Big lead off story on World News Tonight regarding a story in the New York Times today about how the spying went much much further and much much deeper than Shrub told Americans it was. Surprise!!!! Talking maybe millions of Americans were listened to, and spyed on. Will be hearing lots more on this I am sure.

spies like us....

[ December 24, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Count on it.

BTW, about a year or so ago I put up a post loosely comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire as an excuse for the R's to do what they will, and was roundly denounced as "looney tunes"... you were saying???

Hope they have - and well before 9/11. Through much of what has been posted on this site they may well have known how disastrous and unethical the responding to that tragedy by invading a country that had virtually nothing to do with it ultimately would be. Worst will come.

I saw snippets of the interview that George Stephanopoulos had with Colin Powell on "This Week" yesterday. Powell had some somewhat interesting things to say about the spying. His comments seemed very meausured. But what was telling to me was his comment about Dick Cheney. I forgot the complete comment Cheney offered, but Powell's response was like " I don't know what he is talking about." I thought that was kind of interesting and highlighted to me the strain that Powell had when he was the Secretary of State and the supposed tensions that existed between Powell and the more hawkish members of the administration ( Cheney) as it related to the Iraq war.

[ December 26, 2005, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

And it just gets even worse! Now it's coming out that, as some of us on here suspected, in the run-up to the war, the US was spying on Security Council members to find out how they were going to vote! Now explain to me what this has to do with "Al Qaeda" and "keeping America safe" as Lil' Emperor W was claiming???

It also poses the question, what other sorts of spying were these folks engaged in? Were they spying on Kerry and the other Democrats? Have they been spying on W's Republican critics to keep them in line? How far have they gone, and how will Americans be able to find out?

Fantomas, it is almost humorous watching Bush's sheep coming to his defense. People are now defending tactics used by Adolph Hitler. My, my how blind the sheep have become. I have a funny feeling the best is yet to come. Knowing this administration, I am sure I will not be disappointed.

Maybe Americans should stop worrying about what the president thinks (thats probably a contradiction in terms) and worry about what he does. Until then, remember to turn on the water taps when having phone sex, you never know who is listening in.

I don't know why we bother expecting them to ever obey the law.

Why refer to the Constition when to our President “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”. Whether he actually said that or not is immaterial in the face of his many arrogant acts that demonstrate his view.

Where are the Barbara Jordan's when you really need them? Certainly not serving in our current legislature. "Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?" in their absence?

Do you mean where are the Barbara Jordans among the Republicans, who control Congress? Because there are a number of Democrats who've called this administration to task more than once. But the Republicans in control refuse to do so, or like Arlen Specter they take baby steps....

Has a single Democrat made a serious call for Bush's impeachment. I think the Clinton experience and Bush's ruse that "We are in a WAR." has cowled the bunch of them.

We will always be "in a war" against terrorists or other law-breakers. So how much are we willing to except in terms of power of executive?

Yes. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a veteran of the Civil Rights movement, called for Bush's impeachment several weeks ago. Other Democrats have also suggested that W be impeached or at least seriously investigated for what is now tallying up to be a series of serious, potentially illegal actions, all of them far worse than getting his d*ck sucked in the Oval Office. (And BTW, since Laura joked about it, isn't bestiality illegal in Texas?)

Actually, no. IIRC, after the Lawrence v. Texas decision, it was revealed that beastiality was never criminalized by the Texas legislature that was so eager to brand all gays and lesbians as felons. Apparently there was some concern for the rural Texas boys who use sheep to relieve a little tension.

Oh my, so the Horse Masturbator could have been having his jollies but before Lawrence v. Texas two human beings of the same sex could be arrested? The question must be asked: how and why on earth was this possible?

Back to HM a/k/a W. I think this illegal domestic wiretapping, which he has repeatedly misdescribed and mischaracterized--lied about--in public (first that it was only going one way, that it was only with Al Qaeda-linked individuals overseas, etc.), is the perfect grounds for impeachment. Something was obviously wrong when Gonzales and Card have to go to Ashcroft's hospital bed and cajole him, against HIS OPPOSITION, to go along with it. Also, what was and is the extent of the spying? Why were we told that no purely domestic wiretapping was taking place when it's come out that it did, and that the NSA shared this info with a wide range of goverment agencies and officials? What did the wiretapping at the UN have to do with Al Qaeda? How can W defend that? The FISA law is very clear, and was strengthened again under a Republican Congress. He even signed off on it.

Conservatives--true conservatives--simply cannot be agreeing to this kind of extreme government intrusion, can they? Can they? Weren't they always harping about this during the Clinton years?

It is also interesting that the NY Times claims at least a dozen sources on the story - all government officials who were concerned about its legality. For an area of law enforcement that is extremely secretive, it is astonishing that so many people who knew about the program were willing to discuss it with a reporter specifically because of their concerns. As we also know, both Sen. Rockefeller and Rep Pelosi voiced their concerns to the administration seperately.

Well, it'll be interesting to see whether the "more-principled-than-thou" set will eventually stick by their principles or whether they stand by their man (Bush). If the Schiavo case was an indicator, it's safe to conclude that the answer is No -- they are more interested in political power than honest conservatism.

[ January 04, 2006, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

Excellent and very scary post on Americablog today. Truly chilling. It deals with Andrea Mitchell asking if Christian Amanpour's phones were tapped and why that would be pretty bad. Apparantly there is a question about the possibility that her various communications were. Enjoy and be very afraid. I am going to cut and paste in its entirety because I think the link will change with time so...

FYI -- americablog has the following exchange on its website, but the transcript on msnbc.com does not specifically mention Amanpour:

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

Yes Americablog says they (NBC) have since removed the part from the transcript. Hmmm.

On this, Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday (January 17), the originator of the quote dealing with sacrificing a little liberty for safety, would Franklin have approved of Bush's actions?

Has President Bush exceeded his constitutional authority or acted illegally in authorizing wiretaps without a warrant on calls between American citizens in the United States and people abroad who are, or are suspected of having ties to, terrorists?

Benjamin Franklin would not have thought so. In 1776 he and his four colleagues on the Continental Congress's foreign affairs committee (called the Committee of Secret Correspondence) unanimously agreed that they could not tell the Congress about the covert assistance France was giving the American Revolution, because it would be harmful to America if the information leaked, and "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

While the Constitution was being ratified in 1787 John Jay (later the first chief justice) in Federalist No. 64 praised the Constitution for giving the president power "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest." And of course Article II of the ratified Constitution gave the president the nation's "Executive power" and states that "the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

When in the early 1800s President Jefferson hired foreign mercenaries to invade Tripoli and free American hostages, he did not inform Congress in advance. In 1818, when a controversy arose over a diplomatic mission abroad, House Speaker Henry Clay told his colleagues that since the president had paid for the mission with his contingent fund it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry."

So it is clear that the Constitution's original intent was that the president had the authority to take undisclosed foreign actions to protect America.

In modern times, the 1947 National Security Act contained no provision for congressional oversight of presidential national-security actions. In 1968 Congress enacted the Safe Streets Act, providing that nothing in the act "shall limit the power of the President to take such actions as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities."

When President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, his attorney general noted that it did not "take away the power of the president under the Constitution," and in 1994, when President Clinton expanded FISA, his administration agreed. As constitutional scholar Robert Turner noted in The Wall Street Journal last month, "Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that in a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance 'without a court order.'"

America's judicial system has reached the same conclusion. The Supreme Court's 1972 decision in U.S. v. U.S. District Court (known as the "Keith case") held that the Fourth Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause applied to domestic wiretapping, but refrained from concluding that it restricts "the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers within or without this country."

In 1980 the Carter administration argued in the Truong case that the government could conduct domestic, warrantless wiretaps of conversations between a U.S. and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing on U.S. military intelligence to the North Vietnamese. The Supreme Court agreed.

In 1982 a federal court of appeals ruled that "the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agent."

And in 2002 the FISA court said that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

America is engaged in a global war against terrorists whose intention is to inflict significant damage upon us. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, at U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and of course in New York and Washington in 2001.
If we had known that one of those terrorist attacks was coming, could our government have electronically eavesdropped on the attackers without a warrant?

If a known Al Qaeda terrorist had made a phone call from outside the country to someone inside America about these or other attacks, could our government have listened in?

If we had found an American phone number on a captured terrorist's computer before one of the attacks, could the military have listened in to the next call without a warrant?

If we know of a conversation set for a week from Wednesday between an Al Qaeda operative in Iraq and a sympathetic American citizen in Illinois, one could argue there is time to seek a FISA warrant. But if the CIA has only a three minute knowledge of the call, may it listen in without one?

The answer to all these questions is yes; the federal courts have consistently ruled that the constitution gives the president the authority--as "Commander in Chief" or using his "executive Power"--to acquire foreign intelligence without warrants or other approvals.

There is of course a different view held by America's liberal left. Democratic chairman Howard Dean somehow believes that warrantless surveillance is "a serious blow to our ability to fight and win the war on terror."

And Ted Kennedy said last week that what the President has done in using his constitutional powers to listen in to terrorist communications is "such an arrogant and expansive view of executive power" that it "would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers."

But of course he has it backward too--it is what Sen. Kennedy believes that would have sent chills down the spines of Benjamin Franklin and our Founding Fathers.

So now you presume to speak for Ben Franklin in order to defend George W. Bush? Yeah, okay.

"A half-true is often a big lie."--Ben Franklin.

"When you have finished changing, you are finished." --Ben Franklin

Facts and the truth hurt, don't they?

Thought so.

When you come within a hundred yards (or years) of either, just let us know, "judge."

Meanwhile, I can't wait for the hearings to start on W's illegal warantless wiretapping. It looks like he's going to pay for yet another violation of our Constitution (that is unless the whole Abramoff-pay-to-play scandal, which he's intimately linked to, brings him down first). W is for Warrantless Wiretaps OR WORSTPRESIDENTEVER!

The fact is, the article was lifted in its entirety from The Wall Street Journal. It was written by Pierre Samuel \"Pete\" du Pont IV, who doesn't use the "Pierre" anymore, seeing as how it sounds French.

Ye smoking gun, thanks to ye olde Google:

'Better Than Well Said'

[ January 18, 2006, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

MIB, plagiarism is such an ugly thing. Certainly a judge understands that one doesn't lift another's words verbatim without giving due credit to the author. Really dude, that's pretty low down and embarrassing.

That's a FACT.

Thanks for the heads up twin58.

Damn, this is bad.

I figured he hadn't written that piece by himself, but hey, I didn't want to be accused of personally "attacking" him or launching a "diatribe." That someone else--and a known right-wing Republican failed US Presidential candidate--wrote it and published it in the Wall Street Journal, and that he didn't source it, isn't surprising. But then MIB claims to be an "independent." As I've said before, yeah, right.

I'm still waiting for him to source his original bit about Kennedy and the Owl Club, which appears to have originated in the Washington Times, another right-wing (and loony Moonie-controlled) paper. Independent? Uh huh.

Thanks Twin58!

[ January 18, 2006, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

MIB caught plagerizing? eek!

Say it ain't so!

Rob

Oh, MIB, how could you? We had this discussion a few weeks back when you didn't want to cite your sources from a radio commercial. Remember what I told you about damaged credibility? Apparently not. Now your credibility is in the toilet. How sad it had to come to this. How can we believe anything you write when you commit plagerism?

If he had to plagiarize (not saying one should, but hey, sometimes can't make arguments on their own and also are too trifling to cite/link to others or at least reference them), why not do it from a true political and ideological independent (like he claims to be) rather than a well-known right-wing shill like Pete duPont?

That man is blatantly ideologically right wing!

And to plagiarize from the Wall Street Journal's Ed pages--first, people on here do read the WSJ, and their Editorial pages are the most conservative portion of that paper. I would have given the "judge" credit for better sense than this...not sure why, but I just would have.

(I also realize why he kept projecting onto me that I copied from Kennedy's notes. I can think for myself, as is quite clear on here, and when I cite others, I add links, to the annoyance of some/many, but I guess he was trying to so hard to repress his own actions with the Washington Times (loony Moonie!)...well, has anyone Googled the texts of all those ScAlito responses from our favorite "jurist"?)

[ January 19, 2006, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Plagiarism? Hardly. I never said it was my article. I couldn't write anything so eloquent. It was a real article. Period. I intentionally didn't mention the source because I am sick and tired of blind people who automatically and constantly dismiss an article just because it appears in the WSJ, Wash. Times, or on FNC, etc. Those media outlets have a LOT more credibility than has-been outlets like the NYT (who couldn't even get the SCOTUS ruling yesterday corret-sheesh!), CBS, or even CNN.

[ January 19, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Considering it's been all over the media--uh oh, it must be false because FT says so--you can find numerous sources yourself. Add to that the fact that Kennedy himself is quitting this intolerant, sexist organization, well...

I'm still trying to figure out how the f**k someone can "source" a goddamn radio news promo commercial that one hears on the radio. There must be a link to that AUDIO transmission somewhere. Jesus H. Christ, get a clue already.

But when you first quoted it it wasn't all over the media, MIB. YOu know that. It appeared in the Washington Times, almost verbatim with your paragraph, and in Freeperland (which I'm not surprised you're part of). Very few people had even HEARD of the Owl Club until the Washington Times reported it, and even then they got the story slightly off. Naturally. So get your own tale together.

As for your plagiary, you didn't even cite that it was by Pete duPont. THAT, not just that it was from the WSJ, was the issue. Is he NOT a right-winger? Do most "independents" plagiarize the far right? Why print something as if it was your own text? I don't think that passes muster with most state bars...except the prison kind.

I forgot. As btmuscle so eloquently and accurately put it, anyone who disagrees with your ultra-left position is automatically and instantly labeled right-wing, nonindependent, conservative, etc. by you (which would put a sizeable majority of Americans in this "right-wing" category--wake up, not a lot of people agree with your neo-socialist views). A more intolerant individual I cannot find 'round these parts. I don't give a rat's patootie what you think, personally, for I'm comfortable in my proud independence and pragmatism.

Irrelevant.

[ January 19, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

This is such a bullshit justification MIB. You're really grasping here. After you posted the article, Fantomas asked you the following question:

"So now you presume to speak for Ben Franklin in order to defend George W. Bush?"

To which you responded:

"Facts and the truth hurt, don't they?"

I understood this as an implicit acknowledgment that you wrote the piece, which in retrospect was augmented by the fact that fantomas gave you an out--you had the opportunity to say that you didn't write the piece, but didn't take it. Furthermore, considering that you tell us all the time on these boards about your "genius," it seems pretty disingenuous for you to now say "I couldn't write anything so eloquent."

In light of the fact that you have attributed the words of others to the correct source in other circumstances, it leads me to wonder what's true and what's not with you. Which is sad because I've really been resisting the impulse to question your credibility (perhaps naively, since this is the anonymous world of cyberspace).

P.S. For someone who purportedly cherishes basic constitutional tenets, it's surprising that you would so readily misattribute someone else's intellectual property. This kind of thing has a chilling effect on creativity--a danger that even the "founding fathers" were concerned about, resulting in constitutionally-based IP protection.

P.P.S. We don't need your paternalism--let us judge the credibility of website by ourselves, instead of taking the opportunity away from us. If you are "sick" of others' opinions about Fox or the WSJ, just ignore those sentiments.

[ January 19, 2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Excuse me, but again you're wrong. Aubie, RebelFan, Aquaman, etc. do not agree with my positions all the time, and I hardly think they're "right-wing." But your political positions are consistently right-wing, and you defend Warrantless Wiretapper at every turn. And you've even taking to using the exact words without citation (plagiarism) of right wingers like Pete duPont. The only person in the 1988 primary to the *right* of him was Pat Robertson.

I know you could care less what I think, which is fine, so why not prove it. Don't reply to this message. Silence is golden, you know.

I honestly don't think that's possible, for as I said before, whenever FNC, the WSJ, Wash. Times, or any other such objective news sources are cited, it's the same old sanctimonious "playbook" response, as if ONLY the NYT or CNN could report accurately (even though the NYT has been so terribly inaccurate in its recent publications).

DuPont a \"right-winger\"? Puhleeze! He may be right of center, but he holds liberal views on issues. \"Right-winger\" he is not; but thank you for proving my point that anyone not aligned with your views is automatically branded a \"right-winger.\"

Then don't post anymore. This joint would be worth millions then.

I too have found fantomas to be an intolerant political bigot.

To arms!

Oh my God, the other MIB personality comes out! Which one is next? LOMAO!

This is simply silly. You don't know my personal feelings about NYT or CNN or Fox or the WSJ. And I still stand by the rest of my post, but feel free to respond with additional baseless normative judgments.

An American icon of Truth, Justice, & Liberty

Well two out of three ain't bad.

Oh no!

Could my day get any worse?!?

(Don't go blaming me for him, FT. PROOF, your Holiness.)

Your personal feelings are irrelevant. Fantomas's are the only ones that apparently matter.

Okay, you're just too much, \"judge.\" Pete du Pont:

From Human Events: Conservative Spotlight: Pierre S. du Pont IV:

Now that's not a right-winger? Personally Pat Robertson's beliefs might have been more conservative, but really, duPont is well within the right-wing mainstream.

More, from the very conservative (right-wing) National Center for Policy Analysis

In his own words, from 1999:

Say what you will, but that's a right-winger if ever there was one! Moderate? Liberal? Progressive? Naah.

Oh wait, so what are those "liberal" views? Or do you mean "libertarian"? There is a difference, you know, "judge."

[ January 19, 2006, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

"My Lord" would be preferable, and more appropriate.

MIB wrote:

How the heck do you define plagiarism sir? You printed an article with your name on it without ANY reference to the original author or even a simple disclaimer indicating that it was not your original thought. That most certainly IS, by definition*, plagiarism and is not only unethical but is, in some cases (not this one), illegal. But I don't have to tell YOU that now do I? wink

Just in case there's any misunderstanding:

* "The Meriam Webster Dictionary" says

pla-gia-rism - the act of presenting the ideas or words of another as one's own.

If you need to look up the definition of "presenting" feel free. It's very different from "declaring". You may not have declared that the words were your own but you certainly presented them as such.

[ January 19, 2006, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

I have had disagreements with fantomas, MIB and everyone in between on issues of faith, politics, and opinions that run the board. One thing that I always try to do however is disagree with someone without being disrespectful of, or insulting to, them. I think we on this board, and in greater American society, have lost the art of civil discord and the ability to disagree with dignity. The sad result is a lot gets said but nothing gets heard and consequently nothing gets fixed. I actually agree with various arguments of MIB (or whoever wrote "his" arguments wink ). Likewise, I find agreement with various arguments of fantomas. I disagree with each of these gentlemen on other things but, to my knowledge, I have never disrespected or insulted either of them and I have never been disrespected or insulted by either of them.

I'm not anyone on this board's Daddy (yet) but I would like to suggest that we maintain a civil tone and cut some of the personal attacks. I think that the discussions on these boards would be equally as informative and entertaining without getting the feeling that I'm in the middle of a cat fight.

I find self control and manners to be sexy as hell.

You haven't? Shit, I must be slipping. Either that or I am losing it.