"It's our government, our government!" he said, turning red in the face and waving a copy of USA Today. "It's not one party's government, it's America's government!"- New York Times quoting Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont. He was fired up over a report in today's USA Today about a massive database being built by the NSA on domestic phone calls. Daily Kos quotes potential CIA Chief Hayden as saying that when headed the NSA, he sat down with phone company executives to discuss the program.
According to CNN Leahy held up a copy of the paper and went on to say, "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?" Leahy asked. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything ... Where does it stop? Somebody ought to tell the truth and answer questions. They haven't. The press has done our work for us and we should be ashamed. Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents."
I am glad to see some outrage, especially when it comes on the heels of yesterday's news that the Justice Department was halting the inquiry into the eavesdropping and wiretaps conducted by the NSA.
What is most interesting is that when you read the USA Today piece, you suddenly realize that it all sounds so familiar. Remember when NSA wanted internet search firms Yahoo, Google, etc. to hand over internet surfing records?
I'll close with this interesting quote from the story, " The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events."
Well, well, well . . . it's toltally constitutional, but a court (charged with these sorts of things) might not think so. I'm switching my phone service.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
It's Our Government!
Posted by USWest at 8:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
In the USA Today article, their NSA source says of the telephone records, "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world." The agency's goal is, "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders.
I can understand that--somewhere--there must be a record of everyone I've called... but surely these records should only be available to the government upon issuance of a warrant?!
In an outright lie, Bush said in response that, "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." But that's precisely what they are doing.
Meanwhile, in another outrageous story, USA today reports that the government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter. Said the counsel involved,
"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program."
Bush must be impeached.
Bush must be impeached, his father tried for treason for knowingly letting him run and assisting in his election, all officials in his administration must be removed, investigated, and incarcerated on an island somewhere far away.
And by all means THIS must now be allowed to happen!
// posted by USWest
Perhaps "treason" is a bit over the top...? ;-)
Treason? I'm no lawyer but how else would you describe a President who has perpetrated a de facto coup d'etat? Hundreds of laws dismissed with "signing statements!" Millions of Americans placed under government surveilience without warrants, even under the lax standards of FISA! A costly war under false pretenses! Billions wasted on no-bid contracts to political cronies!
Treason? Perhaps it's not but only because this was not done on behalf of a foreign power. Perhaps insurection would be a better term!
VOTE DEMOCRAT! IMPEACH BUSH! SAVE DEMOCRACY!
Let LIBERTY! be our cry!
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Perhaps it is Dr. S. (ans RBR, I was talking about Bush I, but I am with you on it suiting Bush II as well). But any former president who lets a former drug addict, recovering alcholic, AWOL, D student, 4 time failure at business man for run for the top post, help him steal an election, and then actually take the oath of office without so much as raising a concern or even feeling guilty should be tried for something. The mother too. In fact, punish them both for failing to use birth control.
OK, now I am getting silly, I know.
// posted by USWest
So, Bush lied in April 2002 when he said that all searches were done with warrants (see my previous post).
Bush lied in December '05 when he said he had come clean. It's just about conversations to foreign countries!
Now we learn it's a database of all US calls.
Conclusion: Bush is still lying.
This will end EXACTLY where I said it would last year: with the revelation that Bush has been deliberately spying on his political enemeies and the Kerry campaign, just like his hero Nixon did.
// posted by LTG
I agree, LTG. That is the only way they can contine fixing elections. That is how Nixon won his election as well.
// posted by USWest
I'm no fan of Nixon and he did interfer with the 1972 election a lot by tapping the DNC and by first steeling then leaking the Democratic VP's psychological medical files. But the main reason Nixon won was that the Democrats nominated a completely loony left no hoper by the name of George McGovern.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RBR - I'm not sure I agree with that. The main reason Nixon won was the deal he made with Southerners to put an end to progressive politics. Since Dems started Vietnam and ran it into 1969, they had no credibility on the issue. McGovern was a somewhat left-wing candidate, to be sure, but the real question is what caused the nomination of McGovern? The constellation that promoted him to the nomination was the result of the shrinkage of the Democratic party. Even a centrist candidate would not have done much better, because the same shrunken pool of Democratic votes was all that was available. LBJ said it right when he said that it would cost the Democratic party for a hundred years. It is still true that electoral politics in the south are one-party politics.
// posted by LTG
I'm right on this one I'm afraid. In 1972, McGovern won exactly one state - Massachussets (aprox. 55 to 45). He lost every other state. That's not what you would expect if Nixon had won mainly because of his famous Southern Strategy. Also in 1968 Nixon won 301 electoral votes despite 46 votes going to Wallace. Again, Nixon (who ran as a centrist) was up against a far left candidate (Humphrey).
Sure, the Southern Strategy played a role in 1972 but Nixon could have lost most if not all of the South and still won. A brief glance at the 1968 and 1972 election maps should make that clear. The Bush-Rove strategy is the purest culmination of the Southern Strategy. And of course Nixon interfered with both the 1968 and 1972 Democratic campaigns but the 1972 race wasn't even close.
It's important to understand that candidates like McGovern who espouse far left positions on policy, simply do not have the broad appeal that far left activists assume they do.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment