Article

2005-12-28 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Elmotch Unomoting3460 2005-12-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Its enough for the Failed/Angry Left that the terms "impeachment", "indictment" and
"investigation", etc. are used in the MSM's AM News-for-Dad/Mom, NOT whether anyone actually gets convicted or not.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-12-28 02:39|| 2005-12-28 02:39|| Front Page Top

#2 These guys are trying to build a Miranda equivalent covering electronic surveillance, such that terrorist suspects will be released if warrantless electronic surveillance was carried out.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-28 07:32|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-12-28 07:32|| Front Page Top

#3 This is a second order effect, or third or fourth, of allowing terrorists to be tried as criminal in our courts. None of this bullshit would be happening if DOJ had not wanted to be a spotlight ranger and try to get the glory of covicting terrorists. These terrorists are enemy combatants and should be tried in military courts!

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2005-12-28 08:07|| 2005-12-28 08:07|| Front Page Top

#4 Rove's to-do list.

1. Get the Terrorists Rights Attorneys to organize.

2. Make sure the TRA gets a place in the Democratic Convention.

3. Make sure the TRA donates to Hillary.

Posted by mhw 2005-12-28 08:43|| 2005-12-28 08:43|| Front Page Top

#5 The terror lawyers have access to very deep, very motivated pockets...

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-12-28 09:00|| 2005-12-28 09:00|| Front Page Top

#6 This is part of a systematic effort by the Left to destroy the President, and the hell with national security if they achieve their goal. And this is only the beginning. We have 2 -1/2 years until the presidental election and a little less than a year unitl the congressional mid terms. The Republicans better grow a spine.

The attacks will become more numerous and more vicious. When national security leaks are not dealt with immediately, then more people will leak. This country will not survive attacks by the fifth column unless the 5th column is shut down.

This is analagous to the body being attacked by a cancer or virus. The cancer or virus is always around, but when the body's immune system is weak, the cancer will attack and destroy the body, and itself eventually.

It is very difficult to be standing by and watching this crap going on, day after day.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-12-28 09:15|| 2005-12-28 09:15|| Front Page Top

#7 George F. Will, Conservative pundit, says Bush was wrong.

Here is a quote from his recent article titled:

"Why Didnt He Ask Congress"?

"Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

One reason was that Congress's cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled."

Posted by Cassini 2005-12-28 11:56|| 2005-12-28 11:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Gee, Cassini, it has nothing to do with the fact that Rockefeller's office was caught saying that they intended to play partisan politics with national security issues.

Go grovel down before your mass-murdering totalitarian masters, and lick the hand that would kill you.

In your case, it would be justifiable homicide.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-12-28 12:54|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2005-12-28 12:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Cassini-

Will's argument is one of appearances, not legality. It is settled law that the President of the US has the legal ability and perhaps even the duty to do the actions he did.

Will is wrong for the following reason; this accentuates the gap in public perception regarding which party is tough(er) on the US's enemies. That issue is a winner for the Republicans right now, and this isn't going to help. Whether this outweighs the uncertainty people feel regaring potential violations of rights in the long run remains to be seen, but so far it has been an overall winner for them.

Posted by Mark E. 2005-12-28 12:56|| 2005-12-28 12:56|| Front Page Top

#10 Ernest Brown:

So only democrats play partisan politics with
national security issues?

Heres a quote from a article that you may be
familiar with.

"Mr. Rove is the man who told Republicans they should use the war on terrorism for partisan advantage. This is what Rove actually said to the Republican National Committee in January 2002:

"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."

Posted by Cassini 2005-12-28 13:41|| 2005-12-28 13:41|| Front Page Top

#11 Cassini - so Rove should deny facts? Deny Americans want security, not a nanny state from losing defeatists? Garbage is still garbage. If Republicans are better on defense they should downplay that? Idiot

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-28 14:09|| 2005-12-28 14:09|| Front Page Top

#12 Frank G.

Republicans being "stronger on national defense" is not a fact, it is a opinion and a myth.

Furthermore the discussion with E.B. was about exploiting National Security issues for partisan
political advantage, which he accuses democrats of doing. As Karl Rove proved thru his statement, he and the republicans are hypocrites on this issue.

Posted by Cassini 2005-12-28 14:20|| 2005-12-28 14:20|| Front Page Top

#13 From Rasmussen poll:

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Rasmussen Poll

Cassini, you might like to argue that they are wrong, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that one party's leadership and candidates are out of step with the opinions of the general population. You might wish that isn't true, but you are just deluding yourself. You might call it "playing politics", but that is what we have elections for. If your propounded beliefs are different than likely voters' beliefs, it makes it much more difficult to win an election.

Posted by Mark E. 2005-12-28 14:23|| 2005-12-28 14:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Cassini

What is the specific hypocrisy?

Did Rove say something he didn't believe?
Did Rove do something he told other people not to do?

If so, could you please state exactly what belief was out of line with what Rove said or what act was out of line with what Rove told other people not to do.

Or maybe, I misunderstand and the hypocrisy charge has to do with someone other than Rove.

Posted by mhw 2005-12-28 14:26|| 2005-12-28 14:26|| Front Page Top

#15 Cassini = Anonymous = Left Angle

That is all.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-12-28 14:31|| 2005-12-28 14:31|| Front Page Top

#16 mhw:

Congressional Democratic critics of the Iraq War and President Bush's National Security policies were routinely pillored by Republicans for supposedly using their opposition to these issues for partisan politican gain.

Karl Rove went out at midterms and told Congressional republicans up for election to exploit the issue for partisan political gain at the same time repubs were denouncing the democrats for the same thing. Is this not hypocrisy?

Posted by Cassini 2005-12-28 14:46|| 2005-12-28 14:46|| Front Page Top

#17 Yes, because Rockefeller was determined to use his knowledge of classified defense issues against the Republicans, a little fact that Cassinifascist sweeps under the rug.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-12-28 14:51|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2005-12-28 14:51|| Front Page Top

#18 guessed as much, Sea. Cowards who troll via various names are easier to spot these days.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-28 14:58|| 2005-12-28 14:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Don't pick on Cassani cause of what he believes - he has a right to believe what he wants. If you believed those things, you might go by Anonymous too.

Posted by Hank 2005-12-28 15:11|| 2005-12-28 15:11|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm right now wondering what's the definition of "fascist" that Ernest Brown is using when he accuses Cassini of being such.

And people then accuse *me* of supposedly using the word too loosely!

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-12-28 15:12|| 2005-12-28 15:12|| Front Page Top

#21 Mark E.

This is what counts bottom line.

Probe Sought on NSA Surveillance
Members of Congress Question Legality of Bush's Authorization

By Hope Yen
Associated Press
Monday, December 19, 2005; Page A05

Democrats and Republicans called separately yesterday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.

Bush acknowledged Saturday that since October 2001 he has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts.

The New York Times disclosed the existence of the program last week. Bush and other administration officials initially refused to discuss the surveillance or their legal authority, citing security concerns.

"It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Cheney said yesterday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast tonight. "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

Bush and other administration officials have said congressional leaders have been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said there were no objections raised by lawmakers told about it.

"That's a legitimate part of the equation," McCain said on ABC's "This Week." But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Reid said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush "has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties."

Several lawmakers were not so sure. They pointed to a 1978 federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance under extreme situations, but only with court approval.

Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their legal authority for bypassing the courts. Bush said the attorney general and White House counsel's office had affirmed the legality of his actions.

Appearing with Specter on CNN's "Late Edition," Feingold said Bush is accountable for the program, regardless of whether congressional leaders were notified. "It doesn't matter if you tell everybody in the whole country if it's against the law," said Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the United States with "a clear link" to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to define the standards they are using to establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, in essence he becomes the court, Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."

Posted by Cassini 2005-12-28 15:14|| 2005-12-28 15:14|| Front Page Top

#22 Hank, he can believe anything. I believe he is wrong. Same as treason is wrong.

Posted by mjslack 2005-12-28 15:33|| 2005-12-28 15:33|| Front Page Top

#23 mjslack
You are right. Cassini is wrong and treason is wrong. But that don't make it right to call poor Cassini names. Let him be wrong with dignity.

Posted by Hank 2005-12-28 15:40|| 2005-12-28 15:40|| Front Page Top

#24 Hank...it reminds me of the Capital One commercial...all they want is their dignity. :)
Cassini can bask in wrongness.

Posted by mjslack 2005-12-28 15:52|| 2005-12-28 15:52|| Front Page Top

#25 "This is what counts bottom line.

Probe Sought on NSA Surveillance
Members of Congress Question Legality of Bush's Authorization"

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps your bottom line differs from mine. Mine is election returns. Your's are probes and committees and convictions in a court of law and impeachments. I'm talking about which party people prefer on a particular issue. To say that people don't think Republicans are stronger on national defense is delusionary. To say that a violation of the law occurred here is delusionary. To say that most voters think that the President shouldn't spy on foreign individuals when they call the US is delusionary. If the Democrats want to have delusions that they have a constituency for these positions sufficient to win nationwide elections, so be it. But as a registered Democrat in Chicago, I despair for the party.

The real bottom line is/are elections.

Actually, the real bottom line is victory, and as Patton said, "Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a looser." If someone wants to align themselves with defeat, with weakness, then I forsee a tough election cycle.

Posted by Mark E. 2005-12-28 16:10|| 2005-12-28 16:10|| Front Page Top

#26 "Let him be wrong with dignity."

Then let him be wrong in silence.

His dignity is his responsibility, not ours; but the drooling mucoid apparently doesn't value that dignity, or he'd stop displaying his idiocy for all to see.

We're not babysitters.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2005-12-28 16:38|| 2005-12-28 16:38|| Front Page Top

#27 LOL, DD! Drooling mucoid?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-28 16:59|| 2005-12-28 16:59|| Front Page Top

#28 Cassini

here is one of your premises for the charge of hypocrisy (the other premise I agree with)

"Congressional Democratic critics of the Iraq War and President Bush's National Security policies were routinely pillored by Republicans for supposedly using their opposition to these issues for partisan politican gain."

First, unless Rove made this claim, Rove can't be guilty of hypocrisy. Second, I don't agree with this premise. It is certainly true that Republicans routinely pillored (interesting word that but that's another thing) Democratic critics but this criticism almost never was 'You are criticising the war for political gain'. It was frequently, "you are hurting the country by mistating facts" or "you are hurting the country by implying our troops are savages" or "you are hurting the country by implying Americans are bad". No doubt somebody, somewhere criticized Dems for 'just trying to criticise the war for political gain' but such cases must have been few and far between because I can't remember a single one.

Posted by mhw 2005-12-28 17:19|| 2005-12-28 17:19|| Front Page Top

#29 "Then let him be wrong in silence."

No - Cassini has the right to be publicly wrong. Freedom of speech does not require one to be right - that's so the left can talk too. Even when they made these rules, they let the British sympathizers talk. The public airing of wrong ideas usually leads to someone pointing out how it is wrong, and this allows the open minded folks to learn. See, the post by mhw is an example of this - he is showing Cassini the error of his ways.

Posted by Hank 2005-12-28 17:33|| 2005-12-28 17:33|| Front Page Top

#30 I fail to see where calling a %&^%* like Cassini=Left Angle=Anonymous=whatever violating his free speech, Hank. He has been spouting nonsensical troll drivel quite freely here on RB. Calling people names is quite effective actually as it quickly sums up the situation in a Low Bandwidth kinda way. LOL.

Posted by TomAnon 2005-12-28 18:36|| 2005-12-28 18:36|| Front Page Top

#31 To all:
Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Posted by Snuter Snineter3342 2005-12-28 18:38|| 2005-12-28 18:38|| Front Page Top

#32 SS, Do you mean, Better to remain silent and be suspected a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?

Posted by Throper Angeresing1335 2005-12-28 19:05|| 2005-12-28 19:05|| Front Page Top

#33 TomAnon> Calling people names is quite effective actually as it quickly sums up the situation in a Low Bandwidth kinda way. LOL

But ofcourse it also has the consequence that that all *polite* opposition disappears quite soon from Rantburg, while I (who have no problem matching insult for insult) stick around.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-12-28 19:16|| 2005-12-28 19:16|| Front Page Top

#34 Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
If these slime buckets get off, something is definitely wrong in our justice system. I thought that those who weren't citizens were under different rules, that had connections.
The terror lawyers have access to very deep, very motivated pockets... Seafarious, I agree with you on this, pretty scary. Money can get most out of awful jams.

Posted by Jan 2005-12-28 19:53|| 2005-12-28 19:53|| Front Page Top

#35 "while I (who have no problem matching insult for insult) stick around"
That's one thing about drooling mucoid -- it sticks around no matter how hard you try to clean it up.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-28 21:18|| 2005-12-28 21:18|| Front Page Top

#36 Hey, I at least would like to think we're all on the same side here. Also that we would all value a clear and decisive ruling on not allowing these terrorists to go free on some supposed technicality. They should be judged in a different setting of courts. Military possibly? The wire tapping and such I thought was very clear how it differed from home front VS non citizen types with ties to possible terrorists.
The big issue here being the leaks. This is the big crime the way I see it.

Posted by Jan 2005-12-28 21:49|| 2005-12-28 21:49|| Front Page Top

#37 Correct, Jan. The crime is the leak. Where's Mr. A. Gonzales?

Posted by mjslack 2005-12-28 22:00|| 2005-12-28 22:00|| Front Page Top

#38 "while I (who have no problem matching insult for insult) stick around"

"In my most personal superb excellence - it's all about meeeeee"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-28 22:22|| 2005-12-28 22:22|| Front Page Top

#39 Frank, even if *my* posts are indeed all about me, why are *your* posts all about me, too?

Anyway, told y'all the reason why you mostly have to make do with me rather than find some more civil opposition -- you tend to drive away with namecalling and rabid insulting all the people who are less obnoxious than yourselves. How you deal with that knowledge is up to you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-12-28 23:20|| 2005-12-28 23:20|| Front Page Top

#40 nobody says y'all...idjit. Just like you have no concept of the electoral college, you learned everything you know about America poorly, and it reflects in your insipid use of incorrect colloquialisms. I'm just irked by the fact your hyper-sense of personal self esteem isn't matched by anything coming from you except your boasting hubris, you are and always will be a punk. Keep trying to impress - nothing succeeds like continued failure, the odds are with you.... nite

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-28 23:28|| 2005-12-28 23:28|| Front Page Top

23:45 Bomb-a-rama
23:40 anymouse
23:28 Frank G
23:20 Aris Katsaris
23:19 jules 2
23:15 Jomotch Joluting1256
22:57 Jomotch Joluting1256
22:55 Jomotch Joluting1256
22:45 Grock Wheth9241
22:43 Frank G
22:31 Snoth Ulomosh7586
22:22 Frank G
22:12 newc
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:07 Frank G
22:05 Frank G
22:00 mjslack
21:56 JosephMendiola
21:49 Jan
21:26 Darrell
21:18 Darrell
20:48 Bomb-a-rama
20:44 Bomb-a-rama
20:43 Flaimble Snoluter5515