Compared to massive data collection efforts, posting agents in Starbucks around the nation and hoping one overheard people plotting over their lattes would be far more effective in capturing terrorists.

Legal issues aside, this is a case of people being enchanted by technology before they understand what the technology can and *cannot* do. Sure, current technology may allow an organization to record every phone conversation in the world. And then? It would still take every adult on the planet years to winnow away all the "hay." It also assumes that terrorists will ALWAYS plot via communications that can be intercepted. What if my neighbors and I decide to commit mass murder and we hold meetings in my backyard?

If you haven't yet, read Blink. There is an interesting (and delightfully ironic)chapter that illustrates how assuming better technology makes you superior and therefore safe from harm is a big mistake.

(Excellent title by the way)

Let's not confuse programs here. The NSA runs several SIGNAL INTEL programs. Now, one can intercept electronic communications for purposes of "listening" in -OR- they can analyze PATTERNS of communications to develop profiles of communication habits and WHO is talking to WHO.

The MASSIVE database referred to in the news article is the latter. They are feeding a database with connected calls that can show several things:

- Who is talking to who (at least by number)
- Timing of communication
- Type of communication and equipment being used
- Calls made AFTER the current call being tracked (then the whole process repeats)

All of this data is fairly easy to put into a database and not too tough to crunch with link analysis and neural net chains. How do you think Wal-Mart knows what you like? How do you think the phone companies know how to provide sevices.

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM)

It's the same thing the NSA is doing, but on a grander scale and with a different objective.

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

May 19, 2006 -- Tony Snow's "tar baby" comment was not his most egregious utterance. Tony Snow defended his use of the term "tar baby" in his Tuesday press conference, his first after succeeding Scott McClellan. Snow correctly states that the term is used as a reference to Uncle Remus hugging a tar baby, which means he was in a sticky situation. The term has also been used in a racist context.

However, when Snow began to cry while talking about his bout with cancer, he apologized for his "Ed Muskie moment." While Snow can, perhaps, be given a pass for the tar baby comment, his reference to a situation involving Ed Muskie's presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire in 1972 was nothing less than appalling. Muskie, who was the clear frontrunner in the New Hampshire primary, was responding to a couple of nasty articles in the conservative Manchester Union Leader. The paper had published a story suggesting that Muskie's wife Jane used an ethnic slur to describe Americans of French-Canadian descent. Muskie, standing on the steps of the Union Leader and denouncing the false reporting of the paper, broke down in tears. The media picked up on the event and, in suggesting that Muskie demonstrated weakness, helped erode Muskie's support. He barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Sen. George McGovern and went on to lose the national primary race. It turned out that the Union Leader's story about Jane Muskie was based on a forged letter prepared by Richard Nixon's campaign. The perpetrator of the forgery was one Donald Segretti, later jailed in the Watergate scandal for, among other things, planting forged documents and criminal conspiracy. During the 1972 campaign, Segretti became aware of a young Republican political activist in Texas who showed much promise in the dirty tricks department. His name -- Karl Rove.

Now Rove faces his "Segretti moment" in the CIA Leakgate affair. Washington, DC has been abuzz with rumors and story planting for years in this case. Rove learned well from his mentor Segretti. This morning, DC anxiously awaits a press advisory from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding a major development in the Rove case. If past is prologue, a press advisory will be issued mid morning about an afternoon press conference. We are standing by.

Note on U.S. Attorney John Briggs vs. US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Archibald Cox, the Watergate Independent Counsel, was appointed in May 1973. Briggs indicted Segretti the same month after a Justice Department investigation that took about a half a year. Rove has been under investigation by Fitzgerald since the Special Counsel's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, a period of two and a half years. Briggs coordinated his investigation with Independent Counsel Cox and Attorney General Elliott Richardson while Fitzgerald, as a Special Counsel, is only protected from pressure from the White House by an administrative firewall. This clearly demonstrates the problems that can be encountered in not having an Independent Counsel Statute to avoid the political pressure that can be applied to a less independent Special Counsel.

Please bookmark the following sites:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

Senate hearing on CIA nominee: Democrats rubberstamp Bush police-state spying

By Patrick Martin
19 May 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Senate hearing Thursday on the nomination of General Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency demonstrates the bipartisan congressional support for the Bush administration's assault on the democratic rights of the American people.

While there were scattered criticisms of the methods of the Bush administration, particularly its failure to consult with Congress, every senator on the Intelligence Committee accepted the premise that the United States is engaged in a "war on terror" and that the Bush administration's escalation of domestic surveillance and wiretapping is a product of that war.

There was no challenge to the Orwellian label, "terrorist surveillance program," which the Bush administration has chosen to apply to a program which actually involves the surveillance of the telephone calls and Internet messaging of nearly the entire American population--an estimated 225 million people. It would be far more accurate to describe the electronic monitoring and data-mining by the National Security Agency (NSA) as the "universal surveillance program"--or as the Pentagon once labeled its own version of the program, "Total Information Awareness."

Not one senator, on the Intelligence Committee or off it, will acknowledge the basic truth that the Bush administration is a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people than all the terrorists in the world. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda may be capable of terrible crimes, but they cannot impose a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. That threat comes solely from the American ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus.

General Michael Hayden is a sworn enemy of the democratic rights of the American people. In his six years as head of the NSA, from 1999 to 2005, he was responsible for both the program of interception and eavesdropping on international phone calls, revealed by the New York Times in December, and the creation of an enormous database of the telephone calling records of 225 million Americans, made public by USA Today May 11.

While some press reports in the past week have suggested that the domestic telephone monitoring was less sweeping than reported by USA Today, perhaps limited to long distance phone calls, about 20 percent of the total, the New York Times quoted an unnamed "senior government official, granted anonymity to speak for publication about the classified program" confirming that "the security agency had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States."

A lawsuit brought by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), a group opposed to Internet censorship and spying, has produced evidence of widespread interception of traffic on the web by the same telecommunications companies that turned over phone records to the NSA. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn told Bloomberg News Wednesday that AT&T had carried out "real-time diversion of customer Internet data" as part of its collaboration with the NSA.

In his appearance before the Senate committee, Hayden adamantly defended both the legality and the necessity of telecommunications spying, while refusing to discuss any aspect of the program except in a closed session, where members of the Senate panel were sworn to secrecy. This was combined with a denunciation of leaks to the press which exposed both the illegal domestic surveillance and the CIA's network of secret prisons overseas, where selected prisoners are interrogated and tortured outside of any legal process. CIA officers "deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed, and criticized on the front pages of the newspapers," he said.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, sounded the same note in his opening remarks, when he rejected

FOR THE REST GO TO:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/hayd-m19.shtml

There is a cognitive disconnect at work with the Left.

The Left believes we should be guaranteed in our safety as much as possible by a protective government from "criminal attack". To do this, they hold the following beliefs:

1. It is the governments obligation to keep us safe from people trying to kill us by "connecting the dots" so another 9/11 doesn't happen again...before we convince noble radical Muslim peoples that we are truly sorry for causing all their root causes of murderous rage and they learn to love us for our freedoms.

2. But it is wrong to snoop and profile and single out just Muslims as a potential source of Muslim terror and collect "dots". Or try and connect those dots between radical Muslims.

3. However, the problem with collectively watching the whole population if we believe profiling is worse than mass slaughter is that it affects the precious civil liberties of non-terrorist loving US citizens. So any effort to collect "dots" should be discouraged because innocent "dots" will be collected. And efforts to analyze those "dots" must be fought at every turn because the government can't be trusted. Only lawyers in robes can be trusted. So only those "dots" already known rise to "probable cause" and only those "dots" approved for analysis by mutual agreement of 535 members of Congress, the 4th Estate, and the Courts (after full adversarial due process) may be permitted to be examined by the Executive.

Now - that's all nice - as long as it is recognized that Lefty objective #1 is incompatable with following both Lefty objectives #2 and #3.

If objective #1 is essential, the Left must end their dishonesty and choose between dropping #2 and #3 or work out a hybrid dropping of elements of those latter demands.

The weakness of the hated Bush-Hitler convinces many Lefties their "enemy rights" and "no diminishment of privacy for anyone" to find and connect dots, their argument, is stronger and more of a "winner" than it actually is. In truth, they are way out on a limb and will likely be blamed if their obstructionism hindered the ability of our government to find and connect the dots if another mass death of
Americans happens and the public determines it would have been preventable but for the efforts of the Left to deny us defenses.

Chris Ford is Tommy Onetone when it comes to the Left. What a crackpot. : )

Chris Ford wrote:

". . . preventable but for the efforts of the Left to deny us defenses."
____________

This is a good example of left-wing assumptions swallowed up by the right.

The fundamental problem is not insufficient defenses and a failure to connect all the trillions of dots captured by some NSA computer.

The problem is a lack of credible offense. Knock their block off. Decapitate the insanely ranting and hostile heads. Make the rubble bounce.

No more nice talk. You kill our people, send money to insurgents threatening or killing our people, export weapons components used against any American or Israel, export drugs to America, create insurrection outside your delineated bit of territory and harming us; then you have commmited a capital crime where we are judge, jury, and executioner.

Make this clear now, before the creeping contagion expands to weak-headed people in central and south America.

In real war, the issues are absolute and not relative. The present self-destructive fear fostered within our own system is fermenting as a result of the temporarily faulty political process. At some point we will have our clarifying Churchill in America. Then the real deal will be to go from retail to wholesale and make all those hostile to the existence of this exceptional country, situated between the oceans, think very carefully with each international move, and tremble with fear before they entertain any throw-back delusions that they will affect what America is about.

There has been procrastination to make a necessary and credible show of offense ever since Vietnam, an attitude exploited and mocked by our sworn enemies. Time passes. Soon some unlucky slob playing games against America will step forward to provoke the USA and thus allow the point to be made for all other annoying tinhats. Quadaffi was smart and intuitive enough to sense this and avoid the destructive outcome. Like England in WWII, we will reach out for allies, and enough sensible ones ought to emerge among those who want to survive and who will therefore seek to align with a winner. It would not be a surprise to include Muslim states amongst them.

Posted by: Chris Ford

"The weakness of the hated Bush-Hitler convinces many Lefties their "enemy rights" and "no diminishment of privacy for anyone" to find and connect dots, their argument, is stronger and more of a "winner" than it actually is. In truth, they are way out on a limb and will likely be blamed if their obstructionism hindered the ability of our government to find and connect the dots if another mass death of
Americans happens and the public determines it would have been preventable but for the efforts of the Left to deny us defenses. "

You're the one out on a limb dude, and your limb broke and you fell on your head! The weenie-conservative-right has controlled congress since 1994. And instead of trying to guide our government in the direction of catching terrorists, the weenie-conservative-right has gone after gays, abortion, cutting taxes for the rich, and who was playing with Bill Clinton's weenie.

Fordo, Bush wanting to know what soccer mom is calling what other soccer mom is not going to stop Terrorists. Getting the partisan weenie-conservative-right republican hacks out of our spy agencies will and replace them with non=partisan professionals. You know the ones I'm talking about? The ones that tell GWB only what he orders them to report.

Now Chris you know for a fact, we should have stayed out of Iraq and kept all our forces in Afghanistan to apprehend Osama. Yet you continue to play the old partisan politics blame game. Now tell me honestly, would you want me working for NSA and listening to every phone call you made, reading every email you sent, and reading of instant message you sent? Would you? Grow up Chris.

without oversight,

any surveillance is bs, it is not for the country it's being done for whoever has a wild hair to do what they think will be cool....

how many have done a project with people that want to _try_ something that means that you'll never get done or the boss is going to fire everyone...

what is wrong with oversight?

the other thing is this:

encroachment is like a child molestor, checking to see if they're dealing with someone that is innocent and can't protect themselves vs dealing with someone that has parents that have taught them about not letting _perpatrators_ touch them in

bad places...

YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED

IN THE LAST 6 (ssix) years

to be _less_ sensitive to encroachment by perpatrators and predators.........

you have been desensitized to be taken advantage of....

where is the middle class?

being replaced by retail.

can you live on minimum wage?

why do we have minimum wage, why do we have child and labor laws?

because the ELITE _regularly_ gain control of the country and start making it all about them....

you want to get rid of the illegals without spending money?

arrest those that hire, arrest all congress people and people in the EXECUTIVE branch and Judicial branch that hire or consort with those that do...including their families.

take action to protect your country,

before it is sold to friends of this administration

>i.

and you are back in the peasant class...

.

.

There is a cogwheel dissonance at work with the Right.

The Right assume we should be quarantined in our stupor as much as possible by a protectorate government from "enema combatants". To do that, they hold the following truths:

1. It is the government's right to keep us in the dark from people trying to dope us by "collecting the bits" so 9/11 can be replayed again and again...until we become convinced that noble savage Muslim peoples must be feared and their tactics emulated if we are truly to root out the causes of their murderous rage and we learn to live without our freedoms.

2. But it is right to snoop and profile and single out not just Muslims as potential target of error and collect "bits". Or try and connect those bits between radical liberals.

3. Nonetheless, the problem with collectively watching the whole population if we believe profiling is more effective than mass amnesty is that it does nothing for the precious bank accounts of non-terrorist loving US fat cats. So any effort to collect "bits" should be discouraged if only guilty non profitable "bits" will be collated. And efforts to synthesize those "bits" must be wrought at turns because only the protectorate govermental industrial complex can be trusted. No lawyers in robes can be mussted. They could be gay and butte crested. So no "bits" known to sink under "probable cause" and only those "bits" proven for synthesis by mutual of osama could be delivered to the Executor for intimidation.

Now - that's all nice - as long as it is deconstructed that Righty objective #1 is unprofitable with both Righty objective #2 and #3. If you wanna play, then you must pay. On K.

If objective #1 is unprofitable, the Right must end their honesty and choose both doping #2 and #3 or work out a hybrid payment of elements of those former associates. That cannot be delayed . Nor fristed away.

The strength of the loved Bush-Savior cons many Righties their "neighbor rights" and "no privacy for anyone" to amass and connect bits, their grand delusion, is working and more of a "binger" than it potentially was. In confession, they are way out on a limb and likely will be caught if their snooping into their neighbor's bedroom facilitated the enema to lose and drop the bits if another mass movement of illegal bits hops and the public determines it would have been preemptible but for the efforts of the Right to deny us our rights.

The committee for the right to be lefties sponsors this message. If it only makes noise to you that's because we have not collected enough "bits" and collated them neither Left nor Right.

are labels for the intellectually challenged...

can't understand what's going on?

pick a team and support it....

that way you don't have to prove that you don't know how to think....

anyone that can think knows you can't because you live

"by the label"

I wear (whatever they're wearing, intheHamptons),

I worship (deep thinkers, like Nietzche, though I've never read him)

I can't think for myself, but I know if I drink beer, live in georgetowne, have a place in kennebunkeport, or graduate from Santa Barbara....

that means _I'm somebody_ not that I'll ever really feel like that, but since I need approval

from other morons, I'll find out what the winning team is and support it...

because I'm stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid...

I'll prove it by voting for George Bush because he's supporting family values like

homo phobia,

killing people from other countries that wear towels on their head,

beer drinking and barby ques....

and he loves gawd....that's why he sends people overseas to kill the ones that gawed doesnt' love....the

ALLAH WORSHIPERS....everyone with a brain knows that gawd is not called allah...

sounds like a girl...kill em...

left right conservative, I'm a simple soul just needt o be toold how to vooooote

thanks so much,

I live you!

.

enough to vote on issues,

so they need to join groups,

and since they don't have self esteem,

they need to say they _are_ (this)

I don't care about your (this)

it is an illusion.

speak to the truth, it's the only thing worth supporting

and it supports itself,

just like I kicked you fee t out from under you with a few simple sentences.

they are obvious facts.

ilike to kick dancing chickens...they make a meaty thud when my jackboot comes into contact with their white boontocks...

georgy porgie puddin and cheyney sitting in a tree...b u l l y n g

knock em down.

.

legitimizing an occupation,

is that,

you can put make-up on it, sing songs about it.

but we are in Iraq because it makes sense to some people with oil stock...

it has nothing to do with democracy,

it has nothing to do with womens rights,

and it has nothing to do with honesty...

anyone, condo lizzard,

who is willing to give themselves away to support that deserves to be called a brownnoser...

do you understand?

I am a citizen, not a liberal, an anti-war, a right wing or a friggin republican or democrat...

if you valued honesty you'd lose the labels...

. . .
.
look. .
.
.

mixing things up...

I'm the decider,

you're the reciever...

and it's about enemae time for you....

tootles...

.

I'm the decider,

that makes you
the decidees.

Unless
ya

chris

furd

then you

are
both

in youer

senile

rightist mind
only

It will be a fascinating subject, if not tragic, for future historians to record and make their judgment about the legal musings of some intellectuals, pundits, and politicians, when America, and the West in general, were under a mortal threat, whether the monitoring of the "ringing" spying phones, were legal or not.

In our contemporaneous times, when lightning speed crucially determines so many areas of our life, especially in war against phantom enemies, to adopt primarily, all in the name of freedom from spooks, but at the expense of life, the involved, slow, and litigiously argumentative legal process before one could fight global terror, is the apex of absurdity.

As to Bobby Inman's dispute that "Congress authorized the secret spy program when it authorized the president to use force following Sept.11", is itself not only highly disputable, but also highly illogical. That Congress would authorize the President to go to war, without giving him at the same time effective means to fight the enemy in all fields of battle, including the spying field, is beyond credulity. And if Congress did not give him this authority, then its dereliction of duty had somehow to be corrected by the President.

Yet it's by such absurdities that the critics of the Bush administration are making their case.

Yeah yeah yeah. Scare us some more Furd, Krove, and Kotza. Phantom enemies is exacly right. Phantom. Nineteen nutcases and two guys hiding in cave five years later and you still want to turn our society upside down. Just throw away more than two hundred years of our way of life?

Eleven million illegal foreigners here they cannot account for and cannot send home because "it's impractical". No can do! Can't be helped. They here to stay. And you want to know whom the rest of us all called last night so you can by some off chance catch some phantoms? Sorry that dog don't hunt. Not any more. Seventy one percent of Americans say so.

In case you don't know, that somehow it's beyond your level of education. The fourth amendment is not something even Congress can give away. It would take two third of them plus three fourths of all fifty states to do so. The US Constitution says so mate.

pertinent ni the sense that you understand what effect it is you're trying to have...

a mynah bird can mimic, but not comprehend...it doesn't make them human...

exa mine

the invasion of Iraq,

was an invasion.

we are not there to fight terrorism, we are there to control a resource.

the result of us being there is the legitimazation of the mindset that the western governments are imperialistic in nature....and ruthless, and a lying pack of selfish bastids'

that are willing to spend the lives of their citizens and those that don't look like them in order to corner the futures market on oil

when simply deciding to find an alternative fuel source would have been most effective

_if_

they were concerned that a bunch of arabic primitives would use "all that money" to create a different world than the one they envisioned...

simply having a more effective alternative source of fueling civilization is the correct response....

UNLESS YOU HAVE OIL THAT YOU WANT TO SELL AT HIGH PRICES....

ala the Hunt Brothers and silver, they are also from Texas, along with the murderers of John Kennedy........quite a mystery eh?!

I don't think so,

1 + 1 ='s two do the math.

.

Look furd enema combatants, enema combatants on the loosed phone.

Quick call the dot connectors. Lock and load. Wait. The computer is down. Boot and load. Boot and load.

I admired what those crafty varlets the hunts did in the 70's that drove silver from $5 an ounce to $40 dollars within six months...

you could make some money by controlling a scarec resourec...hay know?

.

I can smell pork cooking from here.
..

.

Ensign Furd: Ayre torpedo in the water! Enema torpedo in the waters!

Commodore Kotza: Stop. Trim sails. Full speed aback.

Ensign Furd: There is more to fear than fear itself.

Commodore Kotza: You scare 'em. And I rob 'em.

Ensign Ford: Thare more oil where we hide them.

Commodore Kotza: Off to see the emir we go.

Ensign Furd: To Dubai! To Dubai! Ho!

Commodore Kotza: Ho in Dubai? That you got to show.

Congress did not authorize the President to "go to war" (not that they can delegate such a plenary power to begin with), nor did Congress declare war. It authorized the use of military force. From our earliest cases, decided by justices who were members of the Constitutional Convention, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the authority to authorize the use of force without declaring war; but, the authorization to use force does not entail all the war powers, without an express declaration of war. Not only was that a recognition that international law (contrary to the pretensions of Scalia and the neo-know-nothings, they quoted Grotius, in the original Latin)itself recognizes the use of force short of war, but as a matter of constitutional principles, that there may be situations where Congress would want to authorize the executive to use force without ceding all the war powers. Ergo, whatever the extent of presidential war powers may be, they cannot be constitutionally invoked for the current unpleasantness.

Even the Bush Administration recognizes that they are not at war: For economic sanctions against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and related terrorists, they do not cite the Trading With the Enemy Act, but rather the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It is a legal admission that we are not, constitutionally, at war.

Mike Deal wrote:

" . . . they do not cite the Trading With the Enemy Act, but rather the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It is a legal admission that we are not, constitutionally, at war."
__________

Sounds interesting. Could you please elaborate some for the layman?

Mike Deal - "but, the authorization to use force does not entail all the war powers, without an express declaration of war."

I'm afraid that is purely anal-retentive hair splitting.

A Vietnam War Vet is not a "real Vet" from a "real war"?

What happened is our archaic language contained within the Constitution in many cases has not caught up to modern realities. Letters of Marque, for example, were agreed to be banned by all nations back in 1837 - part of the Royal Navy's anti-slavery effort and regularizing laws of sea. The US signed it. IT's still in the Constitution because our Congress is lazy and our Amendment process time consuming and cumbersome unless 9 lawyers in robes "magically" revise it.

The last formally declared war was June 1945, Soviet Union declaring war on Japan. Since then, the UN bars "formally declaring war".

Given the same anal retentive libertarians and Lefties that see "all war is hereby rendered illegal" from our UN membership coupled with the obsolete phrases of the Constitution, some argued that we were indeed barred legally from defending ourselves by going after Islamoids in Afghanistan without "full UN permission", and then only as a "peacekeeping operation".

Which is drivel.

Same applies to other laws that still do not recognize that "formal declarations of war" are now diplomatically banned. Though Trading With the Enemy Act is not one of them. That is what the wealthy Mark Rich and Pincus Green were charged with after aiding Iran, and spending 12 years on the lam in Israel and Switzerland for. The problem with the Trading With the Enemy Act is that it was written by lawyers and approved by lawyers in robes ONLY to apply to NATIONS, NOT EXTRA-NATIONAL ISALAMOIDS. And written that way because the old reality of the Founders only recognized that nations or pirates would seek to kill Americans. Your interpretation, Mike Deal, that we subordinated prosecution of enemy sympathizers to the Imperial President's emergency powers is also wrong. We have nailed enemy agents here under criminal conspiracy statutes instead.

Though in my opinion, they all should, agents and traitors of the enemy Islamoid alike, be tried in front of a military tribunal and shot.

It's just that 9/11 was simply not enough butchery to convince enemy rights lovers an actual war is underway. More Americans must die before that reality sinks in. Preferably in heavily liberal city, if it must happen as a reality lesson.

Hey "The committee for the right to be lefties" - Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

This is way off topic, and I'm going to pull a bit of a che. Haven't been on-line lately, but when I started doing the blog round up tonight, I found this at the Jesus General site (Chris Ford, I know how left that site is, so don't bother pulling out that straw man). Jesus General referenced MSNBC.

Q: Is the following story true?

If so, then:

1. Why has there been no prominent coverage of this on the WaPo.com front page, or for that matter, by the media in general?

2. Do we still have the right to call anyone else, and I mean anyone else, terrorists?

3. Do you have kids? Brothers? Sisters? Parents? Grandparents?

4. Have you ever fed an infant?

5. Have you ever seen a dead person?

6. Have you ever seen a dead person who had died of grievous injuries?

7. Have you ever seen a dead person who had died of grievous injuries sustained as a result of an attack by another person?

8. Someone please explain (not with lies or excuses) why we are doing this (the war)?

9. Do Christians really understand the teachings of their savior, Jesus Christ, or is it all just political hipocrisy?

10. If Lot, the biblical character, was alive today, and he was an American, would he be able to find one good, honest man? Does telling the truth count for anything anymore?

This is enough to make me puke - and I'm a full grown, world-wise, world-worn man.

The article:

On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the accounts are true.

Military officials told NBC News that the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to show Murtha is right.

A videotape taken by an Iraqi showed the aftermath of the alleged attack: a blood-smeared bedroom floor and bits of what appear to be human flesh and bullet holes on the walls.

The video, obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after town residents told The Associated Press that American troops entered homes on Nov. 19 and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.

On Nov. 20, U.S. Marines spokesman Capt. Jeffrey Pool issued a statement saying that on the previous day a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine. In a later gunbattle, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed eight insurgents, he said.

U.S. military officials later confirmed that the version of events was wrong.

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

"This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers -- commanders in Haditha -- have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq.

The rest of the article (sorry for the botched cut and paste):

Ali, 76, whose left leg was amputated years ago because of diabetes, died after being shot in the stomach and chest. His wife, Khamisa, 66, was shot in the back. Ali's son, Jahid, 43, was hit in the head and chest. Son Walid, 37, was burned to death after a grenade was thrown into his room, and a third son, 28-year-old Rashid, died after he was shot in the head and chest, Rsayef and Hamza said.

Also among the dead were son Walid's wife, Asma, 32, who was shot in the head, and their son Abdullah, 4, who was shot in the chest, Rsayef and Hamza said.

Walid's 8-year-old daughter, Iman, and his 6-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman, were wounded and U.S. troops took them to Baghdad for treatment. The only person who escaped unharmed was Walid's 5-month-old daughter, Asia. The three children now live with their maternal grandparents, Rsayef and Hamza said.

Rsayef said those killed in the second house were his brother Younis, 43, who was shot in the stomach and chest, the brother's wife Aida, 40, who was shot in the neck and chest while still in bed where she was recuperating from bladder surgery. Their 8-year-old son Mohammed bled to death after being shot in the right arm, Rsayef said.

Also killed were Younis's daughters, Nour, 14, who was shot in the head; Seba, 10, who was hit in the chest; Zeinab, 5, shot in the chest and stomach; and Aisha, 3, who was shot in the chest. Hoda Yassin, a visiting relative, was also killed, Rsayef and Hamza said.

The only survivor from Younis's family was his 15-year-old daughter Safa, who pretended she was dead. She is living with her grandparents, Rsayef said.

___________________________________________________

Kina breaks you heart doesn't it?

That last part was attributed to Fox.

there is no war,

there is an occupation of prime realestate...

the worlds second largest oil reserves...

raht next door to Saudi, Kuwiat, UAE, Afghanista/CaspianSeaRussia, and other oil rich nations....

sounds like an economic control to me...

so Jesus says:

Mike Deal wrote:

" . . . they do not cite the Trading With the Enemy Act, but rather the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It is a legal admission that we are not, constitutionally, at war."
__________

Sounds interesting. Could you please elaborate some for the layman?

Mike Deal

A nation of shopkeepers sells its goods at the lowest price. A nation, inundated with second rate lawyers, such as America, sells its legal musings at the lowest price, since there are no too many buyers for shoddy out of date legal interpretations, which you obviously render.

I'm no lawyer, but I think Chris Ford's intellectually deep and robust retort to your argument, has put so many holes in the sails of your legal interpretations that the only port that you could find for your disabled boat, is a "port of inanities".

It's amusing furthermore, that you imply that the attacks on 9/11 were rather random and without continuity, since you dub them as "current unpleasantness", which constitutionally could not invoke "presidential war powers".

I'm no lawyer, but I mink Christo Furd's bowelly deep and robust tort movement has put so many moles in the tails of your entanglement that the only court that you could mine for your floating moat, is a court of hanities.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now where in the Constitution are "presidential war powers", except the commander in chief part, mentioned?

Did no one else listening to the hearings for Gen'l Hayden last week find interesting his reference to domestic spying that had foiled terrorist attacks in the U. S.? I did.

Most interesting in the references were the inferences that a) unpublicized attacks had been stopped and that b) the "action" of U. S. agencies (forces, whatevers) had used information gleaned from these "unconfirmed" intelligence activities to do so. Is this reality or "believe it because I say it"?

Interesting set of articles linked in your opening discussion Emily.

I found the one by Morrissey in the New York Post compelling as far as the utility of the database and yes I do believe NSA has the technology to sift through all the noise and find needles in haystacks. The key, though, is to have some target numbers to begin with.

What I am curious about is how NSA is keeping this database up to date. So many of these articles make it sound like NSA went to the phone companies and persuaded them to hand over a massive chunk of data composed of all dialed numbers. But this doesn't make sense! That database would be a log of dialed numbers from the time of data transfer back to the start time asked for by NSA.

It seems to me that in order for this to be an effective tool, there needs to be a constant updating of the database. If that is so, the cooperation between NSA and the phone companies would have to be at a different level. NSA would have to be constantly monitoring all dialed numbers and constantly feeding the database. Its not clear if that is happening or not. If not, when did the data transfer take place 2002? Supposedly that is when the program was initiated. Then that database would have a lot less utility now than it did back in 2002 and 2003.

The next thing that is unclear is the seeming contradiction between the Communications law (I can't find the link just now, I'll try to get it later) I have seen referenced in a few articles that says the phone companies were required to ask for a warrant before handing out customer phone call data and the Smith v. MD ruling. Maybe some of the more legal saavy debaters could clear that up for me.

Lastly, the lack of oversight is appalling. This is the primary problem with all of this and a theme that runs through much of what this administration does. Senators during the Hayden confirmation hearing were saying that they should have been informed of the program 5 years ago. The problem of Congressional oversight of secret programs has been handled in the past - why not in this instance? Same thing with requiring warrants. The purpose with requiring the warrants is to ensure that the capabilities are being used for the correct purposes. The problem of getting a warrant for a clandestine operation has been addressed through FISA with a provision for getting the warrant 72 hours after the fact. If the law needs to be revised why doesn't the Bush admin approach Congress, lay out their case for revision, and work with Congress to get it done. If they're afraid that Congress (a republican controlled Congress that has spent much of the last 5 years acting as a rubber stamp for this administration) won't work with them to revise the law, it makes me very suspicious about what they're trying to do. It seems to me that they want the freedom to take whatever measures that are necessary at the spur of the moment to protect the country, and revising laws would only change restrictions that they might have to circumvent later anyway. There is a very short-sighted logic to that approach that is probably effective for heading off terrorist attacks regardless of the everchanging tactics that the terrorists use, but it leaves the country vulnerable to abuse of our capabilities by whomever is in power.

So the problem with the BA approach is the following:

1) that in order to feel comfortable now you have to be willing to put full blind trust in all the BA officials.

2) the potential precedent that is being set can erode our system of checks and balences for years to come or perhaps forever if SCOTUS eventually hears a challenge to any of these BA policies and upholds them.

If and when these approaches used by the Bush administration are challenged in the SCOTUS it is crucial that the Court find the policies unconstitutional. If they don't we're in for a fundamental change in the nature of the United States of America. Our very identity as a nation will be altered. The concepts embedded in all of us from the time we were schoolkids learning about our country for the first time will no longer be consistent with reality, and our Judiciary, the last line of defense for the constitution and the Bill of Rights, will have failed us all.

In one of Chris Ford's diatribes earlier in this topic, he talked about the "lefty disconnect" of expecting total protection without giving up and civil rights. While I'm not sure exactly who those lefties are, but I think we do need to acknowledge his point. My difference with him is that I'm ready to say enough circumvention by the Bushies in the name of protection and if that leaves us somewhat more vulnerable than we would be without the checks in place, then so be it.

I say that in consideration of all the indications that we had prior to 9/11 of an attack coming.Before the Patriot Act, before warrantless wiretapping, Dept. of Homeland Security, an NSA database of all phone calls made, secret prisons, and prisoner torture, we had the information needed and it was being reported. It was just that at the time we weren't prioritizing and sharing information properly at the analysis or the decision making level. I believe we can attain an acceptable level of safety while still maintaining oversight of the executive branch and holding the executive branch accountable to laws designed to facilitate that oversight. If I am wrong and I was ever in a position to face the families of loved ones that had been killed as the result of a successful attack it would be with a heavy heart and a terrible feeling of failure. I think the least of my worries at that moment would whether or not I would be voted out of office. We'll all be better off if we all realize that none of us is indispensible.

This is the level of risk we all have to be willing to accept if we want to hold to our national values.

We all need to accept the risk of failure and the supremacy of the rule of law. If we fail within the bounds of the law we have to accept the consequences. This goes for ourselves as well as the leaders that we vote for and support. We have to acknowledge the rule of law over all those things. Our patriotism must be based on that first. If changes are needed there is a process for implementing change and we should look to that process first instead of trying to circumvent the law to ensure our "success" or the "success" of our leaders.

Calling me an anal retentive hairsplitter is flattering, but I can't but notice that while you criticize "nine lawyers" for supposedly substituting their judgment for law, you happily do the same thing.
I have not suggested that the President does not have war powers; only that there is a difference between authorizing the use of military force and a declaration of war, and that there are often good reasons for making that distinction. If the Congress really wants to give Boy George the full panoply of war powers, they may do so by simple majority vote. But the fact is that they have consciously chosen the lesser degree of authority.
Throughout its history, the US has made that distinction when the international circumstances called for it.

While it is true that we have agreed by treaty to no longer issue letters of marque and reprisal, that is a matter of treaty, not a constitutional amendment, and can be abrogated by a simple act of Congress (and, given rules enforced by prize courts) might actually be a valuable addition to preventing illegal drug and immigrant smuggling).

In fact, you describe an alternate history worthy of Harry Turtledove, but which issimilar to but not descriptive of our real history. Which is, in your words, "drivel":

Nothing in the UN Charter prohibits member states from declaring war. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which postdate the Charter, suggest otherwise. What Article 2 of the Charter prevents is the first use of force. The Charter explicitly recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, and imposes no limits on declaring war in self-defense. Thus, a war against Al Qaeda and other terrorists in consequence of an actual or immediately impending attack is completely consistent with modern international law.

Likewise, you assertion that Mark Rich was charged under the Trading With the Eneemy Act is simply wrong. He was charged with tax evasion and violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the same law used against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, assorted designated international terrorists, narco-terrorists and "drug kingins", and a variety of non-state actors. The Iran hostage crisis was its first use. The operative language of IEEPA is almost exactly the same as Sec. 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Neither makes a distinction between state or non-state actors; rather, IEEPA differs from TWEA in that it prohibits controls or regulations on mail and communications of information and does not authorize the vesting of title in frozen assets. Two rather important areas.

War against non-state actors is not unknown in American experience. Our first foreign war was against the Barbary Pirates. Later we fought against Islamic groups in the Phillippines.

Nothing in what I wrote suggested that I support enemies' rights. (For the avoidance of doubt, my reference to "unpleasantness" was an allusion to the euphemism that Southerners of my age would use for the War of Northern Aggression when in the presence of Yankees and other foreigners) Rather, I'm concerned with the rights of citizens. 9/11 was more than "enough butchery to convince" me "that an actual war is underway".
Unfortunately, for its own reasons, the Bush Administration has chosen not to prosecute the actual perpetrators like a real war, but are all too ready to invoke 9/11 for surveilling and suppressing fellow citizens, especially those who call attention to their incompetence. We've never had more than the equivalent of a reinforced division in Afghanistan, and the Bushies refused to airdrop a Ranger battalion when the CIA task force commander requested it in order to close off the retreat of Usama and his cadre. The Bush Administration continues to give Pakistan a free pass for only token assistance even though the Paki ISS played fairy godfather to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/trainwreck.php?Id=124
www.wsws.org

Former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. He says former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to be the next CIA Director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed. Tice will tell the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. We suspect he'll go into the Echelon program, which is a massive system designed to intercept virtually all electronic communications throughout the world. Phone calls, fax traffic and e-mails are analyzed despite laws in every country banning such activity, including the US. The system was developed in 1947, and was taken over by the NSA in 1953. The operations at Fort Meade worked from Menwith Hill in England. It was used during the Cold War era to keep an eye on the Soviet Union. We also had stations for all kinds of electronic intercepts throughout the world, we know we were there and we were involved in it. We can only remember of two instances in which we were aware of spying on others than the Soviet Union and its satellites - once on our own field units and other times on British and French aircraft.

Echelon was designed primarily for non-military targets: governments, organizations, and business in every country. It can also be considered industrial espionage. The analysis was based on key works like money, stocks, drugs, etc. We did not work on Echelon but we knew all about it. Echelon concentrated on foreign nations up until 1985 and it then started monitoring Americans.

As we all now know, tens of millions of phone calls by US citizens and others in the US have been monitored by the government since 2001. The phone companies now must answer for this invasion of privacy and explain their willingness to violate the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment, in addition to violating provisions of the 1978 law governing spying on US citizens. The bottom line is our government is at war with its citizens and we have our own government as our enemy. The corporate fascist interests that run our country want to establish unilateral control over everyone and everything, and if you expose the truth about what they are doing you are the enemy. We are the victims of state terrorism.

From McYellowcakeland and foreign headquarters of Halliburton, we who are on the depletion slope of the petroleum curve salute you.

Does it not seem obvious that NSA trawlers must also fish through the waters of opposition to the Bush Administration? Why not Congress, the Senate, lawmakers and leadership at every level? Why stop at the media?

Can it be that any Administration is just a facade for something or somone else? Who pray is the singer and who the song?

I found the excerpt from a news story I mentioned earlier:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/bellsouth.reut/index.htm

"Still, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) called for the agency to investigate whether BellSouth and the two largest U.S. telephone companies broke the law by reportedly disclosing consumers' calling records to the NSA.

"The FCC should initiate an inquiry into whether the phone companies' involvement violated Section 222 or any other provisions of the Communications Act," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member FCC.

Section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act requires telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of certain consumer call information, "except as required by law" or when the customer approves its release.

I suppose the "as required by law" provision is where Smith v. MD fits in, but maybe I'll look into it more closely.

Mike Deal

Your noetic levity and lack of logic is astonishing. You are an avatar of contradictions.

Now you are saying, about the greatest danger that America is facing in its history, post 9/11, that you described this danger in the form of a "EUPHEMISM", "unpleasantnes". While you concede at the same time that "9/11 was more than 'enough butchery to convince' me that an actual war is underway". And in YOUR "real war" you would not actually place the most necessary and effective surveillance upon a most dangerous fifth-column of terrorists who are deeply ensconced within America.

Moreover, with the typical legerdemain of a lawyer's chicanery, you turn this surveillance of the fifth- columnists, into an instrument of suppression against the critics of the Bush administration.

With such credentials as the above, you would make KITZSCH out of a strategy of against global terror. And a very poor and weak commander-in-chief to boot.

Why is it that those that complain the most about the "left" wanting the government to protect them, scream the loudest about letting the government do whatever they want to "protect us"?

I think the "Right" feels they have much more to lose and therefore are so scared that they will willingly give up their individual rights to ensure the status quo.

The funny thing is, those that "scream" the loudest don't seem to understand that it's the PEOPLE of this country that protect us, NOT the government. It takes dedicated police, military, intel and other personnel to protect us; funny, the screamers never seem to be any of these. It takes an INFORMED citizenry to understand the complexities of our situation and to DEMAND APPROPRIATE action from our Government.

Ford et al suffer from the delusion that there is an ABSOLUTE right way and they know what it is. Well, we've suffered through 6 years of governing by ABSOLUTE belief and we have this mess to show for it.

I guess it will ALWAYS be SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. Gentlemen...it's called a mirror.

Am I the only one out here who thinks that this NSC data collection plan is yet another Bush screwup operation that gives the public the appearance of motion when in fact nothing of substance is being accomplished.

If I understand correctly, this plan has been in operation now since Sep 12, 2001. How many substantive arrests of terrorists have been made on the basis of any information collected arising out of this program? Why was our information so shoddy, so lousy and so completely bogus in the runup to the Iraq war? One would have thought that at least on communique involving Sadaam's deceptions on WMD would have been uncovered in the light of such a massive data collection effort.

How was it in the face of such massive data collection, the administration failed to detect the true nature of the bogus Italian intelligence on Sadaam's alleged purchases of nuclear material, which led to the President of the United States disgracing himself by putting a lie into the SOU Address?

Any one of you Bush supporters out there is welcome to explain to me the value of a data collection effort that has failed so massively since its inception one day after the attack on 9-11, 2001. If this program is working as billed, where are the fruits of that success? Why have we not captured Bin Laden? Why is Zarkawi still at large and killing Americans and innocent men, women and children in Iraq? What is the value of a surveillance program that has yielded so little success?

"congeorgekotzabasis":

There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and the other jihadists are a threat, not just in terms of individual acts of terrorism, but in the potential disruption to a significant portion of the world oil supply, for which there is no short term replacement. But to call them the greatest threat in our history is either incredible hyperbole, or a lack of appreciation for our history. The real Axis powers were far more of a threat, as was the Soviet Empire. Earlier in our history, The Great Powers of Europe were all far more of a threat, as the War of 1812 proved.

Although you think of the world in bi-polar terms, left vs. right, the reality is that not all criticisms of this Administration originate from a single axis political dimension of left or right. E.g., many in the Army are disenchanted with Bush the poser. To despise Bush is not to favor the jihadists. (Not that the Pelosi-Reid crew is up to it, but there are alternatives in both parties).

In any event, the point is that the Bush Administration has not fully mobilized the nation for war against the jihadists, but is simply using 9/11 as an excuse for certain policies, programs and activities where it suits their agenda. Instead of mobilizing the nation for a real war against those who perpetrated 9/11 and their affiliates, allies, and fellow travellers, we were given tax cuts and told to go shopping while the "professionals" would take care of us. In other words, rather than rallying the country and going after the evil-doers with our full might, the administration sent an undermanned expeditionary force farmed out most of the war and then went back to its original agenda.

"...gives the public the appearance of motion when in fact nothing of substance is being accomplished."

Jaxas, I would agree with you but I have decided to stop thinking since certain people (ie, C.F.) are all to happy to TELL me what I am thinking.

(I had no idea I was clamoring for the Admin. to "connect the dots," to keep me safe. I thought that as an adult I had accepted the fact that there is no way to be safe, ever. Even if every terrorist on the planet could be rounded up, there are still random maniacs with guns, pollution, disease, people driving SUVs while chatting on their cell phones and on and on.)

Anyhoo, I also think (or I would think if I needed to bother) the desire to appear to be doing something certainly does explain why the White House will admit, when confronted, that it has been playing around with phone and Internet communications (always with the caveat that it is to stop A.Q. terrorists). Not only does it distract people from that war that does not seem to be ending any time soon, it looks good (if you are willing to ignore some of the legal issues). "Hey, we've got all of these fancy computers and they are doing SOMETHING to PROTECT you and catch bad guys," sounds a lot better than "Look folks, if a group or an individual is determined to harm a lot of you all at once, some one will eventually succeed."

The former might give us warm fuzzies but the latter is more realistic.

Jaxas & Afghan Vet,

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in also. It seems we think along the same line consistantly so. Vietnam was not ever a declared war, just like Korea, Or this little thing we are in now. I don't remember congress ever issueing a Declaration of war. I only remember them issueing a use of military force should it be deemed necessary. Therefore the idiots in the whitehouse and their so-called justice department lawyers have a great deal of explaining to do when the use the arguement that the use of force constitutes a declaration of war.

What also bothers me is that no one has bothered to mention this as far as our elected officials, so-called legal scholars, even the media. Because anyone who has opposed this administration and its bunch of neo-con flunkies led by Cheney and Rove have been labled weak on defense of this country. With the republican held congress just rubber stamping anything Bush and his administration seemingly wants to do is totally rediculous. I really want to know if anyone in congress has a backbone? There should be hearings for all members of this administration, members of the Senate and the House for violating the Constitution of the United States and the laws governing the freedoms that they broke. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalles, and the rest of the DOD both military and civilian need to be brought up on war crimes they brought about because of lying to the American public about Iraq and any crimes commited while we are in Iraq. Anyone who uses fear mongering should be brought up on charges also. I still can't believe that there are still people that beleive that Saddam and Bin Laden had a link between them, and Bush said that he never said that they did, or did he ever mean to imply they did, in an interview a few weeks ago.

I really think it's time that Americans clean house literally. Start with the House of Representives, next the Senate & the White House. It's time the people we elect start doing for the people who elected them for office and not their favorite charity, THEMSELVES!!!!!

"I'm ready to say enough circumvention by the Bushies in the name of protection and if that leaves us somewhat more vulnerable than we would be without the checks in place, then so be it."

Thank you DK. Its time the "righty false-connect" got some attention, instead of our just rolling over while they put words in our mouths and teach their sheepul what they want them to think we think.

For five years after 9-11 we left the barn door open, essentially unrestricted border access over thousands of miles with both Mexico and Canada. For God's sake, there are places crossing to Canada where the crossing is "honor system".

For five years our ports have been left with merely a weak illusion of security. Since 9-11 ABC smuggled enough spent uranium into the country to make a dirty bomb - twice. The second time they were threatened with prison if they tried it again.

A pre-911 panel said the biggest threat to our national security was loose HEU in the former USSR. But until 9-11 Bush cut funding to secure it, then after 9-11 restored (but did not increase) the funding, then after we invaded Iraq pissed off the other G8 nations he recruited to help us with the bill so they reneged on their pledges. Now the USSR won't even let us at all of it so the budget has been cut back again since we can't spend it. There have been 18 episodes where it has been found, but we don't know how many thefts there have been.

And, finally, we built al Qaeda a terrorist generating machine of epic proportions, spewing out new terrorists faster than we can kill them.

Yes, I expected my government to protect me. I don't believe they are. And I'm not willing to look past open borders, open ports, failure to secure nuclear material and creating a rising tide of new terrorists in order to turn over my civil rights to a nascent Christian Taliban. They want the appearance of protecting me when what they really want is unquestioned power.

I think what bothers me the most is that the terrorists know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Taliban must be feeling very flattered by the rise of the imposition of Christian fundamentalism and the erosion of civil rights in this country. We are starting to look just like them.

Zack Exley

http://tinyurl.com/o6bdg

Message for '08 Dems: Only cowards think we're at war

Ever since 9/11, whenever Dems try to stand up for the Constitution, protect our civil liberties, or dissent in any way, what do Republicans say? "We're at war!"

And fearing some won't understand the stakes of war, people like Senator Pat Roberts spell it out: "You don't have civil liberties when you're dead."

Democratic instincts tend to generate the following automatic response: "Even in wartime, we have to protect our civil liberties!" Very bad instincts. Because, if America really were at war, then it would of course make sense to temporarily sacrifice some liberties -- as well as other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy and good relations with Saudi monarchies.

Our soldiers are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our intelligence forces are at war against terrorist groups around the world, in battles we only hear about when CIA spouses criticize the White House. And it's impossible to overstate the sacrifice they and their families are making.

But America is not under attack by an enemy force of any significance. We got sucker punched by 19 maniacs with box cutters. Republicans want us to run scared because of that for the rest of our lives. But the thing about a sucker punch is that you can't protect yourself against it. Any idiot can take the breath out of you, no matter how tough you are. But only cowards -- actually I think "scaredy cat" is more appropriate here -- live their lives worrying about such things. Of course you've got to do your best to stay alert -- in this context that means port, air and many other types of security. But freaking out and becoming paranoid leaves you more vulnerable, not more protected.

The American people are not cowards. They are not the ones behind this prolonged state of panic. Americans are prepared to walk tall and fearlessly even with the possibility of another attack, even though we know it could kill thousands -- because we know that America is not in danger. We live happily with many extremely-unlikely dangers in our lives, and we reject the idea that America should degrade its democracy just because some tiny extremist groups have added themselves to the list. (They are so far down that list, in fact, that you are 390 times less likely to die in a terrorist attack than in an auto accident.)

Add up all the little bands of anti-American terrorists. They can't invade America. Or any of our allies for that matter. Or anyone. They can't hurt our economy -- unless cowards in government let them. The only thing they can do is try to get in another suck punch sometime. And yeah, it will hurt. But our country, our traditions, our future have nothing to fear.

In the face of our natural American courage, some Republicans will try anything to make individuals focus on the chance of becoming victims. RNC direct mail in 2004 used pictures of children in the Breslan massacre and other scenes of terrorism. The "threat level" program tried to make the infinitesimal chance of being harmed by a terrorist feel inevitable. And many Republicans use fear in their words and speeches everyday: "The terrorists want to kill you! The terrorists want to kill you! The terrorists want to kill you!" (So do a lot of people. But they can't. So stop obsessing!)

Thinking about yourself as the potential victim of an attack is scary. "What if it's the skyscraper I work in next time?" Some of my friends who work in New York towers were fearful for a moment after 9/11. But they sucked it up and forced themselves to think rationally about how tiny the risk actually was.

In other words, they were brave. They didn't quit their skyscraper jobs. They got on with their lives. Anything less would have given those insignificant terrorists who sucker punched us way more power than they deserved -- it would have been cowardly, though it doesn't sound nice to say that. What would have happened to them if they had never pulled themselves together? Maybe they would've been sent off to therapy by their bosses, and coached to think about the risks realistically.

So should we send hysterical, terror-obsessed Republican leaders into therapy? If their fear were sincere, then: yes. But they're only pretending. If they were really scared of the next terrorist attack, then they'd try to do something to reduce the risk of one: improve port and air security and stop giving the airline and freight lobbies whatever they want. If they really thought we were "at war with the terrorists," they'd stop with the tax cuts, hold civilian contractors accountable for failures to rebuild Iraq, and get tough with governments who actually do allow terrorism to flourish within their borders, like Saudi Arabia.

Democrats can't be faulted for staying silent in the moments immediately after 9/11, when Bush established the wartime paradigm. We count on Presidents to refrain from exploiting moments of national crisis for personal and political benefit -- Bush let us down. There was simply nothing Democrats could have done to stop Bush from savaging our Democracy while the Twin Towers were still burning and America was reeling emotionally.

But now it is the duty of all patriots to put America back how it's supposed to be, and this time that job falls to Democrats. The 2008 presidential race is the only forum in which this can happen, because it is the only time an individual leader will be able to take a stand on this, personally take the Republicans to task, and explain his or her position fully to the people.

Every Democrat taking part in the '07-'08 primary spectacle will have a choice to make: accept the Republican war paradigm, pretend it's not there, or challenge it head on. Only by challenging it head on will a Democrat be able to win both the primary and the general election.

We need a Democrat in '08 to say: "If you want to live in fear, then vote for one of them. If you want to stand tall, and show the terrorists that we don't give a damn about them, then come with me."

Until that happens, we're going to loose every argument about the Constitution, civil liberties and anything else -- because you just can't win arguments against the logic of, "You don't want to DIE DO YOU?"

I think Murtha said it best when he predicted Democrats will win back both the House and Senate:

"The Republican administration better be prepared to answer tough questions about the war"
...and...
"It will be a stunning thing to them, and then the investigations will start"

If you want to know what is going on and want it investigated, don't vote republican this fall.

patriot 1957, Lab Rat, What, me worry?, Mike Deal, Jaxas, & AfghanVet-

Well said, gentlemen, well said! My feeble 2 cent contribution is this: Every day I become more outraged that the cost of this idiotic war on terror is being borne only by the brave men and women on the front lines, and their families. God forbid the American public should sacrifice anything but our civil liberties.

I have voted for Tom Davis since he was on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. This Novemeber I will cast my vote for his opponent, whoever that may be. It is time to take a fire hose to Washington and clean them all out!

See you at the polls.

"How was it in the face of such massive data collection, the administration failed to detect the true nature of the bogus Italian intelligence on Sadaam's alleged purchases of nuclear material, which led to the President of the United States disgracing himself by putting a lie into the SOU Address?"

Jaxas, the documents you refer to were sent to the US State department on or about October 9, 2002. Imagine the conversation between the US Italian ambassador and the State Department - the SMOKING GUN documents were on the way from Italy!!!! Do you suppose they woke up the President to tell him? Colin Powell? Was Judy Miller leaked to?

If there had been even one iota of believability in these documents they would have been leaked to the press or publicly announced by Georgie porgy. "THE SMOKING GUN HAS BEEN FOUND", his speech or Judy Millers byline would have screamed. Of couse we knew they were forgeries, so, like all the other data that didn't support the invasion of Iraq, they were buried when it was discovered they werent' useful.

My guess is that we planted them, and that there were more than a few unprintable words back to Michael Ledeen when the documents found their way back to us and the instigators found out what a laughingstock the documents actually were.

we invaded a soveriegn nation without provocation except greed...

there should be no "war powers"

unless you think we should be giving them to sleazy used

car dealers, who need to convince that mom and apple pie stand

behind their deal...not the cloven hoofed idol of the decietfully slovenly

flowery language is the last refuge of those who try to cover thei

rcrap with parfume....

di dyou know that big lips.???????

bite me...
.

let that become apparent...let the lies be revealed...

open the gates of true vision...

emenating from the white house and this congressssssssssssss....

a beast has take n our land ....

and we are mad e unclean.

with chains of truth...

s

wiccan wrote:
"I have voted for Tom Davis since he was on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. This Novemeber I will cast my vote for his opponent, whoever that may be. It is time to take a fire hose to Washington and clean them all out!"

I actually like Tom Davis even though I'm from the People's Republic of Maryland. :^}

I have to agree with you though, even good republicans are supporting this administration by helping to create the majorities in the House and Senate, and thus gave power to the likes of Delay, Gingrich, Lott and Frist. If the republican leadership, which has ignored their duty to protect the constitution from the assaults by this president, is to be voted out, the pillars that hold them up must be knocked down by voting out all republicans. As a party they have not only failed, they have participated in the violations of laws and 4th ammendment rights by not overseeing this president, not to mention running up a national debt that no democrat could do on the best of days. Maybe Davis will switch to the democratic party...he just might be welcomed...

Meanwhile, here in MD we have to get rid of Ehrlich as govenor. He's been sending his hit men into state agencies to determine which state employees (not just appointed employees) are democrats and then firing them. It was done by two different individuals and is well documented including suits the state lost due to firing the employees without cause. Typical republican ethnic cleansing... There is a lot to clean up in this country, at all levels...

Here in Florida good ole Jeb has been trying to find someone to run against Katherine Harris, because he knows she doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning against (D)Senator Nelson. I think you all should remember her name, as she was the one who stopped the recount in 2000, thus handing the election to Bush. She's been running political commercials here already touting `"Security and Honesty" what a Joke!!!!! I have a feeling that the Republicans in the state houses are in for a very rude awakening also seeing some of the articles that have been put out on the "under the table" sliding of money from the stae Republican coffers to unknown political action commitees, that have been putting out bald faced lies about Democratic challengers, they have even gone to the point of listing the challengers home telephone numbers and telling people to call them and complain based on a lie.

"I think Murtha said it best when he predicted Democrats will win back both the House and Senate:"

Don't forget the Governors races - that's going to be a massive landslide too.

So, why are we paying good tax dollars to build a Wall, like East Germany did, to keep us "safe" from the people our own CEOs and CFOs are hiring on purpose? Why not just jail the employers instead and confiscate their assets to pay for the war in Iraq?

What a ridiculous administration we have. I thought Bush was president of ALL the people here, not just his 33% stick-your-head-in-the-sand fan club members, most of whom are the "religious" don't-think-for-yourself types, and the top 3% who only care about their beloved tax cuts.

The money (ours - present and future) that they are spending on so-called 'security' and the unnecessary war is so ludicrous that it's sickening.

Am I the only one that is so totally disgusted with this whole crew?

I agree with the previous poster who said there is no such thing as true security. I'm starting to wonder if they're using their pre-determined war as an excuse to step on our rights and create the biggest deficit this country has ever has.

Good points Will in Seattle. I was just reviewing Bush's May 15th speech on immigration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washington/15text-bush.html?ex=1305345600&en=404fcfb51a3ad608&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
and found the following which shows just what a weasel Bush is:

Bush said:
"Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, ... it strains state and local budgets ... and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law."

How can our president call these people "decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives" when he says that "Many use forged documents to get jobs"? Wasn't a guy in VA prosecuted for selling some 9-11 hijackers forged documents that he normally sold to illegals? That underground system of forged documents should be alarming in the post-911 world.

Bush said:
"to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program". Now this is just a non-sequitor. Why not say in order to secure our borders we need tax cuts. One has nothing to do with the other. He seems to be giving up and saying we cannot control the borders so the best we can do is hope they will allow us to document them as they come in. That is securing a border?

Bush said:
"we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud."

Now this is just a bold faced lie. Everytime an employee is hired they fill out a W-2 form for tax withholding. I'm sure you have done this. They need your SS# and the info is sent to the IRS. If the information the government has on the SS# does not match what the IRS has, the IRS tells the employer the information they sent the IRS is inconsistent. It is up to the employer to have the new employee correct the information and give it to the IRS. Now an employer can just ignore the IRS warning but they know there is a problem as does the IRS. So the result is not so much document fraud as it is employers looking the other way and not following up on what has been shown to be inconsistent documents and the IRS not pursuing W2 inconsistencies. That should be made criminal for employers to ignroe and followed up by the IRS. Bush does not want either.

Bush said:
"It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border."

But he does not say this about other lawbreakers. Maybe it isn't wise to round up all drug users and clog up the criminal justice system for what many feel is a victimless crime. Bush is basically saying that illegals are too much trouble to police. What a wimp, like his father.

Vote the republicans out this fall and let the investigations begin!

I believe the democrats will win this november, despite the mud slinging that Rove and Ken Melman will wage.

With 75% of the population not liking the current status, if the republicans DO win, it might be time to seriously look into voter fraud (at least THIS time around) I still have my doubts that the last 2 elections were honest.

js - I'm starting to wonder if they're using their pre-determined war as an excuse to step on our rights and create the biggest deficit this country has ever has.

starting to? better late than never I guess. Now please wave that cup of fresh brewed coffee under the noses of a few more sleeping AMericans and get them up to speed, won't you?

A moderate republican is still a republican. They have to kowtow to the conservatives to get seated at the table. On every issue that counts they vote the party line.

You want change vote the moderate republicans out.

Non sequitur? His whole life has been a non sequitur.

thanks, sully.

Did you notice the foreign news caught Blair in one of the lies told at the joint Bush-Blair Iraq news conference today, while the US news has mostly just bought the latest pack of lies wholesale?

Specifically, the fact that the UK won't be withdrawing troops at the rate Blair was pretending they would.

It's like they don't get it that the Internet doesn't have any Giant Walls - even comrade Bush's friends in China are learning that.

It's no secret that's their strategy. Both know any withdrawal will leave behind a bloody mess not just in Iraq but thru out that region - possibly the whole world as well from the oil fallout - and they will then get the blame head on. So any full blown withdrawal will be left to the next guys/gals on either side of the Atlantic. Such profiles in courage!

Afghan Vet wrote:

"It takes an INFORMED citizenry to understand the complexities of our situation and to DEMAND APPROPRIATE action from our Government."

I agree with what you're saying and I want to build on it by adding that not only do we need an informed citizenry, we need a citizenry that values our nation's ideals to the point where, if faced with a choice between eroded freedoms with "greater security" and a "lesser degree of security" but freedoms remaining intact, the citizenry will as a body choose the latter.
*****************************************
Jaxas writes:

"What is the value of a surveillance program that has yielded so little success?"

The question you raise makes me wonder whether or not the choices of eroded freedoms with "greater security" and a "lesser degree of security" but freedoms remaining intact, is truely an "either/or". Chris Ford in his earlier post would have us believe the choices are a true either/or. I'm skeptical. I fall somewhere between you and him, where I believe the programs probably do increase our level of security, but I don't believe it when it is stated or implied that those programs have to be conducted without warrants or Congressional oversight. If laws need to be changed, then we should change them, not circumvent them. If I'm wrong and Chris is rightabout the either/or, I would choose to forego the programs in favor of keeping our freedoms intact for now and for the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200709.html

Good thing the admin. has made it clear it only seeks to protect us from A.Q baddies when it ferrets about in personal data. Apparetly an idiot government employee mis-handling the personal info of veterans is another matter all together, I guess.

I know the two are not related. I just find it bitterly amusing that as one part of the government is telling us it HAS to look at data on individuals, something like this happens. What a mess.

are protecting us from is manufactured,

false,

bogus,

bs,

then any conclusions about what they need to do

to protect us from that manufactured threat

are

false,

bogus, bs

and equally manufactured....

the real threat is to the stability of our

United States of America,

as it's sold to friends of this

complicit congress,

and