bush desperate to kill story...tries intimidating nyt editor

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:14 pm

...and publisher...now if we could only find out on what basis he argued to them they should not run the story...jesus this is bad...he will get impeached for this for sure if dems win in 2006...but they won't cuz elections r rigged now...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:55 pm

Strange to see the word impeachment in an MSNBC column.

I don't understand how this is a bigger story than illegally imprisoning citizens without lawyers or trials, but if it somehow wakes a few people up, then all the better.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:01 pm

cuz everyone know they are really spying on politcal enemies and regular us citizens...why else wouldn't they go thru fisa?...

Post by **bitWISE** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:06 pm

We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

...It's about fucking time...

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:07 pm

hurray !

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:08 pm

the president admitted to a felony on national tv...all law scholars agree...if we live in a real democracy he will be impeached..if not...

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:09 pm

hey i just found this...see what i'm saying?...

http://www.buzzflash.com/index.php?story=Story

Post by **Grudge** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:13 pm

R00k wrote:I don't understand how this is a bigger story than illegally imprisoning citizens without lawyers or trials, but if it somehow wakes a few people up, then all the better.

Post by **bitWISE** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:17 pm

Freakaloin wrote:hey i just found this...see what i'm saying?...

http://www.buzzflash.com/index.php?story=Story

Why doesn't that article seem to prove why the partiot act wasn't applicable?

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:31 pm

see what some scholars say...hardcore...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6390

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:37 pm

The secret court turned down a lot of their attempts at surveilling people, and also accused the DoJ under Ashcroft of lying and misinformation to the court. From 2002:

http://foi.missouri.edu/secretcourts/seccrtrebuffs.html

"The secretive federal court that approves spying on terror suspects in the United States has refused to give the Justice Department broad new powers, saying the government had misused the law and misled the court dozens of times, according to an extraordinary legal ruling released yesterday.

A May 17 opinion by the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) alleges that Justice Department and FBI officials supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. "

Sounds like they were trying to work on their 'enemies list' and the court would have none of it so they attacked the court, saying it "unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us," the Justice Department said in a statement.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:41 pm

Democrats finally have spine to use the 'I' word in public now?

BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Post by **jester!** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:56 pm

Awesome

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:39 pm

R00k wrote:The secret court turned down a lot of their attempts at surveilling people

according to the msnbc article, fisa has only turned down 4 requests since 1979. frankly, bush's attempts to circumvent what seems to me to be an already compliant court seems just clumsy and retarded. technically it would give him dictatorial powers, but the exercise of those powers wouldn't look a whole different to the previous status quo as far as wiretaps are concerned.

Post by **Fender** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:45 pm

Ok, let's say the House impeaches him. And then the Senate actually takes some action and censures him. Now what do we have? Dick Cheney in charge. Fuck. I guess anything to wake people up on the traitorous acts of this administration is a good thing.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:14 pm

seremtan wrote:
R00k wrote:The secret court turned down a lot of their attempts at surveilling people
according to the msnbc article, fisa has only turned down 4 requests since 1979.

Yea I noticed that too. Seems to be a discrepancy with the article I posted: http://foi.missouri.edu/secretcourts/seccrtrebuffs.html

But maybe MSNBC means they've only turned down 4 requests up until the Bush administration took office? That's the only thing I can think of that might reconcile both statements...

seremtan wrote:frankly, bush's attempts to circumvent what seems to me to be an already compliant court seems just clumsy and retarded. technically it would give him dictatorial powers, but the exercise of those powers wouldn't look a whole different to the previous status quo as far as wiretaps are concerned.

I have to admit I can't see a huge difference in the practical uses of wiretapping here, except one important one. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like there is no record anywhere of who has had their phones tapped or been watched, whereas before they at least had to petition the court afterward, which left a paper trail of what happened even if it was classified. That's just my understanding though, and I could be mistaken - this whole secret court is a little mysterious and I don't know much about how it operates to begin with.

The reason this is such a big deal, I believe, is due to the exact nature of the law he's flouting. This law was passed exclusively to prevent the kind of abuse that Nixon was caught perpetrating, using the NSA as his administration's personal surveillance team for political reasons.
Not only has Bush blatantly said that he intends to completely disregard this law, but it seems that he may be using the NSA for the exact same things Nixon did, when the law was passed solely to make this sort of thing illegal.

I still can't completely understand why this is being latched on to above all the other abuses of laws and rights this administration has carried out though. It's not like this is the first law he's openly held in contempt and refused to be held to.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:20 pm

Of course he'll defend it.

He's a spoiled brat that - crazy enough - actually believes he has the power to do whatever the fuck he wants.

The following can't be repeated enough:

And the problem is - just like back then - people are watching it happen right before their eyes with the dear-in-the-headlights look. Unless something is done within the next few days...in terms of congressional or public hearings and shit into the legality of what the President of the United States has just said in brazen disregard for the "letter of the law (which he likes trumpeting so much) then nothing will be done about it...ever.

Not until the revolution.