Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
kimocrossman
Published Letters: 18
Don't want to get all conspiracy but..
On top of lobbyist cash... Were any of the votes obtained through blackmail?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sanchez16mar16,0,4039194.story
Without meaningful oversight, presidents and intelligence agencies can -- and repeatedly have -- abused their surveillance authority to spy on political enemies and dissenters.
The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts -- and the presidents they served -- had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices -- even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often "collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action."
Political abuse of electronic surveillance goes back at least as far as the Teapot Dome scandal that roiled the Warren G. Harding administration in the early 1920s. When Atty. Gen. Harry Daugherty stood accused of shielding corrupt Cabinet officials, his friend FBI Director William Burns went after Sen. Burton Wheeler, the fiery Montana progressive who helped spearhead the investigation of the scandal. FBI agents tapped Wheeler's phone, read his mail and broke into his office. Wheeler was indicted on trumped-up charges by a Montana grand jury, and though he was ultimately cleared, the FBI became more adept in later years at exploiting private information to blackmail or ruin troublesome public figures. (As New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer can attest, a single wiretap is all it takes to torpedo a political career.)
How can Pres declare US Citizens as US Enemy Combatants? - he does not have Domestic authorities under AUMF Limited War on foreign 9/11 terrorists only
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=civilliberties_180#civilliberties_180
"Daschle will also write that the White House attempted to add draft language to the AUMF resolution that would give the administration new and sweeping authority to use force to “deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States,” even against nations and organizations not responsible for the 9/11 attacks." &
“Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words ‘in the United States and’ after ‘appropriate force’ in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas—where we all understood he wanted authority to act—but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.”"
@greenlabormike
Please read whole Washington Post OpEd I referred to - Daschle said AUMF explicitly did not include US only foreign and only for 9/11 related
“Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words ‘in the United States and’ after ‘appropriate force’ in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas—where we all understood he wanted authority to act—but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.”"
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=civilliberties_180#civilliberties_180
@Greenlabormike
My point is that I wonder if this is Legislative Intent which *does* modify legal interpretation.
And I believe Amicus parties missed it because the OpEd was about Warentless Spying.
"And making this argument implicitly suggests that the President could detain civilians in a military prison if he caught them elsewhere. In international waters, for example. "
Only if they were associated with 9/11.
Suddenly McCain cares about getting the word out (when it's his).
A dust up on Drudge about NyTimes reject draft McCain OpEd
http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'
Thursday 7/24 11AM-Noon PST
A conversation with Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire: Inside the Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing and as it happens - just released Salon expose on “Main Core”–
Call-in questions or email your questions in advance!
KALW San Francisco 91.7
Listen online live or archive later that day on-demand
http://www.yourcallradio.org/
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
