Letters to the Editor
-
Is the White House lying about spying again?
I understand that to be a rhetorical question, however even taking into consideration the elasticity that now surrounds the concept of lying, I feel the question does not need to be a question and can easily be made into a statement
"The White House is lying about spying again."
-
Proof in the Pudding
It is creepy to see the Democratic Senate siding with the most extreme President in history. When they choose Gonzalez (of all people!) as a better protector for this country's safety and civil liberties over a secret court (FISA), they really are showing that Nader was -- in the end -- correct. So, why are the Democrats no different than the Republicans?
-
Is the White House lying?
Yes.
-
Again?? Still is the word you're looking for
None of this really matters. The spineless wonders will give the emperor everything he wants when he wants it. If they don't, he'll just break the law. Again.
I'm looking into an engineering position in Italy. I've about had it here.
-
The taste of shock...
...is a lot like vomit.
-
Now we see them
Well, the democrats have finally dropped all pretense at opposing the current administration. Personally I think it is time that they did so they could be seen for what they really are, compliant lap dogs, I mean it must be really hard living a double life like they have been living over the past months.
I wonder now when will the other shoe will drop?
Another thing to put at the feet of Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats involved in this farce.
-
inexplicable or inconceivable?
I really thought this was a no brainer-the Dems weren't gonna go along with this. It makes no sense and is inexplicable. But I am reminded of the line from The Princess Bride when the who continually says "inconceivable" and eventually another character says he better look up the meaning. Why give up power and leverage to a guy who continually lies and refuses to be held in anyway accountable? tragic is a better word in that the dems rolled again!
-
Yeah, the proof is in the pudding
Nader got it right. Blah blah blah.
The other day the bilious Ed Shultz said on the radio, "Folks, it's time to start thinking about a third party candidate."
So let's get Nader back to run again, or some other un-electable whack job.
Because after all, there's no difference at all between Republicans and Democrats. They are both the same. Blah blah blah.
And if you buy into that crap, then you are a pitiful, brain-dead idiot and you deserve eight more years of Republican crime.
As bad as Democrats can be, they've never gone as low as Bush.
If you really want Giuliani or Romney or worse, in the White House, then go ahead, find a doofus third-party candidate and throw your vote away. Fox Noise and the RNC will gladly help you.
-
Not Mad Enough? Read slowly... (e.g. watch for the word "process")
As reported by yesterday's AP story, the Republican proposal would replace 'prior permission' with the following (my italics):
Instead, it would allow the government to immediately begin intercepting foreign suspects' messages, and have the FISA Court review the eavesdropping process within 90 days afterward.
Excuse me? Review the process? We need to have each case reviewed, not just the process. (Not to mention the meaningless 90-day lag. How many days do you think it takes in 2007 to ruin a person's life?)
I can't bear the fact that the average American doesn't realize that the existing FISA law already gives Justice 72 hours after it begins eavesdropping before it has to submit a case to to the FISA court.
I happen to be reading a history of the 20th Century these days (Johnson), and this has so much precident in totalitarianism and fascism, it ain't funny. I just can't bear to watch this!!!
-
spinless dems
spineless....totally spineless...
what else is there to say?
-
"As bad as Democrats can be, they've never gone as low as Bush."
Wow, that's some recommendation. I keep hearing this about the "Democrats," who have adopted the new slogan, "Slowing down our inexorable slide into fascism!"
Well, guess what. That is just not good enough.
And I am not going to vote for any Democratic candidate who is acting so wholly against my interests and those of the vast majority of Americans.
-
Lying about Spying
We know that NSA farms a lot of their work out to private contractors (ChoicePoint of Florida election fraud fame being one of them). How much of the "terrorist" intelligence is being siphoned off for political use? Using government agencies for gaining and maintaining political power is common in tin-horn dictorships, why not here?
-
What, Exactly, Is Being Protected Here?
I'm simply going to toss this out, and I'm not the only one to be thinking along these lines.
There were eavesdropping and surveillance Programs established by a Secret Executive Order, written (at least in part) by John Yoo, in early 2002. We don't know the full scope of its activities.
The Programs were to be approved by the Attorney General *every 45 days* as being in compliance with law -- but the Programs did not fall under any review from the FISA Court.
Over March 11-12th, 2004, acting AG James Comey refused to approve the Programs as legal (Note:This was something John Ashcroft had done, like clockwork, for two years without demur).
Some aspect(s) of the Programs were in Comey's determination not lawful, and his feelings were strong enough to make him, and FBI Director Mueller, and other senior DoJ personnel, threaten to resign if the Programs were approved without some, unknown modification(s).
After the Keystone Kops routine between Ashcroft, Card, Comey and Gonzales at the hospital, and with Card and Bush at the White House, some changes were made in the Programs -- Bush, however, had already signed off and approved them without the Attorney General's signature. All this was kept in the family, without any word to Congress.
[Note: The New York Times had gotten wind of aspects of the surveillance Programs during 2004, but when the White House invoked needs of National Security, the Times sat on the story for a year or more.]
In December, 2005, The NYT -- when it appeared they were about to be scooped by another media agency -- printed a story which revealed (1)The existence of the secret 2002 Executive Order establishing the Programs; (2)The cooperation of nearly all U.S. telecomm, data-switching and hosting providers in harvesting data and voice communications, including the existence of specially-constructed facilities at the offices of these vendors, utilized by unidentified government personnel (in all probability from the NSA).
Due to the public revelations of the Programs, Bush admitted their existance -- however, he only admitted to inteception of communication between foreign nationals in communication with persons in the U.S., or with American citizens.
These specific items he referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP -- and even though Bush finally agreed to place these activities under review of the FISA Court, they were only aspects of the large Programs.
And even these aspects were potentially illegal -- in January, 2007, an FISA Court judge refuse to approve a warrant or warrants which the government had applied for. This was apparently not revealed to the new Congress.
Bush did not reveal any other aspects of the wiretapping and surveillance Programs. That there are other aspects has been suspected -- buy Comey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in MAy or 2007, and Gonzales' dissembling in July, gave even larger hints. Admiral McConnell's letter to Senator Specter of July 29th stated so, absolutely.
What, exactly, could be even more explosive that the Bush White House would fight so desperately to protect it?
The main question I'd like to raise is this: Does the administration's 'Programs' include large-scale data mining, on a scale that might capture nearly all digital (email) and voice traffic in or traveling through the United States?
And, here's the $64,000 question: Has that raw data, harvested from vendors and pass-through services, been processed or handled by private companies under contract to the government? Who in the administration, in the GOP, would have access to information that was being handled by a... private business?
Given the government's propensity to use contractors -- and this administration's use of 'private' intelligence networks organized by the OVP and at the DoD -- I would bet the answers are, yes, and, just about anyone Dick Cheney wanted to provide certain 'helpful' information to.
.