Thanks you Sir.

"I agree with the following article;"**

"Arrogance, Stupidity and Incompetence."

The 3 Stooges (Bush, Cheney & Gonzalles) and their Congressional Committee of 8 are AIDING the terrorists in destroying the United States of America.

What you say?

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of NSA warantless surveillance today before Congress today is expected to stress not only the President's powers during wartime, but also contain an attack on "misinformed, confused" news accounts, according to Time Magazine." (Washington Post W.M. Arkin)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles should be Disbarred for Incompetence.

Warrants are Required.

And it is Time for Impeachment.

Yes I said Impeachment.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Congressional Committee of 8 and A.G. Alberto Gonzalles should all be Impeached for the following reasons;

On Sunday on NBC Meet the Press (1-29-2006) Sen. Bill Frist (R. from Tenn.) admitted that only 8 people in Congress new about "President George Walker Bush's Domestic Surveillance/Spying Program" and Sen. Frist stated "We all new the program was illegal but we figured the FISA law and FISA Court were outdated so we went ahead with the Domestic Spy Program using the NSA anyway."

Then Meet the Press aired a news clip from August of 2004 when President George Walker Bush gave a similar statement to the press and the country admitting that the Domestic Spy Program was illegal and that he was in VIOLATION of the LAW and he said "And I don't care."

Then Meet the Press's Tim Russert pointed out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 in Sec. 1809 says that a WARRANT is REQUIRED to do the surveillance that President George Walker Bush has dictated.

Sen. Frist admitted that he and his committee had been involved in seeking FISA Warrants in the past and it only took about one hour at the most to receive them as long as they had their facts from the surveillance already done recorded and in order for the FISA Judge to see.

Sen. Frist admitted "We all know that we could perform surveillance up to 3 days without even trying to get the warrant first and then go get one from a FISA Judge. But that's just too much hassle."

The 4th Amendment requires the President to get a Warrant to do any surveillance as that it is a form of search according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Patriot Act requires the President to get a Warrant to any kind of surveillance.

I'm sorry but they have admitted their CRIMES on national TV.

It is time they are all IMPEACHED according to the Law and the United States Constitution.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their Congressional Committee of 8 did the Crime so they must so they must all do the TIME.

And what makes this all even worse is the fact that the illegally obtained evidence which is more commonly called "Fruit of the Poison Tree" is all the already convicted terrorists need to have their convictions over turned on Appeal.

Hence setting the terrorists FREE and according to the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists cannot be charged again for the same crime.

This means that President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 are all GUILTY of HIGH TREASON for aiding the terrorists in the commission of and getting away with the terrorist act that they were originally charged with.

And any Active Duty Military personal who would and or do choose to show their support for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 are in fact guilty of VIOLATING their Military Oath of Service to the United States of America.

Because the Oath of Service clearly States that they (active duty military personal) are Sworn to Uphold the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America to which President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 have in fact VIOLATED.

The Presidents Powers are dictated by law, i.e. F.I.S.A. of 1978 Sec. 1809 which states that a Warrant is Required.

And the Patriot Act Title 1 Sec. 101 through 106 and Title 2 Sec. 201 through 225.

Title 1 Sec. 106 specifically does not give the President to do Warantless surveillance.

Read it for yourselves.

"SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking ''; and'' and inserting a comma
and the following:
''by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting '', block during the pendency of
an investigation'' after ''investigate''; and
(ii) by striking ''interest;'' and inserting ''interest
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States; and'';
(C) by striking ''by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States'; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
18 USC 3056
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00007 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 278 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities
or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign
nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign
organization, or foreign country that he determines has
planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities
or attacks against the United States; and all right, title,
and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when,
as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such
agency or person as the President may designate from
time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe, such interest or property shall
be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise
dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the
United States, and such designated agency or person may
perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment
or furtherance of these purposes.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
''(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.--In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination was
based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the
Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be
submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This
subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.''."

Title 2 Sec. 225 Specifically does not give the President or anybody the authority to do Warantless surveillance or searches.

"SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.
Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection
(g) the following:
18 USC 2510
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 296 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any
provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent,
or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information,
facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order
or request for emergency assistance under this Act.''."

"High on Gonzales' list no doubt will be the front page Washington Post story yesterday focusing on whether the expanded post 9/11 surveillance yielded any important intelligence or big fish. The Post story argues that NSA "dismissed nearly all" of the potential suspects as having any terrorist connection."(WP W.M. Arkin)

To prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again we must Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 and A.G. Alberto Gonzalles who are doing more to AID the terrorists with their illegal Domestic Surveillance Program which produces "fruit of the poison tree" evidence which they have used to convict terrorists already and their convictions will be over turned on Appeal because of the illegally obtained evidence.

Therefore the President, Vice President and Congressional Committee of 8 and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles along with all NSA personal involved in the Illegal Surveillance Program are in fact Aiding the terrorists in their terrorist acts against the United States of America which is an Act of HIGH TREASON on their part. As that in accordance with the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists Can Not be Charged again for their same crime/terrorist act and that they will be released free to attack again as soon as the Appeals Court over turns their convictions because the illegally obtained evidence ("fruit of the poison tree") was used to convict them.

"I have been wondering myself what NSA might have collected through this and other expanded post 9/11 surveillance programs so my hat's off to the reporters for compiling a difficult to get to story."(WP W.M. Arkin)

The 1998 Whistle Blowers Protection Act is the law that will protect the good guy/girl that had the common sense to tell the public about the Illegal Surveillance Program of President George Walker Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8.

If we as a Country approach this situation according to our own laws and obey them then them the terrorists will not get a second chance at a 9/11 type of attack again.

"But a zero for 5,000 record -- if indeed even nothing of use came from the eavesdropping on some 5,000 persons -- shouldn't be taken as either proof of failure or illegality." (WP W. M. Arkin)

5000 Violations of the Law and 5000 reasons to Impeach the President, Vice President and the Congressional Committee of 8.

"It's all about the dots. Failure to connect the dots was the cause of 9/11, the administration thinks, and anything we do today to collect -- and connect -- dots is a positive step in the direction of preventing another attack."(WP W.M. Arkin)

Yes exactly right providing we do it by the book and in accordance with the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

"I would argue that the failure to connect the dots prior to 9/11 was caused by massive incompetence on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, by excessive secrecy born of government power struggles and arrogance,"(WP W.M. Arkin)

Again 100% Right. And the arrogance of President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 and now A.G. Alberto Gonzalles is AIDING the terrorists in their actions.

Good intensions or not, they still broke the LAW.

As a former Judge/Professor once told me "There is no acceptable excuse for breaking the law."

If we are going to convict a terrorist then let us do it by the book so they do not go free to have a second chance for another 9/11 type of attack.

Let us convict them right from the start.

It is Time for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 and A.G. Alberto Gonzalles to all are Impeached before they aid the terrorist even more.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

**"Posted by: Al Gore | Feb 8, 2006 1:27:29 PM | Permalink "

Bill Arkin I imagine the time you spent as an Army Intelligence Officer makes you an expert on incompetance. That expertise is regularly reflected in your laughable and at times incredible reporting. Your so-called sources within DoD are making you look like a fool.

I told you so....

Who let the gov't take away my 4th amendment rights? All you have to do is make a pre-emptive strike against a nothing country and you can claim war and do anything you want.

An important point, Sully! It's a classic Republicans vs. Democrats joke that Republicans support the NRA because it fights for one part of the constitution, but oppose the ACLU, because it fights for another; while the Democrats do the exact opposite.

It seems the current cherry-picking of the constitution goes like this:
Article II on Presidential powers: IN, UNTIL A DEM'S ELECTED
Article II on Presidential responsibilities: OUT EXCEPT WHEN CONVENIENT
Amendment 1 on freedom of religion: AS LONG AS YOU WORSHIP THE PRESIDENT
Amendment 1 on freedom of speech and press: AS LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT
Amendment 1 on right to assemble: NOTE, KEEP TRACK OF PROTESTORS ON TERRORIST WATCH LIST
Amendment 1 on right of petition: FINE, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE LISTENING ANYWAY
Amendment 2: IN, TO KEEP THE NRA FROM ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE
Amendment 4: HA HA HA!
Amendment 5 on self-incrimination: DOES NOT PROHIBIT TORTURE, BECAUSE WE SAY SO
Amendment 8: SEE 5

Why is it that some people cherry pick the Constitution? They regard the 2nd ammendment as sacred and not to be touched by "liberals" while the 4th ammendment, with a Congressional law backing it up, can be swept aside to "protect" America? Wouldn't sweeping aside the 2nd ammendment and taking away the guns from criminals also protect America?

Just so we don't start a 2nd ammendment war here, I agree the 2nd ammendment gives people the rights to bear arms. I just don't understand how the same people who enshrine the 2nd against Article IV (protect against domestic violence) can say that Article II allows the 4th to be ignored.

Also, read the FISA Act before saying the president can ignore it. It specifically states how it is to be followed, including times of war, by the president. Refer to Section 1 sub-sections 1802, 1809, 1810 and 1811 specifically. Also refer to Article I that says that only Congress can make laws. When Bush says he can ignore FISA, he is either breaking the law or making new law. He cannot do the later.

The President is ALSO specifically tasked in Article II with ensuring the laws are upheld. How can you reconcile that with blatantly ignoring FISA? Or does it only mean he has to uphold the laws if he feels like it?

But congratulations to Chris Ford for making it through another post without blatant racism, made-up words, or demands for the murder of everyone who disagrees with him! Did you finally get off the drugs, Chris?

Sully: "I coundn't believe it when I heard the president of these United States telling Americans that warrantless searches do not violate the Constitution."

Perhaps you need to read the whole Constitution, not just the Bill of Rights, Sully. The President is specifically tasked in Article II with defending America against foreign foes and foreign agents. There are numerous excptions to the 4th's requirement for a warrant which mostly stem from "what is reasonable". It is reasonable for an arresting cop to search you for weapons w/o a warrant. If you are required to be in Court you may be searched without warrant. Ever go through Customs? Certainly, watching out for foreign agents like Mohammed Atta here falls in the "reasonable" category because we want to stop guys like that before they "establish probable cause through commission of crimes like blowing up the WTC".

If you think the 4th, by your literal reading of it, to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution, bars the President from watching for foreign foes and agents unless a lawyer in robes assents to each and every act of national security being implemented, I remind you of Justice Jackson and the concept of the Constitutional suicide pact (meaning the Constitution should be interpreted by people with common sense).

Yes, Americans can be agents. Just remember the Rosenbergs.

No, Congress may not pass laws to ovveride parts of Article II,III, and IV when they feel like it.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Arkin.

I always thought MI was pretty feckless, but my observations were anecdotal. It's nice to see that the professionals are of the same opinion.

Now what about those NSA spooks? Have we really anything to worry about from them?

I coundn't believe it when I heard the president of these United States telling Americans that warrantless searches do not violate the Constitution. I don't see any other way to enforce the Constitution, against this president who has violated his oath to protect it, except to bring on Impeachment. And when the Republican Abramoff Party learns this fall that Americans value liberty over security, they will be hard to find in any government office for years to come.

And can you believe Bush is painting this as a wiretap=security versus no wiretap=no-security question. He's once again lying to gain backing. And the news media, as usual, is repeating the argument. I only hear the "warrantless" aspect from guests on media talk shows. So much for TV being a way to educate America. Under Bush, the media has been conscripted into lying for Bush and they seem happy to do it. Disgusting... but I have faith America will eventually live up to its true potential and value its Constitution and the meaning of what it is to be American.

abramoff pleaded guilty and every politician connected by a hair to him should have to leave the service of the united states government, no matter who they are. maybe we should start over the way the government is looking today.

abramoff pleaded guilty and every politician connected by a hair to him should have to leave the service of the united states government, no matter who they are. maybe we should start over the way the government is looking today.

Mr. Arkin,

I value your column greatly and feel if you speak with any favour, it is for intelligence professionals. Truthtelling is not a partisan action and I find you a consisntently honest, independant voice.
You do enormous credit to the blogosphere by providing not only your own experience and insight but also well sourced information I do not find elsewhere.

On this particular issue, while I have no reason to question the program's limited nature, I'd be a lot happier if some party outside the executive provided meaningful oversight. Your work has been a contributor to seeing that will likely happen. Kudos.

Buy a clue, Mr. Arkin. You have dared to critcize Dear Leader - your name is going on the list for re-education. But first you will be attacked by the defenders of the faith - less than laudatory words about Him are to be met with zeal.

Here is a repost of the clickable-links to the previous post: [sorry, did notinclude HTTP the first time]

[ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/23/01059/5778 ]

The RNC is in a no-win situation. If you want to find out what is going on, there is a way. The following discusses a state-level demand for a proclomation -- calling for the House to investigate:

[ www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/23/01059/5778 ]

This method was tested in 1903; it remains a House rule, and is a practice of the house -- permitting state proclomations on matters of impeachment. There are 50 states -- only 1 state need issue a proclomation.

Why does the RNC fear finding the truth, and publicly discussing what is going on?

The FISA is constitutional; and the issue is Article 1 Section 8 -- Congerss as the exclusive power to make rules. It doesn't matter whether we are or are not at war.

The RNC plans to block the House from taking action -- will they change the Constititution to prevent fact finding; or will the House ask that the President disban the House.

In the neamtime, Fitzgerald continues to make progress. There is more information from GCHQ. More indictments on the way.

What will the people do when they learn of the domestic databases full of photographs, and non-criminal information. If the House does not act, the States are prepared.

Choose wisely. We already know the truth. The issue is whether they shall assent to the rule of law. This is about Article 1 Section 8.

Here is more of what is unfolding: [ http://tinyurl.com/7tmyg ]

Highlight of Senator Ashcroft's Article:

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.

KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET

By Senator John Ashcroft

Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism

[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet
and the use of encryption technology.]

The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part by representing the most inviting form of communication ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all branches of government closer to the public that they serve.

The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban -- are increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their fingertips that was previously beyond their reach.

In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton administration is trying to do just that.

The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the government with decryption keys to high level encryption programs. Yet, European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value security above all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Three months ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.

In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason. There are 72 quadrillion (72,000 trillion) different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.

Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system. In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other countries.

I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government "peeping toms" and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals.

The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S. encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry with a quasi-governmental board that would decide encryption bit strength based on the level of international technological development.

U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies -- value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen months, the processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed with which today's fastest computers calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or the next presidential election comes along. The best policy for encryption technology is one that can rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption limits as needed.

The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications.

Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who use the Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material, deliver that material via the Internet, or individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.

In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to update international copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must work to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997.

Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that ignore technical realities. The language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties.

Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological development that holds much commercial, social, and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after we have fully examined and understood the impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic commerce.

On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.

__________

Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/ and his e-mail address is: john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov

Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

Mr. Arkin,
I appreciate what you do and look forward to your future columns. Please bear in mind, accusations of bias from the right wing generally do not merit a response. I sincerely hope you realize they are simply "working the refs" and attempting to undermine your reporting (without engaging the substance of it) where it may confuse their readership. Keep up the good work. Many of us do prefer to remain informed.

Dear Mr. Arkin:

Did you ever hear the story of the rabbi who was tormented by children of another faith tradition? Everywhere he went, they cried, "Jew! Jew! Jew!"

He reflected on how he might deal with this and came up with a plan.

So, the next day, when he encountered the boys, he told them, "Boys, you are doing such a great job that I am going to give each of you a quarter."

The boys loved this. And they shouted, "Jew! Jew! Jew!" with even more enthusiasm.

This went on for a week, and then the rabbi told the boys, "Boys, I can't afford to give you a quarter. I can only pay you a dime."

"A DIME!?" the boys said. "We aren't working for anything less than a quarter!"

And so they left him in peace.

Now, the difference between the rabbi and journalists who pay any attention to what goes on at Powerlie is this: The rabbi knew that he was simply doing what was right and that his opponents were not. So, he approached the problem not to narcissistically defend his ego, but to shut down the noise machine.

I believe the story is from Ausabel (tinyurl.com/7zyhw) but it is a bit of wisdom I learned long enough ago that I can no longer remember.

Mr. Arkin and Butcher,

Just a reminder to you two that domestic spying on American citizens is not a legal activity for the Pentagon to be engaged in. It is outside it's scope of work. It is just one more instance of executive overreaching which will bring down this president. Remember old Tricky Dick used the argument that if he believed something would harm the USA he was authorized to break the law at will to protect us. He was still making that argument shortly before he had to resign or be impeached. He would have been convicted of a number of felonies involving domestic spying and using the government to punish political adversaries. Thank goodness good old Jerry Ford pardoned him to spare the country from having to lock up his black hearted carcass.

The domestic spying that took place under Nixon was not nearly a pervasive as already admitted to by Bush/Cheney. Do you really think that the Bush Whitehouse is any less vindictive than the Nixon Whitehouse. Remember even Nixon would have drawn the line over exposing a CIA operative like this Whitehouse did with Mrs. Wilson. As an old Goldwater republican I am utterly contemptuous of the and angry at the continuous stream of revelations about corruption, lies, fiscal irresponsibility, authoritarianism bordering on dictatorship advocated and practiced by these chickenhawk new/neo republicans. The quicker the country turns on them and turns them out, the better.

It is a common tactict of the conservative entirely wrong to call someone "partisan" who happens to state facts they don't like. I was repeatedly called a "partisan" when Bill Clinton was in office for pointing out the obvious and now I'm repeatedly called the same for pointing out the obvious about Junior. There seems to be clubs around these days, the "partisan" club that tells the truth and the Liars Club, which pulls out the partisan card everytime happens to state the obvious.

It IS possible that 1000s of US citizens are being spied on and have been for years. Who would tell if they knew?

The administration doesn't seem to realize that its actions actually ENCOURAGE suspicion of the United States among its own citizens, which seems counter-productive at the least.

In Shakespeare, villains constantly offer reassurance. And so it is today.

A person is determined to be a war criminal if found guilty of violating international laws and conventions that make up the law of war. Bush is a War Criminal and have committed crimes that violate U.S. and International laws. I am sad to have voted for this criminal the first time. He should demonstrate some honor and resign, although he won't. Political Criminals never admit to their crimes.

The Church Report re the growth of Army domestic surveillance is here:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIk.htm

It's of value because similar legal sophistry would be used today. Note that the surveillance was curtailled only after it was publicly exposed by an Army whistleblower.

Note also that those Executive officers who broke the law were not prosecuted. And the man most responsible for hamstringing the legal process, William Rehnquist, was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The US Army's Center for Military History has an interesting story behind the growth of the Army's Domestic Intelligence Program in the 1960s. Go to
http://www.army.mil/CMH-pg/books/Lineage/mi/ch9.htm and scroll down to "The U.S. Army Intelligence Command and the Home Front "

Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it.

Note that 19-20 year old Army agents were useful in the 1960s because
(a) with "relaxed grooming standards" they could infiltrate radical youth groups, unlike middleaged FBI agents
(b)said Army agents were under military discipline and could be sent to Levenworth if they balked at following orders --even questionable orders
(c) Another arrow in the case officer's motivational quiver was the point that smoking pot, drinking wine, and screwing female radicals was more amusing --and more safe -- than tramping around in Vietnam waiting for your leg to be blown off by a booby trap. Of course, the same could be said today vis a vis Irag.
(d) Unlike the FBI, Army briefings to young agents didn't have to focus a lot on the Bill of Rights, the rules of evidence, the constraints imposed by the legal system on law enforcement and the rights of defendents,etc.

Plus a young Army agent was not as worried about his "career" as a middle aged FBI agent with a mortgage.

(e)In general, The Weather Underground was a bunch of incompetent pussies -- spoiled rich white college kids -- not a hard core , ruthless insurgency with hard security

Is there really anyone stupid enough to believe that we're NOT being spied on? Ever read anything from the Watergate era? Do we really think they stopped making pigs like Henry Kissinger and Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover? Like half the criminals in Israel?
The only thing Watergate taught our government was: DON'T GET CAUGHT and DON'T MAKE TAPES!

Re Arkin's comment: "It is because it is no different than what military intelligence did in the 1960's and 1970's that it is such a monumental waste. "
--------