You're either with US, or with the Terrorists! NSA Hearing begin today. Democrats keep hitting on an important point. If the President
maintains he'll do everything to prevent another 9/11, why doesn't his
program apply to purely domestic Al Qaeda-to-Al Qaeda calls? The
terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were within our own borders,
communicating domestically. Gonzales responds with spin about
Presidential judgment and the outcry that would result if the program
was purely domestic.
I've been burning a candle in my window since 911 and it has stopped 5
terror attacks and kept AQ off our shores.Would anyone like to buy one
of these candles and help keep our homeland safe?
Glenn Greenwald has made some great points this morning thus far:
(1) This
is an American scandal and about the President breaking the law.
Republicans as well as Democrats are apalled by this, and there must be
some oversight -- some check -- on this power of surveillance, or we
live in a nation where the laws no longer apply.
(2) Democrats
and Republicans alike want surveillance. But the President must follow
the law. The President asked for, and got, amendments to FISA in the
wake of 9/11, and then turned around and started spying in secret
anyway -- after publicly praising the amendments. The President asks
that we "trust him" on this matter -- but he has repeatedly lied to the
nation about whether or not warrants have been sought.
And a note -- the "fear factor" that Rove has
been playing has a very strong pull. There is a great need for
combating that fear -- but getting through the constant fear with facts
is going to be a tough, uphill battle. Let's start talking about ways
to effectively cut through that pee-your-pants fear that Rove and
company have been stoking in this country since 9/11. We need a
strategy.
Fear is an emotion: it can't be countered by facts; feelings never can.
That said, simple messages like, "You're not STILL afraid, are you?" in
personal conversations, or the slogan, "I'm an American, I'M not
afraid" or some such thing, I think might work. That's taking their
strong suit and using it against them, like Rove does against us, right?
UPDATE: OMG, I am laughing so hard, and I've spewed
coffee all over myself. Prof. Turner on C-SPAN just said that terrorists may be
imbedding messages in Viagra spam. Mwahahahahaha. Erectile dysfuntion emails, IF YOUR BOMB DOESN'T EXPLODE AFTER 4 HOURS PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN
Prof. Turner really needs to forward some of those spam to Homeland
Security, the FBI and the Secret Service explaining his suspicion. I
think they have a special inbox for tips like that. And a name (or at
least a psychological profile) for senders of such tips.
Bush Has A License To Kill People In The US? Geez, where have you guys been? They don't obey Miranda, Habeas Corpus,
Probable Cause or Congress. They are above the law. We are in deep
trouble!
NEWSWEEK Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over
presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in
certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the
killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven
Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went
to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to
defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the
briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined
to be identified because the session was private), California
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the
extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for
instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S.
soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at
least in certain circumstances.
Current and former government officials said they could think of
several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the
killing of a terror suspect inside the United States. One former
official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top
administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got
too close to Washington, D.C. What if the president had strong evidence
that a Qaeda suspect was holed up with a dirty bomb and was about to
attack? University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein says the
post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military
force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11
perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were
overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says,
the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the
killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively
preparing an attack.
Interesting. Does that include assassinating US citizens -- without a
trial, without properly ascertaining whether or not they are innocent
or guilty, without anything other than the say of the Preznit? Do you
trust this Administration to make these sorts of choices without
messing up?
Would you bet your life on it? What ever happened to due process? I can hear it now - oops, wrong guy, my bad.
Sure, there are options for dealing with suspects who pose an immediate
physical threat -- say holding controls for an explosive device or an
AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall. But a Presidential ordered
assassination without any particular showing of exigent circumstances
and immediate need? That's a Constitution of a different color
altogether.
Attorney Yoo (of the torture memos) was asked if the President had the
authority to order a childs testicles to be crushed. He paused and said
"it depended on the Presidents intent". Ballsy, huh?
Remember when Limbaugh and Falwell were accusing Clinton of murder? I guess it's OK now.
Jose Padilla is one good example of what it would be like for an
innocent caught in the wireless wiretaps to inexplicably be linked with
terrorists or terrorist activity. No one could trust this
administration to admit the wrong or, more importantly, to correct it.
It's not just that we don't trust this president to do the right
thing with unaccountable, unchecked, and unbalanced powers (although we
surely, and for good reason, do not). The point is that we live in a
constitutional republic and we don't want any president (or
other office holder) to have unaccountable, unchecked, and unbalanced
powers -- especially over such sensitive matters as surveillance,
detention of persons suspected of wrondoing, treatment of such
detainees, and the use of deadly force. A preznit could be a saint to
whom I would trust my life, and I still would not want him or her to
have such powers. It's quite simply the difference between a
constitutional republic and a dictatorship.
Because this president thinks he is above the law (THE LAW IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO FOLLOW,) Senators are now considering a constitutional amendment
to limit the war powers of the President. If they had done their jobs
in the first place, they wouldn't need to consider such amendments.