Monday, July 7, 2008

Thom Hartmann brought up an excellent point today; one that I've suspected for quite a couple of years now.

First off, we KNOW that the Refucks have gotten into the files of Democratic legislators, reading emails and memos, using some to formulate strategies on judicial and other nominees, and simply leaking some to the press. This was not (just) during Nixon's reign, but Bush's.

Next, we KNOW that Bush began his warrantless wiretapping/data mining Long before 9-11; in February of 2001; roughly one month after he took office. Qwest, upon advice from their own lawyers, refused to cooperate.

Going back to Nixon, we have the Watergate break-in and the break-in, not (just) of Daniel Ellsberg's office, but of his Psychiatrist's office. Just a couple of examples from Tricky Dicky's bag of dirty "tricks."

And let's not even get into who J. Edgar Hoover spied upon: Everyone from Errol Flynn and Frank Sinatra, to LBJ and JFK.

So spying within the American government on itself is nothing new. Hell, I'll bet even Jimmy Carter wanted to know who had lust in their hearts, but to what end? WHY all the spying?

Knowledge is power, and while we KNOW Dubya has no love of knowledge, we also know that he is obsessed with power. He needs it even more than his booze and his coke. Having things done his way is... There is no other way, so...

We look at spying from an historical point of view, and we look at the Democrats rolling over time and again, and especially as they have since November '06; we look at how no one from Dubya's inner circle has appeared before Congress and we even look at how David Vitter and Larry Craig still DO sit there, and we, or at least I, have to wonder, like Thom did today:

What do those White House mother fuckers have on Pelosi? Hoyer? Reid? Obama? ???

Oh... If you heard Ed Schultze's interview with Obama last week... his crap about su[pporting this latest FISA giveaway, that it's OK because there's an "Exclusivity clause" in it...? Obama's full of shit.

It's CRAP!

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions.

Read more here:

On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress


Dale said...

One of my points all along has been that regardless of how many past presidents were guilty of spying without warrants, Bush openly admits it. There is no need for anyone to gather evidence against him. He has openly admitted to authorizing warrantless wiretaps. Good bye fourth amendment.

Chris in Seattle said...

Bush believes and pushes the Nixonian idea that if the preznit does it it's legal; he cannot break the law simply because he is president. In other words, he is king.

This proposed law takes away any judicial oversight. All thats needed is a note from a preznitial lawyer saying that they think it's legal because...they think it's legal and the courts are supposed to back off and assume that it really is legal. Even if by some slim chance a case does go before a judge, the wiretaps proceed while the case is in court.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRRRRS will go by before anything hits the light of day,if it ever does.

I was taught in 8th grade civics that it was the Judicial branch that tested the constitutionality of laws/bills and the legality of actions, not the Executive branch.

This is absolutely fucking insane, and, as I wrote to Dan Abrams at MSNBC, the legislators who go along with this are traitors and appeasors to the (Nazi) power mad despot squatting in the White House.

Dale said...

I believe (could be wrong) that it is the 16th amendment that states that any government official that is aware of another official violating the constitution, who does not do everything in their power to have that person removed, is also in violation themselves, and should also be impeached. Seems to me our entire government, from Alaska to Florida, is guilty, and should be impeached. But, how do you start something like that?

Chris in Seattle said...

The 16th Amendment allows income taxes. I think the one you want is the 14th, Section 4 of which says:

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 3 is explained thusly:

The third section prevents the election or appointment to any federal or State office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason. A two-thirds vote by Congress can override this limitation, however. This disqualification could not have been enacted as a statute, because it would have been an ex post facto punishment. In 1975, Robert E. Lee's citizenship was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to June 13, 1865.[17] In 1978, two-thirds votes of both Houses of Congress were obtained, posthumously removing the service ban from Jefferson Davis.[18][19]

(this is all from Wikipedia)

The 14th (along with the 13th and 15th) was passed during Civil War reconstruction. Anyway....

We need to be ruthless. I did not vote for Cantwell during her last primary, unfortunately, she won anyway and I was not going to vote for the golden parachute guy from Safeco Insurance in the general. Next cycle, I will not vote in a primary for Murray if she votes in favor of this FISA abomination.

It's nive I can always count on "Bagdad Jim."

Dale said...

I stand corrected.