. (2) The practice of setting upon anyone; the making of an attack or assault.
----Oxford English Dictionary

Versus Just war:

Just-war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and forms of warfare. The historical aspect, or the “just war tradition” deals with the historical body of rules or agreements applied (or at least existing) in various wars across the ages. For instance international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare. It is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

Some more reading of interest:

Defining the Crime of Aggression Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court - Irina Kaye Müller-Schieke

Information Warfare and the New Challenges to Waging Just War - M Hirschland

Bush has nothing except what he grants himself, which we see repeatedly and throughout his administration.

 

[crazycalhoun]

In regard to the definition of war, which was covered long ago in PF, but I'll repeat some of it as an example of how to post more than just one's personal opinion:

Aggression: (1) An unprovoked attack; the first attack in a quarrel; an assault, an inroad. (2) The practice of setting upon anyone; the making of an attack or assault.

I think we'll disagree on whether or not the invasion was unprovoked. That is whether Hussein's refusal to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions constituted sufficient provocation. In the end, that's a policy and legal judgement call; diving to the dictionary doesn't absolve you from at least putting in the same effort as the Administration in making your case.

Versus Just war:

Assuming we at least share the notion that there is a legal way to wage war, I think we'll have to disagree that this Administration has waged one illegally.

Bush has nothing except what he grants himself, which we see repeatedly and throughout his administration.

Bold does not make the case.

 

[SOS2008]

It isn't about reference to a blog (though many bloggers are viewed as serious journalists, and some serious journalists like Helen Thomas and David Gregory blog) or about highlighting a specific point. To support an argument one can refer to primary documents or secondary sources. Of course it is preferable to use credible sources, but that is not to say that a biased source cannot be factual. The point is -- members who never provide evidence, at least once in awhile, make it impossible for other members to carry on meaningful debate. As with trolls, after awhile it becomes clear to everyone that it is a waste of time to reply to that member.

The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. Rather, the system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and using computers to identify and extract messages of interest from the mass of unwanted ones. A chain of secret interception facilities has been established around the world to tap into all the major components of the international telecommunications networks. Some monitor communications satellites, others land-based communications networks, and others radio communications. ECHELON links together all these facilities, providing the US and its allies with the ability to intercept a large proportion of the communications on the planet.

http://jya.com/echelon.htm

But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of “unpopular” political affiliation or for no probable cause at all in violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution – are consistently impeded by very elaborate and complex legal arguments and privilege claims by the intelligence agencies and the US government. The guardians and caretakers of our liberties, our duly elected political representatives, give scarce attention to these activities, let alone the abuses that occur under their watch. Among the activities that the ECHELON targets are: Political spying and Commercial espionage.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Aside from what transpires in regard to the White House, I am watching representatives in Congress, as we all should, with the upcoming 2006 elections in mind.

 

[crazycalhoun]

It isn't about reference to a blog (though many bloggers are viewed as serious journalists, certainly taken more seriously than say...Ann Coulter)

You may take Adam Winkler seriously or think of Ann Coulter with contempt. Others may disagree.

...or about highlighting a specific point. To support an argument one can refer to primary documents or secondary sources.

Can I refer to my own posts?

Of course it is preferable to use credible sources, but that is not to say that a biased source cannot be factual.

No doubt. Of course, referencing Winkler does nothing but support the idea that some other guy shares your perspective.

The point is -- members who never provide evidence, at least once in awhile, make it impossible for other members to carry on meaningful debate.

I'd argue that as it stands your standard of evidence would cover restating my own views as fact.

As with trolls, after awhile it becomes clear to everyone that it is a waste of time to reply to that member.

Don't worry. I'm still interested in our conversation.

Aside from what transpires in regard to the White House, I am watching representatives in Congress, as we all should, with the upcoming 2006 elections in mind.

Bah, we got plenty of time.

 

[SOS2008]

Here are some more sources just from 2005 (Part I):

· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/p...4e4101aee&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) New York Times (RSS), December 15, 2005.
· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Bush Let's U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," (http://nytimes.com/2005/12/16/polit...=1134795600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) New York Times (print), December 16, 2005; (Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm)) .
· Dan Eggen, "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying. Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021_pf.html) Washington Post, December 16, 2005.
· "Bush 'backed spying on Americans'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4534488.stm) and "Q&A: US domestic spying row," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536018.stm) BBC, December 16, 2005: "After allegations that President Bush authorised a US intelligence agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without court approval, the BBC News website considers some key questions."
· Tom Regan, "Bush allowed spying on Americans in US after 9/11. Presidential order authorized NSA to eavesdrop without court warrants," (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/dailyUpdate.html ) Christian Science Monitor, December 16, 2005.
· Christine Hauser, "Bush Declines to Discuss Report on Eavesdropping," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16cnd-spy.html) New York Times, December 16, 2005.
· "N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting. 'The question was not why we would publish it, but why we would not'," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/) CNN, December 16, 2005.
· Laura Rozen, "A scoop deferred," (http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003287.html) War and Piece, December 16, 2005.
· "Rice Denies U.S. Broke Law Amid Report Bush Authorized Spying," (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=astkV2gMsvUY&refer=us ) Bloomberg News, December 16, 2005.
· "Specter Says Senate to Probe Report U.S. Broke Law on Spying," (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aJFRC0JDD0lY&refer=us ) Bloomberg News, December 16, 2005.
· "Bush spying claim causes US storm," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536310.stm) BBC, December 16, 2005.
· Larry Johnson, "Spying on Americans and John Bolton," (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20 ) TPM Cafe, December 16, 2005: "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. ... More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."
· Larry Abramson, "Bush Said to Approve Post-Sept. 11 Eavesdropping," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056518) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· "Domestic Spying and a Delayed Report," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056871) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· "Politics with Juan Williams: Spying and the Patriot Act," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5056874) NPR, December 16, 2005.
· jesselee, "George Miller on Domestic Spying," (http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004073.html ) The Stakeholder, December 16, 2005.
· Morton H. Halperin, "President Bush and Domestic Spying by NSA," (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1306495 ) Center for American Progress, December 16, 2005.
· Will Bunch, "The Big Stall: How Bush gamed the media to get re-elected in 2004," (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002576.html) Attytood, December 16, 2005.
· Rob, "Action Alerts: Tell Congress to kill the Patriot Act until we get answers about Bush's illegal domestic spying," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/action-alerts-tell-congress-to-kill.html) AMERICAblog, December 16, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/if-bush-thought-eavesdropping-laws.html) AMERICAblog, December 16, 2005.
· Hilzoy, " ... This is against the law," (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007789.php) Political Animal, December 16, 2005.
· georgia10, "NY Times Self-Censorship, AKA 'the President's Press'," (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/194744/78) Daily Kos, December 16, 2005.
· "Jack Cafferty on the administration: Just Do it!" (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html#a6350) Crooks and Liars, December 16, 2005.
· Jim Romenesko, "Bush: NYT spying story isn't the day's top news," (http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10800 ) Poynter Online, December 16, 2005: "From the transcript of Jim Lehrer's interview with President Bush, to air Friday night on PBS."
· Kelli Arena, "Bush won't confirm report NSA spied on Americans," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html) CNN, December 17, 2005 (8:33 AM EST).
· Katherine Shrader, "Bush Approved Eavesdropping, Official Says," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1415697) Associated Press (ABC News), December 17, 2005 (9:51 AM EST): Bush "has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night."
· Maura Reynolds and Greg Miller, "Privacy Rights and National Security: After revelations the U.S. spied on its own citizens, the Senate puts the brakes on controversial post-9/11 measures intended to fight terrorism. Surveillance: Senators demand Bush explain secret eavesdropping," (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/17/MNGN6G9NE51.DTL) San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 2005.
· "Bush stands firm over spying row. President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil liberties, after it was alleged he authorised people in the US to be bugged without a warrant," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm) BBC, December 17, 2005 (13:49 GMT).
· "Bush admits he authorised spying," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm) BBC, December 17, 2005 (16:14 GMT).
· Scott Shane, "Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html) New York Times, December 17, 2005.
· Dan Eggen and Charles Lane, "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825.html) Washington Post, December 17, 2005.
· Judd Legum, "Yesterday, Bush Said Confirming NYT Story 'Would Compromise Our Ability To Protect The People'," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/) Think Progress, December 17, 2005: "For 24 hours, Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of their secret domestic spying program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. ... This morning, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program but provided details about how it worked. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/) ... This demonstrates that the administration’s initial refusal to comment was not motivated by security concerns. If that was the case Bush still wouldn’t have been able to comment this morning. Rather, the refusal to comment was a public relations strategy. When they decided it wasn’t working, they scrapped it and tried something else."
· "Democratic senator says Bush violated law with wiretaps: He is a president, not a king," (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_senator_says_Bush_violated_law_1217.html) The Raw Story, December 17, 2005: "From a release issued to RAW STORY by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in response to President Bush's admission Saturday that the president personally authorized wiretaps of individuals who emailed or phoned other countries." Includes Feingold's "Fact Sheet on Domestic Intelligence Wiretaps."
· Deanne Stillman, "The Tippling Point," (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanne-stillman/the-tippling-point_b_12468.html) The Huffington Post, December 17, 2005.
· smintheus, "Operation Flabbergasted: Let's Watergate Bush," (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/233929/95) Daily Kos, December 17, 2005: "This cannot stand. In ordering the NSA to spy secretly on America, George Bush has: overturned United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/index2.html#doc7), which prohibits domestic spying by the NSA; violated the federal act which created the FISA (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html ) court to oversee covert domestic investigations; and trampled upon the Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) guarantee against warrantless searches. It cannot stand for a day, much less a month while Congress is in recess." Also see Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007280.php) , Ezra Klein's blog (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/fisa.html) , and "January 2005: Gonzales Said Bush Did Not 'Authorize Actions…In Contravention of Our Criminal Statutes'" (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/) at Think Progress on FISA and this report (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2002rept.html) on 2002 FISA requests.
· Editorial: "This Call May Be Monitored ... ," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?hp) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· Peter Baker, "President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping. Bush Also Urges Congress to Extend Patriot Act," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700456.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Charles Babington, "Domestic Spying Issue Inflames Debate Over Patriot Act Renewal," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701113.html) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer, "Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· Editorial: "Spying on Americans," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701005.html) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· "Reid Seeks Probe of Bush Domestic Spying," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying_1;_ylt=AmVgqjlKlrhpMDu4dPNoejRqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl ) Associated Press, December 18, 2005.
· Dana Milbank, "Bush's Fumbles Spur New Talk of Oversight on Hill," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700992.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 18, 2005.
· David E. Sanger, "In Address, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/p...l=1&adxnnlx=1134932474-1PowQ0+hICaF804jJDegmQ) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· Editorial: "Bigger Brother," (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-security18dec18,0,5190326.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials ) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· Rick Schmitt and Mary Curtius, "Bush Defends Eavesdropping as Defense Against Terrorism. He vows to continue the newly acknowledged domestic program despite mounting criticism, even from within his own party," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush18dec18,0,1170757.story?coll=la-home-headlines ) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· David G. Savage and Bob Drogin, "Legality of Wiretaps Remains in Question," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...dec18,1,966036.story?coll=la-headlines-nation) Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, "Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18spy.html) New York Times, December 18, 2005.
· "Condi: I am not a crook! Sorry, I meant: I am not a lawyer!" (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/18.html#a6372) Crooks and Liars, December 18, 2005. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Tim Russert. WMP link on page; full transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479765/). Also see "Stumped: Condi Unable to Explain What Gave Bush Authority to Eavesdrop Without Warrant" (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/rice-no-answer/) at Think Progress.
· Laura Rozen, "There's something else about the Bush/NSA warrantless, oversight-less spying on Americans that doesn't make sense," (http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003297.html) War and Piece, December 18, 2005.
· Hilzoy, "Bush and the Separation of Powers," (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php#more) Political Animal, December 18, 2005.
· Nico Pitney, "Former Intel Chairman Graham: White House Made 'No Reference' to NSA Program In Briefings," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/) Think Progress, December 18, 2005.
· Noah Shachtman, "New Tech Behind NSA Snoop Case?" (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002030.html ) DefenseTech.org, December 18, 2005.
· Hope Yen, "Lawmakers Call for Domestic Spying Probe. Democrats and Republicans Call Separately for Congressional Probe Into Domestic Spying Program," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1418547) Associated Press (ABC News), December 18, 2005.
· "Editorial: Big Brother Bush / The president took a step toward a police state," (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05352/623818.stm ) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 18, 2005.
· Katrina Vanden Heuvel, "Spying and Lying," (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=43492 ) The Nation, December 18, 2005.
· "John McCain: Bush Right to Use NSA," (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml) NewsMax, December 18, 2005.
· "Democrats call for investigation of NSA wiretaps," (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/index.html) CNN, December 19, 2005.

 

[SOS2008]

2005 Continued...

· Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html) , James S. Brady Briefing Room, December 19, 2005 (8:30 A.M. EST). re Alberto R. Gonzales and Michael V. Hayden.
· georgia10, "Gonzales: Congress Gave President The Authority To Spy On Americans," (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/9649/0429) Daily Kos, December 19, 2005.
· Pauline Jelinek, "Gonzales Says Congress Authorized Spying," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying ) Associated Press (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005 (10:15 A.M. EST).
· George W. Bush, News Release: Press Conference of the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051219-2.html) , White House East Room, December 19, 2005 (10:32 A.M. EST).
· "Bush says leaking spy program a 'shameful act'. President vows to continue domestic eavesdropping," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/) NBC News, December 19, 2005.
· Terence Hunt, "Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AmSFvZW2OzZZmC4Shu37rG2GOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- ) Associated Press (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "Bush vows more eavesdropping," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/ts_nm/bush_security1_dc;_ylt=Ap1ou2ksw9pF9I5Evvcv5UiGOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4b3FrcXQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz ) Reuters (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "Bush defends phone-tapping policy," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4542880.stm) BBC, December 19, 2005.
· "Bush faces growing storm over secret wire taps," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051219/ts_afp/usattacksbushintelligence_051219063805 ) Agence France Presse (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval," (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212 ) Democracy Now!, December 19, 2005.
· David Sirota, "Bush's 'Need for Speed' Argument Runs Into the Truth," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-33.htm ) The Huffington Post (Common Dreams), December 19, 2005.
· Gail Russell Chaddock, "Congress pushes back, hard, against Bush. Blindsided by news of domestic spying, it is holding up a key bill," (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1219/p01s01-uspo.htm) Christian Science Monitor, December 19, 2005.
· Sam Rosenfeld, "Laws and Lawlessness," (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008678 ) TAPPED, December 19, 2005.
· Ezra Klein, "One Question," (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008673 ) TAPPED, December 19, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "Did Bush domestic spy program eavesdrop on American journalists?" (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/did-bush-domestic-spy-program.html) AMERICAblog, December 19, 2005.
· Fred Barbash and Peter Baker, "Bush Defends Eavesdropping Program. Congress 'Authorized' Domestic Surveillance in Iraq War Resolution, Says President, Attorney General," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html) Washington Post, December 19, 2005 (3:57 P.M. EST).
· "No President Is Above the Law," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-35.htm ) by US Senator Robert C. Byrd, Floor Speech, December 19, 2005 (Common Dreams).
· "Missteps in the war on terror," (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512190111dec19,0,6699370.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed ) Chicago Tribune, December 19, 2005.
· "Alan Dershowitz: Bush broke the law," (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391) Crooks and Liars, December 19, 2005. "Appearing on the Situation Room, Alan slammed King George over the wiretapping scandal." WMP and QT video links on page.
· "King George's federal crime," (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6390) Crooks and Liars, December 19, 2005. "Jonathan Turley-on the Factor said that President Bush's spying operation is based on a federal crime." No QT or WMP links as of December 20, 2005, but to come.
· Tom Tomorrow, "Wow," (http://thismodernworld.com/2568 ) This Modern World, December 19, 2005. "Fox’s in-house legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano, has strayed off the reservation."
· Jonathan Alter, "Bush’s Snoopgate. The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/ ) Newsweek (MSNBC), December 19, 2005 (6:17 P.M. EST). Also see Will Bunch, "'All the news that's fit to print' -- except when it's about us," (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002583.html) Attytood, December 19, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "Bush lied during his press conference when he said Congress had approved his domestic spying program," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-lied-during-his-press-conference.html) AMERICAblog, December 19, 2005 (6:29 P.M. EST). Link to handwritten letter (http://americablog.blogspot.com/Intell1.pdf) from Senator Jay Rockefeller to VP Dick Cheney "expressing his concern about the secret domestic spying program."
· "Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'," (http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975 ) Senator Barbara Boxer's official Senate website, December 19, 2005.
· Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin, "The Truth About Bush's Warrantless Spying," (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053#3 ) The Progress Report, December 19, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and David E. Sanger, "Administration Cites War Vote in Spying Case," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20spy.html) New York Times, December 20, 2005.
· Peter Baker and Charles Babington, "Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying. 'This Is a Different Era, a Different War,' He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· George F. Will, "Why Didn't He Ask Congress?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900975.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· James Rainey, "Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story. The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines) Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2005.
· William A. Arkin, "Inside NSA's World," (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/inside_nsas_wor.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· "Congressman calls for Bush impeachment," (http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123 ) Associated Press (Access NorthGa), December 20, 2005.
· Doug Ireland, "A Time to Impeach," (http://www.alternet.org/story/29826/) AlterNet, December 20, 2005.
· Dori Meinert, "Democrats assail wiretaps," (http://www.pjstar.com/stories/122005/REG_B8F6VK2M.060.shtml ) Copley News Service (PJStar.com), December 20, 2005.
· "Bush in 2004: We're 'Getting Court Orders' and 'Value the Constitution.' Did He Know He Was Lying?" (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/12/ana05055.html) BuzzFlash, December 20, 2005.
· Press Release: "Pelosi Requests Declassification of Her Letter on NSA Activities" (http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1339): "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the Director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote several years ago to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency." Posted on Rep. Pelosi's official website, December 20, 2005.
· Bruce Fein, ". . . unlimited?" (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm ) Washington Times, December 20, 2005.
· Faiz Shakir, "Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%e2%80%99s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/) Think Progress, December 20, 2005.
· "The Emerging Story Behind the Wiretap Scandal," (http://www.thedailybackground.com/2005/12/20/the-emerging-story-behind-the-wiretap-scandal/ ) The Daily Background, December 20, 2005. FISA timeline.
· Chuck Dupree, "FISA, Data Mining, and Total Information Awareness," (http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/003475.html) Bad Attitudes, December 20, 2005: "All of which would only be possible if the plans for Total Information Awareness had been carried through. ... And of course you’ve read Sen. Rockefeller’s [July 17, 2003,] letter (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html ) [posted at Josh Marshall's Talking Points], which points in that direction as well…"
· Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, "Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest. Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html ) Washington Post, December 21, 2005.
· Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei, "Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 21, 2005.
· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Purely domestic calls were intercepted. Secret surveillance program apparently broke its own rules," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?pagewanted=print) New York Times (San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/21/MNGQ6GB5LM1.DTL&feed=rss.news)), December 21, 2005.
· Howard Fineman, "Spying, the Constitution — and the 'I-word'. 2006 will offer up Nixon-era nastiness and a chorus of calls to impeach Bush," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/) MSNBC, December 21, 2005.
· Molly Ivins, "So 9/11 Means it's OK to Spy on Americans?" (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-26.htm ) Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado) (Common Dreams), December 21, 2005.
· Josh Meyer, "Officials Fault Case Bush Cited. Internal breakdowns, not shortcomings in spy laws, were at play before Sept. 11, they say," (http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...1,1,6843643.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage) Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2005.
· Maureen Dowd, "The Squires of Surveillance," (http://www.topplebush.com/oped2405.shtml ) New York Times (topplebush.com), December 21, 2005.
· Robert Koehler, "Fear of the Devil," (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_robert_k_051221_fear_of_the_devil.htm ) Tribune Media Service (OpEdNews), December 21, 2005.
· John Atcheson, "The Real Story Behind Snoopgate," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-32.htm ) Common Dreams, December 22, 2005.
· "Congress said no on war powers: Daschle," (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-23T095714Z_01_ROB325760_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml) Reuters, December 23, 2005: Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle "said in Friday's edition of The Washington Post [that] the [post-9/11] resolution did not grant President Bush authority to order warrantless spying on Americans suspected of terrorist ties. Daschle said warrantless wiretaps of Americans never came up in the negotiations."
· "US high court nominee urged eavesdropping immunity," (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-24T044309Z_01_KRA416957_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-ALITO.xml) Reuters, December 23, 2005.
· Tom Brune, "Alito’s view on wiretaps. Memo he wrote in ’84 reveals he backed official who ordered warrantless wiretap of group in 1970," (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0382.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines) Newsday, December 23, 2005.
· David G. Savage and Richard A. Serrano, "Alito Backed Immunity for Wiretapping," (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-alito24dec24,1,7614906.story?coll=la-headlines-politics ) Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2005: "Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. said in a 1984 memo that he believed the president's top lawyer should be shielded from being sued for approving illegal, warrantless wiretaps on the grounds of national security, an issue that has flared anew and could complicate his Senate confirmation next month."
· Charlie Savage, "Alito backed immunity in wiretap case," (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../12/24/alito_backed_immunity_in_wiretap_case/) Boston Globe, December 24, 2005.
· Edward Epstein, "Bush to face tough questions over Patriot Act, spy orders," (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/24/MNGBOGD4FF1.DTL) San Francisco Chronicle, December 24, 2005.
· Tim Rutten, "Regarding Media. Paranoia on the left and the right," (http://www.calendarlive.com/columnists/rutten/cl-et-rutten24dec24,0,1478815.column?coll=cl-calendar ) CalendarLive.com, December 24, 2005: "WHEN George W. Bush promised that his administration would promote faith-based initiatives, who would have guessed that one of them would involve asserting the divine right of presidents? ... Well, now we know."
· Gabriel Sherman, "Why Times Ran Wiretap Story, Defying Bush," (http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=12123&ic=Off+the+Record ) New York Observer, December 26, 2005 (issue).
· "Powell Supports Government Eavesdropping," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500280.html ) Associated Press (Washington Post), December 26, 2005.
· "Powell Backs Bush on Domestic Spying," (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-26-voa8.cfm ) Voice of America, December 26, 2005.
· Sydney H. Schanberg, "Checks and No Balance. The story is Bush's spying, not the story's messenger," (http://villagevoice.com/news/0552,schanberg,71325,6.html ) Village Voice, December 27, 2005.
· Gal Beckerman, "The Times and the Post Go Silent On Us," (http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_times_and_the_post_go_sile.php) CJR Daily, December 27, 2005.
· Joe Strupp, "Some Veteran Journalists Say Times And Post Should Have Disclosed Meeting with Bush on Controversial Stories," (http://editorandpublisher.printthis...ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001738089&partnerID=60) Editor & Publisher, December 27, 2005.
· "Secret surveillance up sharply since 9/11," (http://today.reuters.com/PrinterFri...25760_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml) Reuters, December 28, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, "Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?pagewanted=print) New York Times, December 28, 2005.
· Anick Jesdanun, "NSA Web site puts 'cookies' on computers," (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8EPN03G2.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc ) Associated Press (BusinessWeek), December 29, 2005.
· Jon Van, "Phone giants mum on spying. In past, industry has cooperated with U.S.," (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/natio...rint.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines) New York Newsday, December 29, 2005.
· Dana Priest, "Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor. Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585_pf.html) Washington Post, December 30, 2005.

There should be something here for everyone.

 

[crazycalhoun]

There should be something here for everyone.

No kidding. But what exactly does it say for you and how?

 

[turbo]

No kidding. But what exactly does it say for you and how?

Did you follow any of the links? Are all of the authors of those papers lying or misguided? You should offer a sound rebuttal or crawl back under your bridge.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Did you follow any of the links? Are all of the authors of those papers lying or misguided?

Actually, no. And I don't see why I should follow a series of random links that address no specific charge raised by our friend.

You should offer a sound rebuttal or crawl back under your bridge.

You should string together something worth rebuttin or get to the back of the bus.

 

[turbo]

Actually, no. And I don't see why I should follow a series of random links that address no specific charge raised by our friend.

The links are not random, and many of us who care about the future viability of our country have collected such links. These are serious concerns in a time when out country is being hijacked by the Military-Industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower (a fine Republican military man with an astute perception of politics) warned us about. If you have some credible sources to support your assertions, please trot them out. It would be nice to have an exchange with someone from the "other side" who employs any argumentative tactic besides "you're wrong, the president is right!"

 

[crazycalhoun]

The links are not random, and many of us who care about the future viability of our country have collected such links.

I'm not convinced, but you're welcome to actually present your case as to why they aren't. And while you're establishing relevance, let's establish authority as well.

These are serious concerns in a time when out country is being hijacked by the Military-Industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower (a fine Republican military man with an astute perception of politics) warned us about.

I don't think Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex per se. In fact, he said: " n the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." In that same speech, he also said: "[y]et, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." The section in question concerned principally the transition from privately funded innovation in civilian and military sectors to public institutions of Big Science and Defense. I guess you could say that the NSF and Base Closures are perfect examples of the sort of confluence of privilege and political power could produce.

If you have some credible sources to support your assertions, please trot them out.

I think for the most part I'm just disagreeing with you. If and when I have my own assertion to present, I'll keep them in mind. In the meantime, you'd do better to defend your position and whine about how I critique it.

It would be nice to have an exchange with someone from the "other side" who employs any argumentative tactic besides "you're wrong, the president is right!"

It'd be nice to have an exchange with someone who actually responds to arguments rather than his straw representation of them.

 

[turbo]

I don't think Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex per se. In fact, he said: " n the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." In that same speech, he also said: "[y]et, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." The section in question concerned principally the transition from privately funded innovation in civilian and military sectors to public institutions of Big Science and Defense. I guess you could say that the NSF and Base Closures are perfect examples of the sort of confluence of privilege and political power could produce.

You may wish to research Eisenhower's comments a bit. In his initial drafts, he was calling it the "military-industrial-congressional" complex, and took out the "congressional" part before his presentation to avoid controversy. Eisenhower was appalled by what he saw going on in Washington, and rightly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

 

[crazycalhoun]

You may wish to research Eisenhower's comments a bit.

I don't see anything in your non sequitur that suggests I should.

 

[turbo]

Interesting! Every post that you cannot repudiate in a rational fashion is a non sequitur.

I repeat (from above), the Reagan/Bush administration considered Saddam their fair-haired boy in the middle east, helping to insulate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the Islamic fundamentalism arising in Iran. They pumped arms, money, and intelligence his way, including the satellite intelligence that he used to gas the Kurds. They actively supported Saddam as he deprived the eastern Shiites of their wetlands and gassed the Kurds. It was not until he attacked Kuwait that Bush senior forgot how to pronounce his friend's name and started calling him "Saaadem".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Why was W so sure that Saddam had WMDs? Because Daddy and uncle Ronnie gave him those weapons.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Interesting! Every post that you cannot repudiate in a rational fashion is a non sequitur.

Aside from not being remotely close to the truth, your remarks here amount to a non sequitur; they lack any connection to my preceding post. Which was all of one line.

I repeat (from above), the Reagan/Bush administration considered Saddam their fair-haired boy in the middle east, helping to insulate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the Islamic fundamentalism arising in Iran.

Repetition does not make your case.

They pumped arms, money, and intelligence his way, including the satellite intelligence that he used to gas the Kurds.

1. There is no evidence that the US supplied any satellite intelligence to Hussein in connection with the Halabja attack. I think you may be confusing this with intelligence used in chemical attacks against Iran.

2. None of this has anything to do with fairness of Saddam's hair, whether or not he's a boy, or whether Presidents Reagan and Bush owned him.

They actively supported Saddam as he deprived the eastern Shiites of their wetlands and gassed the Kurds.

1. President Reagan wasn't in office when Hussein drained the southern marshlands.

2. What active support did President George H. W. Bush give Hussein during the 1991 uprisings?

It was not until he attacked Kuwait that Bush senior forgot how to pronounce his friend's name and started calling him "Saaadem".

Where are the tapes?

Why was W so sure that Saddam had WMDs? Because Daddy and uncle Ronnie gave him those weapons.

Where are the relevant Executive Orders?

 

[turbo]

Please educate yourself. If you wish to refute these sources (including the CIA and the State Department) please cite some authoritative sources. The trolling is getting out of hand.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

 

[SOS2008]

Please educate yourself. If you wish to refute these sources (including the CIA and the State Department) please cite some authoritative sources. The trolling is getting out of hand.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

Hear! Hear! Those who do not read links/sources provided by others, or who do not provide evidence of their own are just trolling. DNFTT.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Please educate yourself.

I'm satisfied with my education as it is, but if you wish to add to it you can start by addressing the points I've raised rather than pursuing this losing tactic of posting random links without bothering to place them in context with your previous remarks. After all, I'm not going to debate a bunch of off-site material you believe support your point of view unless placed in the context of an argument. Especially when they contradict points you've already raised. For example:

Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the [US] intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred.

Now I'm inclined to believe you simply don't consider your own evidence thoroughly; otherwise, you may have been tempted to actually incorporate it in some meaningful way. I definitely wouldn't accuse you of dishonesty. Either way, I definitely have no reason to put faith that you will represent the content of your own evidence faithfully.

Hear! Hear! Those who do not read links/sources provided by others, or who do not provide evidence of their own are just trolling. DNFTT.

How does me-too'ing someone elses dicta constitute fact?

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm satisfied with my education as it is,

Now I understand why you post no sources, and offer only opinions.

I would suggest to Turbo and SOS that you simply ignore this person, since they are obviously just trolling.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Now I understand why you post no sources...

Might help if you started off by saying something factually correct. But don't let me get in the way of your me-too'ing. SOS, Turbo, I invite you and Sky to ignore me