Bush has now done the unbelievable. He now insists he will continue to break the law and spy on anyone he thinks is an enemy of the state (he won't tell us how he makes that decision, but you can guess he's no more honest than Nixon, and probably a great deal less). Now he claims that whoever told the public what he was up to committed a shameful act. Outrageous!!! Reporting the truth about big brother spying is patriotism. And here's another thing, it is now practically guaranteed that he spied on the Kerry campaign illegally. All you have to do is look at how amorphously the Bush/Cheney team describes "national security" and "enemies of the state."
Cheney said just over a year ago that voting for Kerry was dangerous to national security:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. (Sept. 7, 2004)" And, of course, anyone who criticizes the war effort is undermining the war effort.
Last month, Bush said of those who claimed he lied about the war, "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."
Therefore, the clear deduction is that Cheney and Bush believe that spying on the Kerry campaign was justified by national security. If they admit to legally keeping files on anti-war groups, as they do, what are they doing illegally? My friends, this is the scandal that will soon break, that Bush was spying on the Kerry campaign... all for the good of the country, to prevent the "wrong choice" that would be "devastating from the standpoint of the United States." This is a very simple matter of connecting the dots.
Bush must be impeached.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Bush Spied on Kerry Campaign
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 3:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The Bush administration says NSA needs special powers to spy on American citizens without any court oversight because in some cases it would take too long to contact the court for approval. But this is bunk. In any such emergency circumstances, the Attorney General is authorized to issue warrants good for up to 72 hours (after which time the court must be contacted.)
So why did Bush require warrants without any oversight? Was he perhaps afraid the court would not approve of wiretapping peaceful anti-war protest groups? Or might it be even worse? LTG predicts we will discover Bush/Cheney used their powerful national security apparatus for domestic political purposes... as another Republican president did back in the early 70s.
May they meet the same fate. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
On the one hand, this is only in the realm of speculation now. However, like Dr. Strangelove I find it hard to imagine why the White House found it so inconvenient to go to the FISA Court for approval 72 hours after the tap started. Not only that but Bush claims these were urgent matters and there was no time for FISA to be invoked. However, he also says that he approved and reapproved these projects every 45 days over 30 times. That sounds like he had plenty of time to seek judicial approval.
If time was not a factor, the target and content of the investigations must have been. Bush could claim secrecy was needed. However, so far he has stated that he ALSO used FISA Courts for other investigations. So he trusts FISA for some top secret investigations but not others??
In the context of the known DOD investigations of anti-war groups, I'm convinced we will discover - sooner or later - that groups like Moveon.org and the Arab Anti-Defimation League and who knows who else (perhaps that liberal Espicopalean church in Pasadena that's getting IRS trouble for preach peace?). It wouldn't shock me to hear that he's ordered the NSA to spy on Middle East Studies professors at universities or even on the Kerry Campaign.
These men (Bush and Cheney) must be impeached. That the Republican leadership of Congress will not shows their total bankruptcy. They'll impeach Clinton for a little hanky panky in the Oral Office but Bush actually committs a felony (violation of FISA 1978) and it's all OK!? And for what? Tax cuts? Intelligent design? Surely we are no safer for having the Quakers under watchful eyes!
I'll praraphrase LTG's favorite movie line: "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for tax cuts!?"
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RBR writes "However, he also says that he approved and reapproved these projects every 45 days over 30 times."
I approve myself to take a crap every morning. Not exactly oversight, is it?
// posted by LTG
Here is the other problem . . . these guys have a paper trail to the moon and back. Remember TIPS and Poindexter? It was all in the works, it was all planned, this abuse of power.
LTG, I have been having interesting conversations with people about intelligence and civil liberties. I need to work through it here to get my head straight. My colleague and I were talking about intelligence sharing and why it was prohibited for agencies to share info. I pointed out that at the outset, this was partly to protect citizens from the abuse of intelligence agencies. It made sense because the line between foreign and domestic intelligence was pretty clear. But now, it is very fuzzy. Sharing info across agencies is useful, but this means you have to have even more protections in place for those being spied on. It is about privacy! Sharing info can be dangerous if there were a centralized repository, which is what Poindexter was assigned to set up.
The problem with a centralized database of info is that it makes fishing expeditions easier. My colleague didn't get what the big deal was. He figures they can get it if they want it, even if it is spread out all over the place. This may be true, but why make it easier to get by putting it into one place? My argument was that people control databases. They make errors and you can’t trust them. Say I was trolling a database, I'd come across disparate pieces of info (without a warrant) that could be built into a circumstantial case against someone. I wouldn't have any real proof that crime had been committed. If I had to get a warrant, then I would suddenly have to deal with constitutional protections. Furthermore, I would have to justify myself to a judge, list specifically what I was looking for, where, and why. So there would be discovery involved and a trail that the suspect could use to defend himself.
What my colleague didn't get is why a crime has to be committed in order for law enforcement to take action. (can you say Minority Report?) What if, he said, you overheard 3 people plotting to bomb a building. The crime hadn't taken place, but we hear about these types getting arrested all the time. I pointed out that plotting to bomb a building is a crime. The crime is the plotting. The bombing is a separate crime.
See, he doesn't get why all these eavesdropping is that big a deal because he is innocent. He doesn’t suppose that anyone would listen to him. I feel like this as well, but it isn’t about me. He is missing the point. Our entire system of justice is built on the idea of innocence until proven guilty. He, like so many others, don't seem to see the ramifications of illegal actions taken by the government against citizens. Geeze, they have already forgotten 1776. And my colleague is an educated person!!!!!! This, RBR, is why there are no protests. It isn’t the cold. It is the lack of a sense of outrage.
// posted by USWest
I regularly work with sets of data that are unclassified when taken separately, but which must be marked SECRET if they are ever put together in the same document.
When it comes to protecting the privacy of its own data, the government fully understands the danger posed by a centralized database.
USWest, I believe your argument about law enforcement action is even stronger when you consider that under the 1978 law, FISA warrants issue on probable cause. The NSA just needs to show the FISA secret court they have probable cause to believe someone may be plotting a crime for them to start spying.
Remind your colleague about Nixon and McCarthy. Terrorism is not the only danger we face as citizens in a democracy. If your colleague thinks government spies and the military should just be trusted to do what is right, with no oversight, checks, or balances... he is a fool. Surely the mere requirement that a secret (!) court agree to probable cause is the absolute minimum oversight we should accept!
USWest, you are absolutely correct. Conspiracy to commit a crime and solicitation of a crime, is a punishable (and of course investigatable) offense , even if no substantive crime results. The argument that the criminal investigative arms of the government are impotent is just right wing folderol.
Bush must be impeached.
// posted by LTG
The reason there is no outrage is that Republicans keep saying "But Bush is a good person, you know that. It's offensive to claim otherwise. Don't demonize. Just trust him. These civil liberties types are just hysterical."
That's why the democrats' job is to convince the American people that Bush can't be trusted. Can't be too hard, for a politician, eh? That's why the Iraq war lies Bush told fell flat. Joe Sixpack thought, "Well, Bush meant well."
He didn't. And he wasn't just mistaken. Kerry should have said that.
Should we make a point of ending all over our posts with "Bush must be impeached". I think I will walk around doing that for kicks. "Hello! How are you? Bush must be impeached."
I bet you will get more protests about the transit workers strike than secret acts of government. If it doesn't inconvenience me in any way, why should I care? But I don't exaclty see any of us running out into the streets or organizing a campaign. So we are just as guilty as the next guy. It's much easier to write bitchy blogs from the comfort of my living room.
I think it was Churchill that said spending 5 minutes with the average person was argument enough against democracy. (Oops, I didn't just say that. Frustration. It's just frustration. It will pass.)
// posted by USWest
My point is (at the risk of offending with a dead tongue yet again): Delenda est Carthago.
Cato ended every public speech with those words -"Carthage must be destroyed" - until he spurred the Roman senate to the Third Punic War that destroyed Carthage altogether. It is very well known phrase even by those who took only one year or less of Latin because it is a classic example of a particular grammatical construction.
Bush must be impeached.
// posted by LTG
US West, your coworker is unconcerned not because he is innocent but rather because he has yet be accused or investigated.
What people consistently miss here is that when Bush defends himself by saying "I'm only spying on terrorists" we have only his word on that. LTG is right, the Democrats and everyone need to constantly point out ALL the different lies and "mistakes" in intelligence this administration has committed every time they say, "We're only spying on bad people."
I think Democrats need to run TV ads about this. They need to talk to the people not just each other.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Never had Latin, LTG. In all my education, it was never offered. 10 years of French, though. thus I say,
"Bruleus Bush, Bruleus."
// posted by USWest
Hey, I'm not offended by the use of latin, or even French. I just don't understand it. Please provide translations for those of us with less classical educations.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Bruleurs?
// posted by LTG
I swear when I inputed that it said "Bruelez"
// posted by USWest
Post a Comment