Can you sayCOINTELPRO?
The National Security Agency has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time since 2002, The New York Times reported Friday.
newsfilter.
Aw, dude -- this is too harsh for a Friday, dude. Wikipedia? That means I have to, like, read and shit.
I've overheard this before!
ARF!
Why does no one take my posts seriously? Is it my balloon hat?
That and the smell, mostly.
sorry
/sigh
*tap dances to amuse koko*
/glare
*stops tap dancing / does his Frank Spencer impression*
/blank look
Frank Spencer tap dancing - now there's an image.
I know they're not listening in to my phone conversations, because the men in white coats haven't showed up yet.
*abandons Frank / does Tommy Cooper instead*
What a heel! Hey hey! Get it? Heeeel?
*scratches head*
What??
I hate you all.
*whispers*
Hey, look, let's discuss this post seriously, otherwise the koko will be upset, and that's not a pretty site...
*Ahem*
Well, I'm not surprised that such draconian measures have been secretly used, any excuse to check up on law abiding citizens and centralize power and observation!
Truly we a living in a hi-tech panoptican!
panopticOn, obv...
That's better.
Quakers are dangerous people. They should be spied upon. Especially illegally.
phew
I've been hearing O'Reilly talking about the Quaker Jihad
Seriously, this doesn't surpise me in the least. I'd be more surprised to hear the government wasn't illegaly wiretapping. I guess I'm just paranoid.
Thanks be to the Baby Jebus with a Directional Antenna that Homeland Security is keeping us safe!!
I realize you've all been talking in some kind of code in case they've got this post wire-tapped, but I can't understand your cogent comments because of it.
Now, see, if the eavesdroppers just made sure to cover their tracks by being irresistably cute, then people would forgive their wrongdoings as simply adorable albeit illegal shenanigans.
Well, this is it. Bush has really stuck his dick in the electrical outlet this time. He is so impeached. This story is gonna explode, and every news outlet will be carrying this one for weeks. You'll see Shrubya leaving for Camp David with his coat over his head. Ha ha! I knew if we just waited long enough, his cocaine-binging, AWOL-ing, bad business decision making, election-stealing, terrorism-ignoring, war-profiteering, torture-demanding, illegal-spying on citizens would bite him in the ass! Ha! Oh yeah, I'm stayin' up late to watch this one on telly!
*sigh*
*doesn't know who Tommy Cooper is*
*doesn't know who Frank Spencer is either*
*confuses him with Frank Gorshin*
*imagines Gorshin tap-dancing in his green unitard*
*terrified*
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.
Wow.
Well, this is it. Bush has really stuck his dick in the electrical outlet this time.
You know, that would explain a hell of a lot. The dazed expression, the military dick-compensating, the unfulfilled look on Laura's face...
"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act"
-Bill Frist, 2005
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933
I wonder what Bill Frist is hiding . ..
Frist voted against it b/c he knew it would fail and voting against means he can reintroduce it later. (if thats whay you were asking about)
oldies but goodies...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry
I wonder what Bill Frist is hiding . ..
"I always wondered about [Bill's] collection of Little Shoes." - Bill Hicks
damn you letter P!
Thank you for them there quotes, Jimmy. Very faith-affirmating.
Not to be snarky, but as much as I disagree with the practice of unwarranted telephone and email tapping, let's not imagine this is 'essential liberty' talked about by Franklin or Henry or any of the other founders.
There is parity here, or will be. True reduction of civil liberty can, should, and will be met with equal force against it. That's why we have the legislative branch, term limits, and, as a last defense, a legal process to remove leaders who abuse consitutional power.
For my money, this will not go down well with most Americans, and we will see a backlash. Already the Patriot Act has been rebuffed for renewal. This is a sign that draconian policies like this are not welcome here.
Freedom is an "essential liberty". What part of having the goverment listening to your phone conversations and reading your email isn't a violation of an essential liberty? Jesus fucking christ, I cannot believe you would actually think this is something less than outrageous. At what point do you look the things your president has done and say enough is enough?
Freedom is an "essential liberty".
Freedom from having your phone tapped is not.
Did you read this: Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.
So, like I said, if there's a problem with this, it will be responded to in an appropriate manner. You have an awfully dim view of the democratic process if you think this is the end of all things.
Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans
Which administration official should I trust? The one who lied us into an unjust war? The one who gets checks from haliburton or the one who shops for shoes while the citizens of New Orleans are dying. These are the people I should trust? Fool me once shame on you......
You have an awfully dim view of what it means to be an American.
When you allow small things to be taken away, you soon find your house empty.
“Privacy is dead, deal with it,” Sun MicroSystems CEO Scott McNealy.
Hi there, officer.
Apparently I, as a law abiding citizen, have no right to a private conversation with anyone outside of the country. Are they opening my air mail letters too?
And nobody here knows if this is where it stopped. We're just supposed to take it on trust that it hasn't been abused, just like we were supposed to trust the WMDs were real. Just like we were supposed to believe that we don't torture people.
This opens a serious barrel of worms, collecting evidence that can be used against American citizens without a warrant. The other patriot act laws weren't confined to terrorists only, why should I expect that this executive order was? I expect any day now we'll find out about drug shipments into the U.S. intercepted by this because "criminals" had their legal rights waived by executive order.
I wonder how many congressmen's phone calls were tapped when they were overseas.
There exists a mechanism for getting such warrants swiftly and secretly - the FISA court. It's my understanding that there are statutes that explicitly ban surveillance except "as prescribed by law" and the present situation doesn't fall under those exceptions. Constitutional or not (not, I think), for W to direct such surveillance is a criminal act.
I'd be interested to see what the targets were that were so damned important they couldn't take the small amount of time needed to meet the lax standards of the FISA court (which I think has seldom if ever rejected a request) for a warrant. My gut tells me that it's because the targets had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with either:
o domestic politics (yes, I know that supposedly one end of the conversations wiretapped were overseas).
o commercial/industrial espionage to the benefit of Bush/GOP supporters, targeting competitors, either US or foreign.
Rove's fingerprints are all over this, too.
The legislative branch does exist, but at this particular moment, the branches of government are all being run by the same cozy group of folks. The checks and balances right now either aren't there, or are pretty weak.
ACLU Sues to Stop Domestic Spy ProgramCivil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.
Way to h-dogg it, Kokie. Keep up the good links.
werd.
K-dogg posts wit a quickness.
Ain't got nuthin' on tha Followup King, tha Update Uberführer, His Homunculosity Himself.
*crosses arms, nods in reverence*
The King of Link, tha Followup Freakah, the Pontiff of Postitude!
I make a nice grilled cheese sandwich.
My god, now they're grilling the cheese sandwiches!
Is there no stop to to this?
Also, a BLT with mayonnaise and peanut butter. Mmm.
Hehe good one Koko - so sad, so true.
President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal."
Ahh. well there's your problem. YANAL. Nor very bright.
hey that's not what the real title was . .
Seriously though, these people are unrelenting in their shit-talking evilness. Dear Mothra, please smite them mightily.
"This was not about domestic surveillance," Negroponte said.
So, what are we calling surveillance carried out on a domestic level, then? Just so I don't make that mistake of calling domestic surveillance exactly that?
And while you're at it, Negroponte, can you please tell me how this makes you different than all those commies you were fighting over the years? I'm going to need more talking points on this, 'cuz logic ain't workin'.
And with regard to homunculus' link -- I understood that the problem wasn't so much with the NSA itself, seeing as how leaks came from uncomfortable agents within the NSA itself -- but the political direction given to the NSA. Which, were I a cynical sort, might give me the idea that going after the NSA instead of Chimpy would be a massive sleight of hand. But it totally didn't.
MonkeyFilter: I'm going to need more talking points on this, 'cuz logic ain't workin'
oh fine, we'll stick to this one then.
Al-Gonzo drops tha beatsThe hearing began with a sudden and sharp partisan dispute when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter ruled that Gonzales did not have to be sworn in to testify. After Democrats strongly objected and demanded a roll-call vote, Republicans prevailed and the attorney general did not testify under oath.
Yeeeah! That's mah boyz keepin' it rizzeal and bodaciously korrupt! Reprasehnt!
Unpublican fuckers. Oughta be seriously ashamed. Toby Keith, you ignorant pile of crap.
Sorry. Venting.
Right. So kids should be forced to call upon God in the classroom, but a full-grown man shouldn't be made to call upon that same God in a Senate Committee Hearing. Particularly when that man claims to have God and the Law and Justice on his side all the time, and how dare you question his integrity?
I really should send my Ironimeter to the shop. It's gone done busted for too long now...
Far be it from me to accuse this administration of scandal-soaked corruption over a bed of lies, but . . uh . . i forgot where i was going with that.
Bush to Detail 2002 Attack Plot in Speech
This should be rich. How much do you want to bet he's going to insist that illegal wiretapping was necessary in thwarting this plot?
From his speech news link:
"Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative," he said.
I'm a little surprised he's not trying to tie his wiretapping program in with this. However, people will draw that conclusion anyway, and be more than happy to give up any further rights requested by our government.
Another question: what is this covering up? Is something happening that's not getting media attention because of this?
Oh, and way to get the name wrong. Surely, it must be a coincidence that he called it the "Liberty Tower" instead of the "Library Tower". That the name "Liberty Tower" is so symbolic surely must not have had anything to do with that.
"If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
--Nixon, Cheney's secret dark hot man-lovin' inspiration.
It bears repeating:
"The Times also noted committee chairman Arlen Specter's analysis of the Attorney General's legal position: It 'just defies logic.'"
Fear also defies logic. That's why fear is this administration's trump card.
MonkeyFilter: It "just defies logic.'"
I'm sorry, I just can't add anything better to this thread.
What a slimy sack of pig guts that man is!! Turds have a better concept of ethics.
MonkeyFilter: Turds have a better concept of ethics
well?
So is it too tinfoil hat to think that people were following this too closely so they off and have the VP shoot someone to take our attention away. Yeah, it probably is...
That should have had a ? in it somewhere, I'm pretty sure.
Good link, Koko. The thing I don't get is this:
"A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding."
So if they won't give up what they're hiding, they have to give up a list of what they're hiding that they won't give up? What's to stop them from hiding things by not putting them on the list of things they're hiding but won't give up?
"If you won't show us what you're hiding, you'll have to show us what you're hiding."
I think it's pretty straightforward.
*looks around thread*
*lifts lapel, mutters*
*men with guns rush through comment box*
When Facts Fail (Salon)
I came across this sentence today in a piece on the Plame case. "A spokesman for Cheney would not comment for this story, saying the investigation into the leak was ongoing. The spokesman refused to give her name."
[Laughs] A secret spokesman.
So you've got secrecy, lying and a third thing you've brought up before, a bizarre kind of frankness. I was wondering if you could talk about that.
There's been an interesting ambivalence in the administration when it comes to all these actions they've taken in the name of national security -- between the impulse to deny and stonewall and the impulse to come forward and very boldly assert that they took such actions in the name of national security. You see it in eavesdropping, where Karl Rove has clearly indicated a preference for declaring, in a very clever response to the NSA revelation, "If al-Qaida is talking to someone in the United States we want to know about it. Apparently some Democrats don't." Which is basically to say: If you're concerned about this, you're weakening the United States. All this human rights, Fourth Amendment stuff is so much hooey.
In essence, this is an assault on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution because the framers understood that a lot of these rights, especially when under pressure in wartime, are not particularly popular. So they were put in permanently, so as not to be subject to majority control or majority abnegation. It's politics of the most savagely bare-knuckle and dangerous kind when you use that gap between the country's precepts as embodied in the Constitution and the fact that many of these become unpopular in time of war to destroy your political opponents, which is what this administration does.
Actually this article could go in a few other threads . . . "frozen scandal" is a great term . .
Of course the GOP doesn't want the scandal to go away. National Security is the one area that they're leading the Democrats. It's in their interest to keep that one area in the public focus, and not, say, health care or the economy, as that would give the advantage to their opponents.
So, keep the scandal on the front burner. The Administration's friends in Congress need the GOP's support going into the fall elections, and so they'll come out purring like kittens, saying that the President did nothing wrong.
And let's face it -- some people are so preoccupied with national security, that they don't really mind that phone-tapping is going on. As long as it happens to other people, and their kids are kept safe at the playground from the Osama-in-the-bushes, then who cares?
Never mind that domestic fatalities or injuries from terrorist incidents is a puny figure. Say, 3,000 in 2001, and let's be generous and say that same amount in the four years following, making it 6,000 people in five years against a population of what, 350 mil? (Iraq aside, obv.) Not to lessen the significance of their deaths, but a helluva lot more people died in the same five years from car crashes, cancer, or, say, chainsaw injuries. Given those numbers -- nevermind the human and financial costs of Iraq -- it's hard not to think that that effort could have been better directed towards schools, hospitals, levies... But I'm rambling. It's a longstanding beef of mine. Carry on.
No it's a good point Capt. Healthcare, economy, environment, education. Heee!
So, any bets on the date that Bush appears on TV eating a baby..?
It's time to take justice into our own hands. To the Apemobile!
Shotgun!
From the article:
Nobody who has lived outside of a cave for the last five years could possibly be surprised by any of this. One of the reason [sic] we are at the point we're at in our country -- where we have a President who not only breaks the law but claims he has the right to do so, while the media barely finds any of it worthy of much attention -- is because the Congress has completely abdicated its responsibilities at the altar of cult-like obedience to White House decrees. That's just one of the many rotted roots in our government.
Yep.
It was a party line vote, btw. Thanks Republicans. Heckuva job.
"Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution. "Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq."
I doubt it, Barney. Quit pretending to be practical and flush that turd!
Are you against the troops, homunculus?
No, but I am against the Raging Grannies! They're such an obvious threat to national security. Thank God the FBI is keeping an eye on them.
Personally I can't beleive the Seattle Peace Chorus are still out on the streets!
". . . the Department [of 'Justice'] says it cannot rule out the possibility that the program would tap calls between individuals and their doctors or attorneys."
Given that such evidence is inadmissible, WTF?
And I totally thought H-dogg would get that one first. But this time the advantage is mine! Ha ha!
So AT&T hands over customer records in violation of thier privacy. EFF sues, gets records, and DOJ stops it saying "We'll be the illegal ones here."
Y'know, it can get more bizarre. It can get more illegal. And my neighbor still won't get it. Maybe that's what Turd Blossom knew all along.
I wonder what Bill Frist is hiding . ..
"I always wondered about [Bill's] collection of Little Shoes." - Bill Hicks