| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 12 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
The betrayal of America
A Sick and Tired Writer Max Friedman The Augusta Free Press This column is a rant, not a soft, cuddly piece of fluff opinion. It is going to tell the truth like you have never heard it before. To quote Jack Nicholson from the movie "A Few Good Men" - "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth" - but I'm going to give it to you anyway. So, as your mother used to do to those of you readers who are old enough to remember, hold your nose and take your medicine, because the doctor is in, and he's operating with a chainsaw. After 35 years in the news/journalism business, from D.C. to Vietnam, I can honestly say that most of the leading Democratic Party politicians and their far-left support groups are traitors to this country. Besides the few who are deceased or out of office, today's DP is loaded with leaders who have sold out this country to the communists, to the Islamofascists and to their egos. Others are just plain stupid, addle-brained and knee-jerk jerks. (I'll get to the Republicans in a minute). Joining them in this class of betrayers is the mainstream media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN and CBS (as we used to say in Vietnam, the Communist Broadcasting System). They have put their hatred for President Bush before the safety and security of the country, and they have severally damaged our security efforts, not only at home, but abroad, and I will give examples to prove my point. The Republican leadership in both the House and Senate should resign immediately because they are ineffective, incompetent, stupid and clueless as to what needs to be done to protect this country, to fix internal problems quickly and rationally, and they have no backbone for a fight with the Demonrats. Rep. Dennis Haslert is a nice guy, but he's too slow in a fight. The first one to draw and fire accurately wins, and he can hardly get his gun out of his holster. With Tom DeLay out of the picture, perhaps we are witnessing a new wave of younger Republicans who will have the guts to fight the Democratic Left the way they should be fought, to the death, because the security of the United States depends on it. Sen. Bill Frist is a great guy, but he lacks the skillfulness and hunter instinct needed to stop the Senate Democrats from destroying this country. Sen. Trent Lott, not!. Sen. Arlen Spector, head of the Judiciary Committee, is a total waste, and I used to like his fighting spirit when he was a prosecutor in Pennsylvania in the 1960s. Now he is the great compromiser, and usually loses to the mean-spirited Democrats every time, plus the fact that he isn't a great committee chairman. Too often he misses the real point of the hearings and lets good opportunities for getting at the truth go right down the drain. Also, he is anal-retentive on the Constitution and national-security surveillance to the point that he is endangering our safety. As one jurist said years ago, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," but Spector doesn't seem to know it. The White House staff - I couldn't give a rat's behind about Karl Rove. If he is so smart and skilled, then why is he a political eunuch right now? And why did Scooter Libby talk to the press at all? Stupidest move he could ever make. The press is the enemy, not a neutral and objective medium. I don't care if higher-ups did authorize him to leak items on Iraq - he just should have kept his mouth shut. Karen Hughes is a nice woman and good for domestic politics, but she is so out of her league in the international arena (as a spokesperson for the American position), that she is, indeed, in a "League of Her Own." In fact, she's not even in the right league, or stadium. Her first meeting with Moslem women months ago gave her a black eye and proved how ineffective she is for the job. The White House public-relations/media-relations people - fire them all, for they are totally incompetent and useless. I get more news, better news, more timely news, and more detailed news from overseas on-line journalists such as Michael Yon and Bill Roggio in Iraq, and from other on-line journalists on various topics, including The Augusta Free Press' own contributor Bruce Kesler (now with the Democracy Project), Ruth King (for extensive on-line website coverage of the Middle East and Europe), and the guys from the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation/Radix Foundation, concerning Southeast Asia, the POW/MIA issue, and related military affairs, than I get from all the mainstream media put together. Only Fox News Channel comes close to providing news no one else reports, a sort of visual version of The Washington Times (the best source of information on terrorism and security issues in the daily print media) and its cousin, The Weekly Standard, followed by Newsmax and Worldnetdaily.com. The press onslaught against President Bush has culminated in the U.S. losing many of its tactics and methods in the war against terrorism. The lies about how the U.S. treated terrorist prisoners and suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and the exaggerated stories about Abu Graibh (which was a disgraceful affair), the exposure of so-called black prisons for questioning terrorists held in back-line countries (as versus frontline countries), the disinformation reporting on what is actually in the Patriot Act, and now The New York Times deliberate sabotaging of an electronic surveillance operation run by the National Security Agency on a few dozen Americans, are only part of the picture of how the Left in this country is putting their own political and ideological agenda above and beyond the security of the United States. If anyone thinks that the Dec. 18 story by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in The New York Times, "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts: Secret Order to Widen Domestic Monitoring," was anything other than a deliberate attempt to scuttle the vote on the Patriot Act, which was before the Senate on that same day, then you are crazy. And it wouldn't hurt book sales for Risen's new publication. This has been the typical modus operandi of the NYT, LAT and Washington Post for the past 35 years. Any chance they get to destroy America's operational agencies and tactics, they jump at with glee. Risen and Lichtblau are just the latest in a long line of subverters of America's security, all in the name of a free press. Guys like Seymour Hersch (NYT), Walter Pincus (WP), Dana Millbank (WP) and other hatchet-job writers have always been assigned the dirty work of exposing and destroying America's intelligence systems and internal-security operations. Somebody should look into Pincus' background around 1959. They might find something very strange. These subverters have been aided by Newsweek (the false Koran flushing down the toilet at Gitmo); CBS (the Bush National Guard documents fraud); and many misinterpretations or deliberate distortions of the actual scope of threats to our security (Jack Anderson and Karen De Young, WP, on the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua); NYT (Ray Bonner on the true nature of the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador, the FMLN); the real nature of communist penetration of Grenada (the 100 feet of seized documents tells it all); the continual blaming of the White House and the military for not capturing Osama Bin Laden (covering up for Bill Clinton's missed opportunities to have Bin Laden hand-delivered to U.S. intelligence), and the nearly complete failure of the media to tell about the tremendous progress being made daily in Iraq, are only part of the truth about the anti-American, left-wing, so-called liberal or mainstream media, in America. Go back to 1970 and look at the timing of these stories, and you will eventually see the pattern of destruction that they have on ongoing congressional hearings, legislation, military operations, intelligence operations and the morale of the homefront and military front in the war on terror. The same could be said about some of the MSM during the Cold War when the U.S. was held in a moral-equivalency position to the two greatest genocidal nations in the world, the Soviet Union (an estimated 60 million dead), and Red China (an estimated 100 million-plus dead). The apologists and protectors of these countries were legion in the op-ed pages, and often on the editorial pages of the NYT and WP (as the two most influential papers in the country). What Walter Duranty started in the NYT in the 1930s by covering up the mass murder that Joseph Stalin was perpetuating on the people under his control, was continued over into covering up for the so-called Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese masters, the mini state terrorist regime that the Palestine Liberation Organization had established in Lebanon, and now the extent of the threat that Islamofascism poses to the U.S. and Western civilization. Look at how so-called Moslem advocacy groups in the U.S. have been portrayed despite the fact that their leaders have been convicted of supporting terrorism, and that their members call for Jihad against the U.S. and the West. At to this list both Playboy and Penthouse magazines during the 1970s when they ran often damaging articles about U.S. intelligence operations and techniques. They seemed to be trying to out as many operations as possible, and in one case, Playboy gave money to a longtime identified CPUSA member (Frank Donner) at Yale who headed an ACLU-backed project to uncover and destroy U.S. intelligence operations. They didn't like it when I exposed their gift to this longtime CP security operative who was now a part of the ACLU Surveillance Project at Yale. Having been involved in internal-security matters since 1969, as both an operative and a journalist, I have both seen things that the WP and NYT would never publish (I tried), and have been told things that would make you want to go out and shoot, as traitors, a number of journalists (a few were actual communists and a couple may have been enemy operatives), as well as some lawyers and politicians. Maybe one day the documentation on this will be available to the public. I will only give you a few insights here because of space considerations, but you might someday be able to read the whole story. There have been numerous members of the Communist Party and their sympathizers in the U.S. Congress since the 1930s, and a few are suspected of being KGB agents of influence, if not actual KGB agents. When Professor Harvey Klehrs and John Haynes (Library of Congress) had access to the Soviet COMINTERN files (the operational arm of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the MVD/NKVD) in the 1990s, they found lists of American labor leaders who were not only Communist Party USA members but also Soviet COMINTERN agents, including the late Harry Bridges, who lied his way through congressional hearings, immigration hearings, court hearings and the media (who covered up his past very successfully) until the Klehrs/Haynes discoveries in the 1990s. The same goes for the Democratic Party cover-up of Soviet spy Alger Hiss. Some of the CPers/sympathizers in Congress were in powerful positions, including chairmanships of both full and subcommittees, and used these positions to promote communist propaganda and disinformation, to attack U.S. foreign policy, to discover intelligence secrets, to undermine and eventually destroy internal-security committees/agencies, and to aid our communist enemies. Freedom of Information requests to the FBI have revealed the communist ties of the late Rep. Emanual Cellers and Samuel Dickstein, as well as those of the late Leonard Bernstein and so-called journalist I. F. "Izzy" Stone (a probable KGB-agent-of influence). Often congressional aides were part of the equation, with some of them being active in CPUSA-funded think tanks such as the Institute for Policy Studies or the Fund For Peace operations including the Center for International Policy. One look at the names of congressmen/senators and their staffers on those letterheads and in the publications of these organizations verify what I have just said, and the list is much long. A few congressmen/women have/had CPUSA front records that stretch for miles, and some also supported the Trotskyite Communists of the Socialist Workers Party and the once-Trots, now Stalinists, Workers World Party, whose fronts are led by Ramsey Clark, the former attorney general under Lyndon Johnson. These fronts include the International Action Center and ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), as well as others. Among the CP fronts that the dirty dozen members of Congress have supported have been the Labor Research Association, the National Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression (the old Angela Davis support group), the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee/House Internal Security Committee, and its successor, NCARL, the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation), the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, led by identified Soviet agent Steve Nelson, the U.S. Peace Council/World Peace Council, and the National Coalition to Fight Inflation and Unemployment (this only covers some of the 1970s). Besides supporting the communist-dominated anti-war groups, including the various Mobes (of which I was a covert member), and their successors, PCPJ (Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice) and NPAC (National Peace Action Coalition), the one major SWP front that lists congressional sponsors is the Political Rights Defense Fund, which, like PCPJ/NPAC, has one John Kerry as a sponsor/endorser. It was an anti-FBI operation. If you want names of these people, here are a few of the worst: Abzug, Conyers, Dellums, G. Miller, D. Edwards, Rangel, Kastenmeier, Harkin, Kerry, Braun, P. Burton, P. Mitchell, C. Hayes (CPUSA), G. Crockett (CPUSA), T. Weiss, and about another dozen with lesser numbers of fronts or less serious affiliations. Dellums even wrote a glowing memorial statement for Sandy Pollack, a key CPUSA operative and a true Comintern (Communist International) agent if there ever was one in the 1970s and 1980s. It is in her tribute book, along with a lot of other people whose names would shock you. For a few of these mentioned congressional names, there is some serious evidence that they were secret members of the CPUSA, but this for a future story. For some congressional names not mentioned here who were reportedly members of the CPUSA, I am working on finding the documents that will allow me to reveal the truth about them. Don't ask me how I know about them, I do. Unfortunately, I can't tell you all of it right now until the proof is in my hands, and getting them declassified for public review is going to be one heck of a battle. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) tried his best to make sure that these documents were either destroyed or sealed for 50 years (when the House Internal Security Committee was destroyed in 1975). He knows what's in them and fears the devastating damage that they will do to him and the Democratic Party should they ever be released. His own record is a beaut, even just the public one. John Kerry - let's ask him why he and Sen. Tom (the Vietnam veteran fraud) Harkin (D-Iowa) made a trip to shore up the Communist Sandinista leadership of Nicaragua in 1984 right before a congressional vote was to be held on whether or not to fund the anti-communist freedom fighters known disparagingly as the contras (a communist-disinformation term). Congress voted down arms for the FFs. Then right after this trip and the vote, Daniel Ortega went to Moscow for an arms deal in complete betrayal of pledges he had made not to do so. (See Stephen Powell's book, Covert Cadre, for much more on this pair). Congress then regained a little sanity and revoted to aid the freedom fighters in Nicaragua, which led to the military stalemate in that country and then to free elections that ousted the Reds. Kerry and Harkin have a lot to answer for on this one, and Kerry misspent millions of investigation dollars on a communist-perpetrated fraud regarding the so-called Contras and drugs in Latin America. Some of the key people Kerry relied on for information were avowed supporters of Hanoi and the VC, a self-proclaimed saboteur, an finger wound exaggerator (just like Kerry), and an FBI informant who committed perjury before Congress. You might also want to ask Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about the destruction of secret documents from the POW/MIA Task Force they headed in the mid-1990s, as well as their deal to cut out the human-rights requirements and live-sightings reports issue from the conditions for any diplomatic recognition of Hanoi's dictatorship. Former POWs and the families of MIAs are seething at this betrayal, which is why many Vietnam veterans will never vote for John McCain. A member of this task force is available for any hearing on what happened to those files. Ted Kennedy - The man is only interested in one person in the world, and that is Ted Kennedy. I feel that he sold his soul to the devil a long time ago, a la Damn Yankees, and he has and will betray anyone (Mary Jo Kopechne, for starters) and his country for power. Following in his footsteps is Kennedy-wannabe Kerry, who has a number of other skeletons in his closet that he doesn't want the public to know about. Remember, he told Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" last year that he would release his military records by signing the SF 180 form. We're still waiting - and waiting and waiting. Has our boy done something rash in the past that he doesn't want the public to know about? The evidence points that way, and the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth only scratched the surface of the egomaniac known as JFK-lite. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), once the hero of moderate liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, has been used to spearhead the Democrat Party's surrender policies on Iraq, and while he was once a valiant soldier fighting in the big muddy of Vietnam, the only thing he is fighting in today is his muddled mind. He sounds like a programmed robot from the 1960s protests, only he doesn't know it is 2006, and things have changed. The U.S. is winning in Iraq, and his opinions are not only outdated, they are just plain wrong. I don't know whether to pity the man or to write him off as a turncoat. Either way, he has betrayed his country and her fighting forces, thus following in the fine footsteps of the Democratic Party of George McGovern and Ted Kennedy, Frank Church, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry. I found a photograph the other night in a KGB-front publication, the World Peace Council, and its newsletter of 1978, which featured a KGB-agent of influence led delegation of WPC leaders (mainly Communists) to the U.S., including Washington, D.C., and Detroit, Mich. The Detroit City Council, led by veteran CPUSA front supporters Mahaffey and Henderson, was in the picture, as was one city councilman named Carl Levine, as in present-day Sen. Carl Levine (D-Mich.). The DCC gave the WPC party a grand welcome, as did some members of Congress in a reception for them in D.C. Carl was known for his anti-intelligence activities in Michigan, so it was no surprise to see him in that photo. He helped destroy the information on that group. Today, Sen. Levine, the anti-intelligence fool on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a powerful enemy of America's ability to defend herself. It looks like stupidity is habitual. And don't worry, Detroit's other veteran CPUSA/WPC fronts supporter Conyers also shows up in WPC newsletters giving speeches to worldwide WPC meetings bought and paid for by the KGB and the CPSU/International Department. However, when a WPC publication was published by Congress in 1983, all photos of congressmen at WPC affairs (including Conyers) were left out, deliberately. I have the original version of the WPC booklet, and that's not what was published by Congress. To sum up this still incomplete rant about the Democrats, the media and gutless Republicans, the Democrats have sold their souls to the devil so that they can destroy George W. Bush at all costs, including the betrayal of our troops in the field and the security of the United States in the long run. All they want is power, and they will do anything to get it by smearing the president and his administration, by lying about the Clinton administration's past actions and inactions, covering up the destruction of U.S. intelligence capabilities that led to the intelligence failures of their policies and administrations (Carter and Clinton), i.e. Iran and Khomeini, World Trade Center I bombing, Black Hawk Down in Somalia, the USS Cole, the African Embassy bombing, the Khobar Towers bombings, and the multiple failures to take Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him to us, all of which led to 9/11. The Democrats perverted the 9/11 Commission into near impotency, covered up the firewall that obstructed U.S. intelligence agencies from cooperating, and now they are stonewalling other government investigations, including the potentially most damaging scandal of all, Able Danger. While the Republican leadership has almost no backbone in Congress and did not have a very effective public leadership in the White House regarding Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats have done nothing but endanger the U.S. for the past 40 years. One betrayal costing 58,000 lives in Vietnam and Indochina should have opened the eyes of even the most dedicated Democratic Party member as to what the DP stood for. Yet they want to repeat it again in Iraq, and their supporters still think that their party cares about America. These are the most treacherous Democrats ever to sit in Congress, the most incompetent, the most egotistical, and the most stuck on stupid bunch of SOBs in modern American political history (Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi being the prime examples), and a lot of the American people are the dumbest bunch of yahoos ever to go into a voting booth to help them carry out this betrayal. As for the mainstream media, hell is too good for them. There must be a special place for traitors and fools, and I know that it isn't half full yet. Ask any soldier in Iraq about the mainstream media, and they will tell you they prefer the honesty of Al-Qaeda and the Ba'athist terrorists. I am so ashamed of what the Democrats have become, and so angry at their betrayal of our armed forces (including my son), that I will never vote Democrat again for the rest of my life. Sorry, Scoop and Hubert, you were honorable men, but you have been desecrated by your party just as John Kerry desecrated the honor of the Vietnam veterans in 1971. God help America! The Democrats won't, ever, and the Republican leadership can't unless they get some backbone. http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$39014 -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
For the most part, I agree with his premise. Some of his writing is crude, but I suppose it gets the job done.
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 12 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I thought of you Redstorm when i posted this column.
Figured you would be one of the few who would read it. -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
A good read. I like how he flips the usual roles. Making Republicans out to be weak, and Democrats out to be sneaky devils.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 12 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
the republicans are weak.
John McCain is a leading contender for 2008. -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
Hey, I'd probably vote for McCain.
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
He's one of a few I would consider. However, he is too old and has too many children to actually get my vote.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Not an EggshellWalker Registered: 07/18/03 Posts: 7,991 Loc: Cave of the Patr |
| ||||||
|
What a nutjob.
Exposing Bush's illegal, unwarranted wiretaps is harming the country as much as exposing Nixon's illegal, disgraceful break-ins at Watergate harmed the US. Republicans and democrats alike are driving this country into the ground, just in different ways. Socially, however, democrats tend to be much better than republicans, as shown by the fact that they're mainly the ones with the balls to stand up and tell Bush he is grossly exceeding the power designated to the executive branch. -------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I await your brilliant elucidation of how the wiretaps ordered by Bush were either illegal or unwarranted.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
Literally, some of them were "unwarranted". If they weren't, we wouldn't be hearing about this shit.
| |||||||
|
Not an EggshellWalker Registered: 07/18/03 Posts: 7,991 Loc: Cave of the Patr |
| ||||||
Quote: Unwarranted in the literal sense: They had no legal warrants. He took people the executive branch suspected of terrorism and completely bypassed the judicial branch by not even getting a warrant to listen in on them. Therefore, would it also not be illegal? Where in the Constitution does it state that the executive branch can consistently and over a long period of time completely overstep the judicial branch in such a manner? The checks and balances are there for a reason, and Bush along with other politicians cannot continue to use terror attacks as a method of taking out all the checks and balances for five or ten or twenty years after the fact. -------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: You underestimate the sheepish nature of the American public. --------------------
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: For the literal sense, as opposed to the legal jargonistic one, which neither you nor I know, I look to dictionary.com " Having no justification; groundless: unwarranted interference. See Synonyms at baseless. " Quote: 4th amendment authorizing the Executive branch to use any means necessary to yada yada yada. Consistency and over a long period of time are irrelevant, as is FISA. The checks and balances are not what you think they are. They do not mean that an unelected judge can dictate policy or how to execute policy except in extremis. If you don't like what the executive is doing you can bring it up before the Supreme Court. The bet here is that it won"t happen because adults with legal degrees know it's a non starter. You also ignore the fact that this is nothing new. Google echelon. Bush ordered surveillance on international phone conversations with known terrorists. That's it. Totally legal and totally warranted, in the sense of it makes sense to do it. Hysterical nitwits to the contrary.
| |||||||
|
GeneticallyEngin Registered: 01/15/06 Posts: 145 Loc: Rome, west side Last seen: 15 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
So in summary, you cannot provide legal justification for the President violating his oath of office and the Constitution, merely more sycophantic nonsense.
-------------------- Sincerely, Skeptikos
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
The president violated neither his oath of office nor the Constitution by authorizing the NSA intercepts. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Phred
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
George Bush hates freedom more than Osama. He's a druggie and should be hung(along with 90% of the Congress) for violating the trust of the American people, and the laws of the American land.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Not an EggshellWalker Registered: 07/18/03 Posts: 7,991 Loc: Cave of the Patr |
| ||||||
|
What about this little thing?
Quote: -------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
/waits for someone to come and argue that the unwarranted searches were "reasonable"
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
There are at least two other threads open about this topic already. I'm not going to spend any time repeating them in detail yet again in this thread.
Short summary -- -- The courts have ruled over and over and over again that warrantless searches are constitutional in many situations. About two dozen different situations so far. The fact that warrants weren't obtained does not mean the intercepts are illegal. -- All appellate court rulings to date (including the FISA court itself) affirm the president's inherent constitutional authority to intercept enemy communications in time of war. -- FISA itself provides an exception "as authorized by statute". Congress's passage of the AUMF (suthorization to use military force) is that statute. -- Not a single congresscritter wants the NSA program halted. They just want to make political hay over what they claim is a faulty process. Phred
| |||||||
|
GeneticallyEngin Registered: 01/15/06 Posts: 145 Loc: Rome, west side Last seen: 15 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Translation: When lies have been repeated enough, after a certain point they should be believed. Quote: Check your premises. The courts have not ruled on these searches. To insinuate that these warrantless searches, beyond judicial review fall under prior rulings is asinine. You are arguing from a position of ignorance, having no facts to back up your assertions, precisely because the full scope and nature of these searches has NOT been revealed. You have NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FACTS to base your opinion on. This is assuming that you are not working for the U.S. government in the capacity of propagator of favorable opinions (a bet no one should be willing to take based upon your posts and refusal to question the honesty, motivations or rationalizations of those in power). Quote: Again, there has been no judicial review. You are blatantly dishonest to suggest that these unreviewed cases follow under any appellate court rule when you are ignorant as to the substance of the cases. Furthermore, there has been no declaration of war from congress in line with the law as laid out in the constitution. Quote: Because you say so? More unsubstantiated sycophantic nonsense. (Don't you just love the word, 'sycophant'? It's so much more sophisticated than 'excuse making imperial ass kisser.') Quote: Another lie. Congress persons have already publicly stated that they do not want warrantless searches to continue. A few have called (rightly so) for President Bush's impeachment. Fact: The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution has NOT been repealed. Let me try and break it down for you, "A is A" - Ayn Rand To put it another way, "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." is "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." Or to reiterate, "This is this. This ain't somethin' else. This is this!" - Robert De Niro as 'Michael' in 'The Deer Hunter' In other words, this, "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." is this, "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." This ain't somethin' else. Until you can show that the fourth amendment has been repealed, your position is one of great dishonesty in the service of the destruction of our rights, liberties and country. -------------------- Sincerely, Skeptikos Edited by Skeptikos (03/06/06 10:39 AM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Skeptikos writes:
Quote: No lies, I just tire of having to repeat the same arguments already thoroughly presented in previous threads in this forum. I understand from your registration date that these threads may have appeared before you showed up here. This doesn't alter the fact that they exist. Do a forum search using something like NSA legality to confirm this. **edit** Well, well, well. I decided to save you some effort and searched and bumped a relevant thread for you. Imagine my surprise when I saw that I had already bumped it for you back in January! Perhaps you missed it the first time I bumped it -- you were after all a newcomer at the time and may not have realized it was bumped for your benefit. To make things easier for you, you can click on this link -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5104313#Post5104313 -- to jump straight to my post in the middle of the bumped thread. **end edit** Quote: So sorry, but you are uninformed. There are roughly two dozen situations in which searches may be performed without obtaining a warrant from a judge. A link to these cases appears in one of the threads I mentioned. **edit** In case you might miss the link in the bumped thread, let me provide it for you here as well. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp **end edit** Quote: Pot. Kettle. Black. There are indeed many situations in which no warrant is required. I suggest you inform yourself further before making your next post on the topic. Quote: So sorry, but again you are uninformed on this. ALL appellate court rulings -- without exception -- have reaffirmed the constitutional power of the Executive to intercept enemy communications in time of war. Including the FISA review court itself, by the way. Quote: No, because the AUMF passed by Congress meets the definition of "statute" and the FISA text specifically states "except as authorized by statute". Quote: So sorry, but another truth. My statement is that none of them has stated they want the NSA program stopped. If you can find a quote from a member of Congress calling for a halt to the program, now's the time to do it. Finally, you misread the Fourth Amendment. It has been decided by the courts long ago that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for every search. That's why there are almost two dozen existing situations -- described in detail by the appellate courts -- in which warrantless searches are permitted by law in the United States. Your own idosyncratic and overly restrictive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment isn't what matters here. What matters is what the appellate courts charged with applying that Amendment to specific situations have ruled. They have ruled there are many situations in which a warrant is not required. So sorry if that fact raises your blood pressure, but I suggest you vent your apoplexy at the courts rather than myself. The fact of the matter is that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance program is neither contrary to common sense, nor to existing case law, nor to the Constitution. Phred
| |||||||
|
Nshudimasupatoga Registered: 02/13/06 Posts: 412 Loc: Out on the Stree Last seen: 17 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I don't think the President should have the right to tap telecommunication without a warrant. Not having to answer to anyone in the judiciary gives him too much power. The President should have to answer to someone else in all cases, otherwise he may do something really horrible. I consider that unchecked power dangerous and un-American.
I found the following at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834 "1978: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Passes Spurred by the abuses reported by the Church Committee, Congress passes new, more stringent restrictions on wiretapping, creating a legal review process to ensure wiretaps are focused narrowly on obtaining information essential for protecting national security. Under the law, a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is created to authorize wiretaps against "agents of a foreign power," even if they aren't suspected of a crime. Even though the law is meant to rein in abuse, it is viewed with great suspicion by civil libertarians, who argue that it undermines Americans' Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . 2001: Congress Passes Patriot Act In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress approves the U.S.A. Patriot Act to improve the government's ability to stop future terrorist attacks. It includes provisions to help streamline the process of obtaining the necessary warrants to conduct eavesdropping." Doesn't that mean that, even though the PA streamlined the process, the President still needed to get a warrant? It does say they created the FISA specifically for that purpose H_O -------------------- Edited by Harmonic_Order (03/06/06 04:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nshudimasupatoga Registered: 02/13/06 Posts: 412 Loc: Out on the Stree Last seen: 17 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Besides, this page makes it clear that the NSA had already started that surveillance program before President Bush authorized it. This comes from a declassified document posted there in compressed format.
A Quote: More than a dozen legal scholars dispute Moschella's legal analysis, saying in a letter just sent to Congress that the White House failed to identify "any plausible legal authority for such surveillance." "The program appears on its face to violate existing law," wrote the scholars of constitutional law, some of whom worked in various senior capacities in Republican and Democratic administrations, in an extraordinary letter to Congress that laid out, point by point, why the president is unauthorized to permit the NSA to spy on Americans and how he broke the law by approving it. "Even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect 'signals intelligence' on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA," the letter states. "Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim. The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States." That seems to contradict what you said, Phred. H_O --------------------
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Why, I ask, would you be willing to allow an unelected and unremovable justice to be able to trump the authority of an elected representative of the people? Why would you possibly think that your insights into how a government should best protect its people are even the least bit up to the reasoning of 2 centuries of studied jurisprudence by some of the smartest people who ever inhabited this nation and which have brought this nation to the pinnacle of civilization not here to for seen on this planet?
| |||||||
|
Nshudimasupatoga Registered: 02/13/06 Posts: 412 Loc: Out on the Stree Last seen: 17 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: A person who really loved his father's fondest ideals wouldn't even *want* to ask that question. The urge, no doubt, comes from your *ahem* condition, which we all know about (given your numerous posts here). And believe me, you shouldn't worry about it one bit. Lots of people your age have that.H_O --------------------
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I have no idea what you're talking about. My father? My condition? My age? Are you referring to wisdom?
| |||||||
|
Nshudimasupatoga Registered: 02/13/06 Posts: 412 Loc: Out on the Stree Last seen: 17 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
It is apparent that the subject of your condition puzzles you.
Nobody has responded to the fact that the NSA had already started the warrentless wiretapping without authorization. Lying is not the issue. President Bush misled the American public when he claimed to have ordered that surveillance. Misleading the public constitutes a breach of trust. That has happened more than once in this administration. It is obvious that the President weaseled around the necessity for a warrent. It is obvious that he did so because it is down on paper, and now revealed to the public, that he does not have legal precedent. H_O --------------------
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Thank you for your clear and concise answers to my questions, asked in the sincerest curiosity. I have an additional question now. Did he weasel around the law and order the taps or did he lie when he said he ordered the taps? Do you realize that you are coming off as a complete buffoon? And do you think you can discipline a woman with sperm????????
| |||||||
|
GeneticallyEngin Registered: 01/15/06 Posts: 145 Loc: Rome, west side Last seen: 15 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Having trouble with comprehension? We are talking about warrantless searches WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY JUDGE AND REMAIN SECRETE. Get it? These searches go BEYOND previous FISA rulings, get it? Again, you are taking a position from IGNORANCE. If these cases are secrete and have never seen the light of day, you and everyone else who is not privy to the information have no way in hell of knowing the nature or the legality of the searches in question. Quote: Mr. McCarthy's list does not apply to the current situation. Further, prior violations of the fourth amendment (as some of those are) are not an argument for more violations. Would you likewise argue for 100% confiscation of a person's income, since the income tax already confiscates a lesser percent? If a peeping Tom has previously taken pictures of you and your lady making love, does that then authorize him to take more pictures? Quote: I am quite well informed about searches, more so than you as I am a former peace officer from the state of California and likely have performed more searches in a single day than you have in your entire lifetime. I have been trained in following the fourth Amendment and have taken an oath to uphold both the laws of my state and my country. Have you? Quote:Quote: What? In the cases IN QUESTION, there have been NO warrants and no judicial review. That is the whole point of this. It is irrational to cite OTHER cases and say that since those OTHER cases were reviewed, that somehow these different cases which have never even been brought to the attention of a judge are somehow subject to the same review! This is complete and utter nonsense on your part. Quote: We are talking about warrantless spying outside the scope of FISA. The AUMF has NOT been established as authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens. Merely repeating administration lies does not make them truths. Quote: So if they say that they do not want any more NSA warrantless searches performed, that would not meet your standard? I guess, there's no convincing one so deeply entrenched in Orwellian thought as you. Quote: You tell me, does Rep Jerrold Nadler want the warrantless searches to stop (link)? Does congressman John Olver oppose warrrantless spying on Americans (link)? Quote: I have not misread the fourth amendment. On the contrary, I am well versed in the letter and spirit of the constitution. I am well aware of such things as 'hot pursuit' and of searches as a condition of licensing as well as the idea that things IN PLAIN SITE do not fall under the fourth amendment. These situation do not apply. The argue otherwise is disingenuous. Unlike you, I believe that we should have a government of laws, not the arbitrary whims of men. Quote: The fact of the matter is, you are wrong, and this has yet to be taken to court. As long as the searches in question have been performed without judicial review, you and everyone else who does not have the facts have no way of knowing. If in fact, the searches are warranted, there should be no reason to avoid judicial review. The fact that the administration insists on keeping things secrete, tells any reasonable person, that they have something to hide which may place them in a compromising position in relation to the legality and cause of their actions. -------------------- Sincerely, Skeptikos
| |||||||
|
EtherealEngineer Registered: 04/23/02 Posts: 1,742 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) ?[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.?
| |||||||
|
GeneticallyEngin Registered: 01/15/06 Posts: 145 Loc: Rome, west side Last seen: 15 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
FISA provides for warrantless searches as long as warrants are obtained after the fact. What we have with the current situation, is an administration which refuses to subject it's searches for review even to a secrete FISA court after the fact.
How can help assure that in fact the warrantless searches were done to obtain foreign intelligence information if there is no judicial review? How can you have any assurance that the searches involve international communications only if there is absolutely no review? How can you assume they are legal if there is absolutely no review? Answer: YOU CAN'T. What is the term for a regime which which ignores constitutional checks and balances, which is unchallenged by the legislative or the judiciary, which unilaterally decides even after signing a law that it will ignore the law as it sees fit? It is not a government of laws, it is not a republic, it is not accountable, it is a government by the whims of men, it is A DICTATORSHIP. It is a government of traitors to the spirit and the letter of the constitution. -------------------- Sincerely, Skeptikos
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
You're my hero.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: To point out the obvious, if this is the case then you -- Skeptikos -- don't know the nature or the legality of the intercepts in question either. Yet you vigorously assert that Bush has broken his oath of office and has violated the Constitution. Quote: I provided the list to debunk the insistence of the many who post here that the Fourth Amendment places an absolute prohibition on warrantless searches. Clearly, the appellate courts have ruled that it does not. The courts have ruled -- repeatedly -- that the applicable standard is not a piece of paper signed by a judge, but whether or not the search is reasonable. People with common sense recognize that monitoring the conversations of enemy operatives during wartime meets the definition of reasonable. Quote: This might explain your refusal to examine the situation in its proper context -- what acts must a president take in order to fulfill his oath of office in time of war. You (no doubt through force of habit rather than through dispassionate reflection) judge that the same restrictions placed on the activities of law enforcement officers also apply to military intelligence agencies. This is the Bill Clinton/John Kerry approach to things. Fortunately, the appellate courts recognize the distinction you refuse to. The NSA is not a law enforcement organization and is not part of the criminal justice system. The NSA does not report to the Attorney General, but directly to the Executive branch. It is a military organization. It is standard procedure in time of war for the military to monitor enemy communications. Quote: And this is relevant how, exactly? I point out again that the gathering of military intelligence is not within the purview of police departments or prosecuting attorneys, but of the military. Quote: The reason some of the cases cited make a point of mentioning that their rulings do not apply to the power of the Executive to monitor enemy communications is that the appellate courts making those rulings understand the Constitution better than you do. Once again, this is not a question of applying the criminal code to a criminal prosecution, but of military intelligence gathering. Quote: That's because the AUMF is not required in order for the military to collect intelligence. I mention the AUMF only to show that the "as established by statute" exception to FISA has been met. As for the "American citizen" argument, the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi is directly applicable. Quote: Then you are of course aware that the Fourth Amendment does not require warrants for every search. That puts you ahead of many who post here. Congratulations. However, you assert with no backup that (for example) a military agency quickly throwing a tap onto a newly discovered cell phone of a known Al Qaeda operative is not analagous to the civilian equivalent of "hot pursuit". Why is that? Quote: No, it tells any reasonable person the administration is justifiably concerned the hostile American press would have no scruples about once again releasing classified information to the world and continuing to sabotage the efforts of the military, thus placing American citizens in harm's way. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Skeptikos writes:
Quote: And the FISA court of review is fine with that. See the excerpt of the court's ruling provided by Catalysis. Quote: Who would you trust to perform that review? Look, the administration has explained the circumstances under which the surveillance is being carried out. If it is as they describe, no reasonable person would have a problem with it. You apparently believe the administration is lying to you and would like to have a third party provide reassurance that they are not. Which third party would you trust to do an investigation, then report to you "Yep. It's all exactly as the administration described. You may rest easy" ? Quote: It seems you are the one with a difficult time grasping the concept of constitutional checks and balances -- specifically the separation of powers. Congress can no more usurp the power granted to the Executive by the Constitution than can the Executive usurp the power granted to Congress by that same Constitution. The laughable part is that we see here a partisan fraction of Congress pretending to want to usurp Executive power. I deliberately use the word pretending because in fact they do not want their constituents to think they want to stop the NSA program. They just want to score political points. This is also why -- after their initial outcry -- they quickly dropped the issue. Their polling showed them it was a complete no-win with the voters. Phred
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
A Material Breach of the Constitution | 1,106 | 7 | 02/19/03 05:44 PM by BowlKiller | ||
![]() |
America a nazi police state ( |
3,605 | 28 | 02/12/03 01:06 PM by pattern | ||
![]() |
America = Police State | 1,474 | 15 | 02/14/03 01:31 PM by RandalFlagg | ||
![]() |
The Bush Betrayal | 876 | 17 | 09/19/04 08:15 PM by Divided_Sky | ||
![]() |
The Betrayal of Afghanistan | 1,924 | 12 | 09/24/03 02:18 PM by JonnyOnTheSpot | ||
![]() |
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america | 1,392 | 13 | 03/15/04 07:25 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Bush to America..."unemployment will help the economy" ( |
5,446 | 38 | 02/12/04 08:41 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
An Open Letter to the Corporations of America | 1,719 | 17 | 10/30/03 03:53 AM by luvdemshrooms |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,201 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


condition, which we all know about (given your numerous posts here). And believe me, you shouldn't worry about it one bit. Lots of people your age have that.
