The Bill of Rights

[floydian slip]

Let us take a look at what our “Bill of Rights” has become today:


Article I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. And yet, over the last 40 years, the Courts have been doing just that: prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, and at the same time establishing a national religion; atheism. Now, contrary to those who believe otherwise, the Constitution is NOT violated by a person’s public display of religious faith. Rather, our Constitution is violated when federal judges presume to invent new laws by fiat, which persecute those with whom they disagree! The phrase “free exercise” means “to do”, to practice the freedom to LIVE your faith! But liberal judges are putting us in a box where freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. You can privately believe what you want, but you cannot publicly ACT on what you believe! When federal judges suppress the desire of the people in states and communities to express their reverence for Almighty God, what they are doing IS imposing religion. Their religion; a national religion of atheism! These liberal, elitist judges are establishing this national religion of atheism in defiance of the Constitution, which forbids any federal role concerning establishment of religion! And YOUR right to the “free exercise” of Religion is no more!

“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech”. The Founders added this clause with the intent to protect all speech, but especially Political Speech! The Founders understood that opposition to tyranny required the free expression of ideas; they knew that outlawing the free exchange of political ideas was the quickest way to tyranny in government. And yet, do we still enjoy the pleasure of “Free” political speech? Not really. With the passage of the McCain-Feingold “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” our right to Free Political Speech has been severely diminished. Because of “McCain-Feingold” groups of citizens who band together (such as the NRA). and who wish to run political speech broadcasts through any electronic medium, are banned from doing so by a total blackout 30 days before a federal primary or party caucus and 60 days before a general election if such speech “refers to a clearly identified candidate”, and if it might be seen or heard by 50,000 people in a state or congressional district. Any organization violating the ban, even making reference to a candidate’s name in connection with the popular name of federal legislation, (like McCain-Feingold), could be convicted of a criminal act. Now of course, there are exceptions; like candidates running for re-election, and the biggest exception of all, the media. They are utterly free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, (which, by the way, is the way it ought to be). This amounts to nothing more than a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and free political speech.


Article II: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. That this is an individual right, and not some “collective” states right is obvious to anyone who takes the time to research the issue! But do we enjoy an Un-Infringed Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms today? The answer is NO! When Congress can pass (and the Courts uphold) a law that bans the ownership of certain Long Guns or Handguns, that is an Infringement of your Second Amendment Right to “Keep” Arms. When Congress can pass (and the Courts uphold) legislation such as the “Gun Free School Zones” law, that is an Infringement of your Second Amendment Right to “Bear” Arms.

The first federal “Gun Free School Zones Act” (1990) was struck down as Un-Constitutional by the US Supreme Court, because the act exceeded the authority of Congress to regulate Commerce. On April 26, 1995, Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court: “In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense ‘for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone’ [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A)]. The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress ‘to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States’ (US Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3)”.

But that was not the end of the “Gun Free School Zones Act”. In 1994, Congress re-introduced the same legislation; but with a few minor changes. First, they placed the phrase “interstate commerce” several times throughout the act: “USC - Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 44 - Section 922: Q, (2): (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone”. Second, they included a whole new first section, in which they attempt to make the case that since firearms “Move Easily” in interstate commerce, that then gives them the power to regulate when and where those firearms may be carried; contrary to the Second Amendment of course! Following that logic, Congress should also then have the power to ban what books one may possess, since the sale of books also involves that they “Move Easily” in interstate commerce. Also, in this new section, Congress grant’s to themselves the power to “enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools” (supposedly under the ‘interstate commerce clause’ and ‘other provisions of the Constitution’).

Furthermore, some states don’t allow you to carry a firearm at all; while those that do (with the notable exceptions of Alaska and Vermont) require you to jump through a variety of paperwork hoops before you can do so. The regulations are even worse in some places, such as New York City, Chicago, and our nation’s capital where it’s next to impossible to own a gun at all. When the government can ban us from owning the very Firearms the Founders intended that we should all own as part of the Militia (of the kind in common use by the military), that is an Infringement of our Second Amendment Right, as members of the Unorganized Militia, to “Keep and Bear” Arms.

Over and above all this, the Second Amendment contains its own admonition to the government, clearly stating that “the Right to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed”. In other words, the “Right to Bear Arms” may not be “Deteriorated, Weakened, or Violated” in any way! It is right there in the wording of the Amendment! So how does the Government justify such statutes as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Brady Law requiring a background check before you can purchase a Firearm? These are definitely Infringements upon our Second Amendment Right! The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 1822: “But to be in conflict with the Constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form… whatever restrains the Full and Complete exercise of that Right, though not an entire destruction of it, is Forbidden by the explicit language of the Constitution”. And the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in 1840: “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of a Right, or which requires Arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be Clearly Unconstitutional”.

Clearly, the Firearms Laws and Statutes imposed upon “We the People” by the federal government over the last 100 years surely “Restrain the Full and Complete exercise of our Second Amendment Right”; and are without a doubt “Forbidden by the explicit language of the Constitution”!


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

Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are supposed to be protected from unwarranted searches. Unfortunately, for reasons of expediency and because it was permitted to do so by a complacent public, exceptions were made to various aspects of the Fourth Amendment in the name of the War on (fill in whatever you wish - drugs, terror, ect...). Outside of consent, there are now any number of exceptions to the need for a warrant in a search, many of which are a direct result of the “War” .Still others exist because “they’re for your own good” or “for your safety” or, worst of all, “for the children.”

Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are supposed to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects. Yet it has now been decided that being forced to show your bags, purses, and ID’s upon command is not unconstitutional. You can be arrested, as an American citizen, for failure to do so. Recently, the Miami police said they will stage random, high profile drills, including surrounding a building and checking everyone’s ID, to remind citizens of the need to be vigilant. Deputy police chief Frank Fernandez called it “an in-your-face strategy” that would keep al-Qaida and other groups off guard. The plan also called for posting uniformed and plainclothes officers on buses and trains, and for long-term surveillance operations. Fernandez told reporters that the department wants people to notice the increased security. He said, “We want that shock, we want that awe”.

Yet, there is no legal authority for the Police to randomly demand that anyone entering or leaving a bank, hotel, or any other public place, must “show their papers”. The courts have consistently upheld the absolute right of Americans to travel freely without interference or harassment, and walking is traveling, just like riding a horse or driving a car. Unlike a roadside stop, one does not need government authorization to walk down the sidewalk; that’s why it’s called a Drivers License, not a “government authorization to leave your house” license. Furthermore, randomly conducting sieges on public buildings and demanding to see a Person’s ID with no evidence linking them to terrorist or any other criminal activity, is completely Unconstitutional, and a clear Violation of the Fourth Amendment. The City of Miami has no compelling reason to demand it’s citizenry show identification papers while they practice a “show of force” to impress some would be terrorists.

Free Americans have a constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U.S. Constitution! Crandall v. Nevada (73 U.S. 6 Wall. 35, 49 - 1868) “We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states”. Worthy v. Herter (270 F.2d 905, 908, D.C.Cir. 1959) “The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty”. Kent v. Dulles (357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 - 1958) “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment”. United States v. Guest (383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 - 1966) “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union”. Shapiro v. Thompson (394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329 - 1969) “This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”. Dunn v. Blumstein (405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 -1972) “The right to travel is an ‘unconditional personal right’, a right whose exercise may not be conditioned”.


Article V: “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

The Fifth Amendment Right to silence (a person cannot be forced to incriminate himself) was effectively taken from us with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the case of Hiibel v. Nevada.

And the right to private property was eviscerated by the Supreme Court ruling that determined eminent domain could be used to take property from one private entity to give to another richer private entity. On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development; thereby ending Private Property Rights in America. By their outrageous 5 to 4 decision in “Kelo vs. City of New London”, the Supreme Court has altered the intent and the meaning of the Constitution, and nullified the Public Use Clause. Government can now take private property for any use it describes as a “public purpose.” One of the most fundamental rights that this country was built upon has been pretty much obliterated! Article V states: “..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The key term here is “public use”. There is a difference between “public use” and “public purpose”. The Constitution sets forth the legitimate purposes for which the government may own property. Article I, Section 8 states: “...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment requires that just compensation be paid, when private property is taken for public use.


Article VI: “ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.

The Sixth Amendment Right to “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against you; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in your favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for defense” NO LONGER EXISTS, thanks to the phony “War on Terror” and the “Patriot Act” (I, II, and soon to be Permanent). The federal government need simply to label you a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant”, and All of your Sixth Amendment Rights magically disappear! NO more right to “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”; you can be held indefinitely, without ANY charges being brought, nor being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you. NO more right to “confront the witnesses against you”; the government can now use secret evidence at your trial (if you’re lucky enough to get one).


Article IX: “ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.

There were those at the time the Constitution was written who were worried that there was no Bill of Rights. Others were concerned that writing a Bill of Rights might cause officials to someday determine that the only rights the people had were those that were written down. The latter is the short explanation for the existence of the Ninth Amendment which says that, just because it’s not written here, doesn’t mean the people don’t still have certain rights. Yet how many arguments have many of us heard from the mouths of our friends, neighbors, lawyers, and even politicians that include the words, "It’s not in the Constitution that you can..." The Ninth Amendment, at least for the purposes of actually protecting any rights, is almost certainly at least as damaged and gone as most of the others.


Article X: “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

The Tenth Amendment, of course, makes the condition of the Ninth look healthy. Under the clause of the Constitution that says Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, judges and Congressmen alike have usurped virtually unlimited powers. Our First President, George Washington warned of this very scenario. In his Farewell Address, on Amending the Constitution, he said: "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

As for the wording of the Tenth Amendment, I believe the wording in the Articles of Confederation conveyed it’s intended meaning much better: Article II: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.


and the terrorists hate us for our freedom lol

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

[url=http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84594]


and the terrorists hate us for our freedom lol

You have never been outside North America have you? Take a trip to Cuba or Mainland China, etc... You have no idea how good you have it.


Maybe Bush should just say – “OK, the Democrats want us to stop intercepting communications; they want us to stop chasing the terrorists; they want to grant full legal access to the terrorists. well, if that's what they want fine, I've ordered all of the counterterrorism activities that they complain about stopped. I will also order any activity that they object to in the future stopped. Questions and complaints after the next terrorist attack should be referred to the DNC.”

Warrants By: jsteele

Let me 'splain this to you:
1. Intercepts of wholly domestic communcation (for the Democrats in the crowd domestic means inside the US e.g. New York to LA)
....... Get a Warrant
2. Intercepts of wholly international communications (for the Democrats in the crowd wholly international means outside the US e.g. London to Karachi)
....... Skip the Warrant
3. Intercepts of international to/from domestic communcations originating or terminating at a number discovered on a terrorist Rolladex in Waziristan (for the Democrats in the crowd the terrorists are the actual bad guys, not us)
....... Skip the Warrant until we determine that the US end is a US citizen or legal resident at which point get a warrant.

Why is this so hard to understand and for so-called journalists to report properly?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Maybe Bush should just say – “OK, the Democrats want us to stop intercepting communications; they want us to stop chasing the terrorists; they want to grant full legal access to the terrorists. well, if that's what they want fine, I've ordered all of the counterterrorism activities that they complain about stopped. I will also order any activity that they object to in the future stopped. Questions and complaints after the next terrorist attack should be referred to the DNC.”

you either don't understand the issues or you don't want to, and you would be singing a very different tune if a Democratic administration were conducting itself thusly..

the issue is adhering to the Constitution - there is no pursuit of terrorists that could not be accomplished within the framework of the existing pre-9/11 legal structure. the administration makes lots of noise about strict Consitutional constructionists, but then applies that doctrine very selectively.

the "Dems are soft on terrorists" mantra is how Bush apologists like yourself compensate for their eagerness to trade in their civil liberties for an illusion of security. why are righties such pussies?

[albed]

Adding name calling to the whining now...seems like desperation; though calling the people willing to fight "pussies" is comical. Whose privacy was invaded anyway? Whose freedom was unjustly taken away by the 'evil terrorist Bush administration'? You whiners don't have any concern at all for real americans just a hatred for America's government and opposition to the values of freedom and justice and your only true concern is weakening the United States.

[floydian slip]

you guys are not getting it!!!

you are using the the word democrat like its a different breed of politician
they are all the sme folks

there would be no terror if the administrations of the second half of last century didnt have the policy of sticking there noses where they diddnt belong, there would be no osama if we diddnt fund and train him to begin with.

now the big bad boogie man beat the commies hes gonna get us. now hes after us because he hates freedom? get real people. our government and the rich bastards hate our freedom and they are using the emanual goldstien to scare us.

look at the record profits of the energy companies, health industry and the pharmacuticles and there are your terrorists!

[floydian slip]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...arns26.art.htm


OIL

No. 3 U.S. oil company ConocoPhillips on Wednesday reported a 50% jump in quarterly profit to sail past forecasts, propelled by soaring oil and gas prices.

The results capped the most profitable year in the company's history and extended its streak of beating analysts' estimates to a 12th-consecutive quarter.

'LEGAL' DRUGS

The drugmaker posted a higher fourth-quarter profit because of lower taxes, but warned that 2006 earnings might fall as much as 20% as its Pravachol cholesterol drug and other drugs face generic competition. Full-year 2005 profit fell 18% as several of its drugs lost sales to generics, but the company said profit growth should resume in 2007.

HEALTH CARE

The USA's largest health insurer said fourth-quarter profit more than tripled on strong revenue and membership growth due to the 2004 combination of Anthem and WellPoint Health Networks.

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The No. 5 U.S. defense contractor said quarterly profit rose a greater-than-expected 21%, helped by sales of military gear, electronic radio systems and Gulfstream business jets. But it forecast full-year profit below estimates, as it deals with slower growth in Pentagon spending and starts to account for the cost of stock options given to employees.

The maker of Abrams tanks and Stryker fighting vehicles had fourth-quarter net profit of $406 million, or $2 a share, vs. $336 million, or $1.66, a year earlier. That beat forecasts of $1.97 a share, Reuters Estimates says. General Dynamics stock fell $1.46 to $114.34.

The company reported higher sales of its combat vehicles and a wide range of electronics used by the U.S. military for communications, computing, intelligence and reconnaissance. Its Gulfstream unit delivered 24 business jets in the quarter, up from 21 a year earlier.

General Dynamics, which also makes nuclear-powered submarines and destroyers, is vulnerable to Pentagon budget cuts but has benefited recently from the cyclical surge in commercial plane orders.

[theknife]

from today's NYT, a neat recap of the administration's feeble and largely false justification of it's illegal spying program:

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

Published: January 29, 2006
A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.

•

Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier.

Only bad guys are spied on. Bush officials have said the surveillance is tightly focused only on contacts between people in this country and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch — a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway.

The spying is legal. The secret program violates the law as currently written. It's that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse. It said that the government could not spy on Americans by reading their mail (or now their e-mail) or listening to their telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The court has approved tens of thousands of warrants over the years and rejected a handful.

As amended after 9/11, the law says the government needs probable cause, the constitutional gold standard, to believe the subject of the surveillance works for a foreign power or a terrorist group, or is a lone-wolf terrorist. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief" and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review.

Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

The rules needed to be changed. In 2002, a Republican senator — Mike DeWine of Ohio — introduced a bill that would have done just that, by lowering the standard for issuing a warrant from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion" for a "non-United States person." But the Justice Department opposed it, saying the change raised "both significant legal and practical issues" and may have been unconstitutional. Now, the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are telling Americans that reasonable suspicion is a perfectly fine standard for spying on Americans as well as non-Americans — and they are the sole judges of what is reasonable.

So why oppose the DeWine bill? Perhaps because Mr. Bush had already secretly lowered the standard of proof — and dispensed with judges and warrants — for Americans and non-Americans alike, and did not want anyone to know.

War changes everything. Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.

The administration also says that the vote was the start of a war against terrorism and that the spying operation is what Mr. Cheney calls a "wartime measure." That just doesn't hold up. The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war. But the men who wrote it had in mind wars with a beginning and an end. The war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney keep trying to sell to Americans goes on forever and excuses everything.

Other presidents did it. Mr. Gonzales, who had the incredible bad taste to begin his defense of the spying operation by talking of those who plunged to their deaths from the flaming twin towers, claimed historic precedent for a president to authorize warrantless surveillance. He mentioned George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales's timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score.

as if further grounds for impeachment were needed...

[albed]

So why aren't the dems in congress doing their duty and introducing impeachment measures?


Could this be another "immediate withdrawal from Iraq" gimmick where they only squawk the words for propaganda purposes and have no intention of actually doing it?


Boy, wouldn't it be embarrassing to be fooled again by the same trick?

[theknife]

your GOP-controlled Congress have demonstrated repeatedly that they value party over country, and therefore would not allow an impeachment vote to come to the floor - yet.

but thier days are numbered, so sit tight and stay tuned.

[albed]

I'm still sitting tight over Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. How much tighter must I sit?


I haven't even heard of a motion for the republicans to reject yet, just the usual empty words to the media. The dems are demonstrating the same courage in Washington that they used to get their purple hearts; they scratch themselves and apply for a medal and then run for office on their claims of bravery and sacrifice; then scream "SWIFTBOATING" when someone uncovers the truth. Murtha and Kerry are real chickens of a feather.


At the rate the paleolibs move they'd better get started now smearing Giuliani and Rice if they want to ruin them before they finish their two terms.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

I'm still sitting tight over Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. How much tighter must I sit?

you need an update? ok, i think i can do that - let's look at the big picture:

top White House aide Karl Rove is the currently subject of an ongoing federal investigation for various felonies. top VP aide Scooter Libby goes to trial later this year for five felonies and takes Cheney's office with him.

Rove is also directly connected to admitted swindler/GOP bagman Jack Abramoff in a variety of ways including White House access at 25K a pop. this has the White House in full stonewall mode, unwilling to address the Abramoff/Bush connection, of which at least six photos exist. one White House offiicial has already been arrested and charged in connection to Abramoff.

Abramoff's connection to the GOP establishment will produce at least several indictments of GOP Congressman and aides in the next few months. this follows the examples set by the GOP leadership in both the House and Senate - both either under criminal investigation - or indictment - as we speak.

and so forth. edit: do you kinda see a pattern here?

[theknife]

so much for spying on suspected terrorists - turns out the Bush administration is spying on everybody:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

I don't see any problem with that, they're not recording or listening to conversations, therefore no one rights are abused.

[Mazer]

I'm sure this kind of data collection has been going on for decades, the phone companies use the data to improve their telephone service. I'm not even surprised the NSA got a hold of that data, but like Hegemonic says, how much of our privacy have they really invaded? When they want to wiretap they have to go to court to get the telcos to cooperate, but in this case they've volunteered that information. I guess it's just a question of how well you trust your phone service provider.

[albed]

But they're using it to fight terrorists; and they didn't even tell the liberals so they could leak to the press and warn the terrorists again.


That's what's really so awful from a liberal point of view.

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200375_pf.html

[Mazer]

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

Had the results of the poll been reverse, with 63% of Americans against the NSA program, do you think the Washington Post would have posted this evidence of the poll's inaccuracy?

[theknife]

Qwest

WASHINGTON, May 12 — The telecommunications company Qwest turned down requests by the National Security Agency for private telephone records because it concluded that doing so would violate federal privacy laws, a lawyer for the telephone company's former chief executive said today.
Multimedia

In a statement released this morning, the lawyer said that the former chief executive, Joseph N. Nacchio, made the decision after asking whether "a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request."

Mr. Nacchio learned that no warrant had been granted and that there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," said the lawyer, Herbert J. Stern. As a result, the statement said, Mr. Nacchio concluded that "the requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act."

[Mazer]

Hmm, odd how Qwest was the only company to interpret the law that way.

Yeah there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process" because there is no needed "legal process", the info the government asked for is the same info telecommunication companies sell to telemarketers.