Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

Are there plus-signs on the tomb-stones? I can't be sure from the pic that was posted...

No, there are no plus signs, and no crosses, at Arlington. Neither are there six-pointed stars, or crescent moons.

EDIT - Actually, following the link at the bottom of this post, the markers can be inscribed with a cross or Star of David. - EDIT

Throughout our history, we have had many faiths represented in our military.

How appropriate would it be to bury a fallen Jewish soldier underneath a cross?

And, what do you think of this quote, by a former Secretary of Defense, and current Vice President

Just before you settle down on the landing pad, you look upon Arlington National Cemetery...its gentle slopes and crosses row on row. I never once made that trip without being reminded how enormously fortunate we all are to be Americans, and what a terrible price thousands have paid so that all of us...and millions more around the world...might live in freedom."

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cheney.htm

 

[crushing]

And, what do you think of this quote, by a former Secretary of Defense, and current Vice President

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cheney.htm

Maybe the authors were correct in the link to think that he may have been thinking of Flander's field for the WWI dead, but it seems to me that the American Cemetery at Colleville Sur Mer would be more likely, given the attention it received during Memorial Day and D-Day rememberances.

For example, from this Memorial Day commemoration:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2002/10495.htm

Or, when Bush and Chirac visited on the 60th Anniversary of D-day.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020527-1.html

 

[michaeledward]

Today we learn the Republican President has unleashed the National Security Agency on illegal monitoring of United States citizens.

A Federal judge rules against the Bush Administration regarding phone taps

I'm sure this is going to be appealed. However, very interesting...

The commentary so far has gone two ways.

1 - the Judge is a black woman appointed by President Carter, so she obviously must be off her rocker, and is a threat to our very existance (guess which side is making that commentary?)

2 - the President of the United States is clearly breaking the law, as referenced by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the FISA law, in direct violation to the Oath of Office.

To me, the latter has always been abundantly clear.

Jonathan Turley - Law Professor at George Washington University has a pretty good quote.

The problem is a lack of authority. When [Attorney General] Gonzales says ‘I got something back in my safe and if you could see it you would all agree with me’. Well, unless there’s a federal statute back in his safe, then it’s not going to make a difference
​

 

[mrhnau]

1 - the Judge is a black woman appointed by President Carter, so she obviously must be off her rocker, and is a threat to our very existance (guess which side is making that commentary?)

2 - the President of the United States is clearly breaking the law, as referenced by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the FISA law, in direct violation to the Oath of Office.

To me, the latter has always been abundantly clear.

Jonathan Turley - Law Professor at George Washington University has a pretty good quote.

The problem is a lack of authority. When [Attorney General] Gonzales says ‘I got something back in my safe and if you could see it you would all agree with me’. Well, unless there’s a federal statute back in his safe, then it’s not going to make a difference
​

Regardless of what the media says, the truth is not limited to your 1) or 2). I don't think its as simple as "gee, she was black Carterite" or "Bush is such a criminal". Thats a bit simplistic.

If you are dealing with matters of national security, these things should be dealt with in a different manner. The fact the the NYT has proclaimed the program has probably lessened its effectiveness. If terrorists are aware we are listening to certain calls, then they will find a new method of communication. Thats not too difficult. If they are monitoring calls from Pakistan, then relay the call through a trusted middle person in France, Sudan, Nicaragua, etc.. Send heavily encrypted emails. Actually fly to meet the person.

So, you want the evidence presented in courts? The more people have access to sensitive information, the more likely for leaks and the info becomes effectively worthless. There is a reason we have secrets in this country, a reason for things to be deemed classified.

I'm imaging those that are crying about listening in on phone calls will be the first in line to complain and cry that the government is not doing enough if we are struck again. The Dems will line up, one after the other, proclaiming that the Republicans did such a bad job, and they could have done so much better.

Personally, I think this will wind up in the Supreme Court in a few months, depending on the speed of the appeals. I think it will be overturned. However, the program is for the most part ruined, since terrorist can easily pick up a copy of NYT or read CNN. They are aware.

 

[michaeledward]

Regardless of what the media says, the truth is not limited to your 1) or 2). I don't think its as simple as "gee, she was black Carterite" or "Bush is such a criminal". Thats a bit simplistic.

If you are dealing with matters of national security, these things should be dealt with in a different manner. The fact the the NYT has proclaimed the program has probably lessened its effectiveness. If terrorists are aware we are listening to certain calls, then they will find a new method of communication. Thats not too difficult. If they are monitoring calls from Pakistan, then relay the call through a trusted middle person in France, Sudan, Nicaragua, etc.. Send heavily encrypted emails. Actually fly to meet the person.

So, you want the evidence presented in courts? The more people have access to sensitive information, the more likely for leaks and the info becomes effectively worthless. There is a reason we have secrets in this country, a reason for things to be deemed classified.

I'm imaging those that are crying about listening in on phone calls will be the first in line to complain and cry that the government is not doing enough if we are struck again. The Dems will line up, one after the other, proclaiming that the Republicans did such a bad job, and they could have done so much better.

Personally, I think this will wind up in the Supreme Court in a few months, depending on the speed of the appeals. I think it will be overturned. However, the program is for the most part ruined, since terrorist can easily pick up a copy of NYT or read CNN. They are aware.

You will note that I indicated the 'commentary' fell in one of two directions. I was not attempting to discern the 'truth'.

But, do you 'truthfully' think that someone in a terrorist cell was unaware that goverments all across the world were monitoring their actions in every way conceivable? Please!

It has been widely reported, since 2002 at least, that our government was monitoring telephone traffic, financial traffic, and internet traffic. What was not reported is that those monitoring programs were not taking place with appropriate Judicial or Legislative oversight.

You state that in matters of National Security, "things" (whatever that term means) should be dealt with in a different matter. Must we surrender the principles upon which our Country was founded in the interest of National Security? As I understand our history, The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified had not the Bill of Rights been immediately implemented.

The Judge in this case is not demanding any 'secrets' be revealed in open court. Her ruling states very clearly that there are no 'secret authorities' that permit the intentional disregard of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

I do not think this case will ever get to the Supreme Court. Senator Alren Spector is currently, furiously, working on a bill that will allow, retrocatively, violations of the Fourth Amendment. (Vice President Cheney's hand is deeply involved in that stew). Mr. Turley's interview yesterday said that should that bill become law, it will be "The Biggest Whitewash of the Century", if I recall correctly.

The Administration knows, very clearly, they have violated the law. They have done so deliberatly and with the compliance of a 'Rubber Stamp' congress. There are, I think, 14 days left in the legislative session before the mid term elections ... wanna guess what priority number 1 in the Senate is going to be?

 

[mrhnau]

You will note that I indicated the 'commentary' fell in one of two directions. I was not attempting to discern the 'truth'.

But, do you 'truthfully' think that someone in a terrorist cell was unaware that goverments all across the world were monitoring their actions in every way conceivable? Please!

It has been widely reported, since 2002 at least, that our government was monitoring telephone traffic, financial traffic, and internet traffic. What was not reported is that those monitoring programs were not taking place with appropriate Judicial or Legislative oversight.

You state that in matters of National Security, "things" (whatever that term means) should be dealt with in a different matter. Must we surrender the principles upon which our Country was founded in the interest of National Security? As I understand our history, The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified had not the Bill of Rights been immediately implemented.

The Judge in this case is not demanding any 'secrets' be revealed in open court. Her ruling states very clearly that there are no 'secret authorities' that permit the intentional disregard of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

I do not think this case will ever get to the Supreme Court. Senator Alren Spector is currently, furiously, working on a bill that will allow, retrocatively, violations of the Fourth Amendment. (Vice President Cheney's hand is deeply involved in that stew). Mr. Turley's interview yesterday said that should that bill become law, it will be "The Biggest Whitewash of the Century", if I recall correctly.

The Administration knows, very clearly, they have violated the law. They have done so deliberatly and with the compliance of a 'Rubber Stamp' congress. There are, I think, 14 days left in the legislative session before the mid term elections ... wanna guess what priority number 1 in the Senate is going to be?

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 warrents shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just for reference. My understanding is that the 4th admendment does not apply to international people. So, if we tap the phone of someone from afghanistan, are we violating the 4th admendment? Are we tapping the phones of domestic calls? I don't think so. This is, in part, a section of the debate going on. Its the US constitution, not an international one. As far as interpretation of the admendment, thats for the courts, and is what is going on. Should be interesting.

Is Alren pushing for unlimited phone tapping of domestic calls? I doubt it. Probably pushing for tapping of foreign calls.

As Lincoln said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

 

[michaeledward]

Are we tapping the phones of domestic calls? I don't think so.

Haven't you been paying attention?

YES - The Bush Administration is tapping the phone calls of persons inside the United States without a warrant ... It's been in the Friggin' New York Times. Didn't you read the articles?

Please ... Get some FACTS !

The lawsuit ruled on recently was brought by the ACLU for citizens of the United States; news reporters for major media outlets.

Spector's bill is pushing for tapping phones without FISA oversight - the specific legislative apparatus to allow the government to get the required warrant.

And no one is arguing for or against 'unlimited wire taps' ... What they are arguing for or against is whether the Congress (the Legislative Branch of our Government) or the Courts (the Judicial Branch of our Government) should be overseeing the Bush Administration (The Executive Branch of our Government). Our tri-cameral organization of government was created so that each branch has its own duties, and the other branches provide oversight on behalf of the American People.

The Constitution clearly says that 'No Warrants Shall Issue' ... which means when performing a search a warrant is required. That's how the Judicial Branch has defined it. The Legislative Branch created the FISA apparatus so that the Executive could get the required warrants when monitoring US Citizens.

The Bush Administration has claimed 'inherint authority' through the Authorization of Use of Military Force, as the Unitary Executive. An attempt to replace our tricameral goverment with a unicameral government.

 

[jazkiljok]

Haven't you been paying attention?

YES - The Bush Administration is tapping the phone calls of persons inside the United States without a warrant ... It's been in the Friggin' New York Times. Didn't you read the articles?

The Bush Administration has claimed 'inherint authority' through the Authorization of Use of Military Force, as the Unitary Executive. An attempt to replace our tricameral goverment with a unicameral government.

agree and that is the real point of concern.

for some more perspective on the subject of tapping american phone lines here's James Bamford, author of the Puzzle Palace, a very very interesting book on the most secret of secret agencies.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23478res20060116.html

 

[Marginal]

You state that in matters of National Security, "things" (whatever that term means) should be dealt with in a different matter. Must we surrender the principles upon which our Country was founded in the interest of National Security? As I understand our history, The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified had not the Bill of Rights been immediately implemented.

As Gonzalez has repeatedly stated, George Washington engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Obviously this is the root of our national identity, not all that flim flam about freedom etc.

 

[michaeledward]

I understand that most Americans can get through their days without really paying attention to this stuff, after all, all politicians are the same, right?

And, while driving around today, listening to Michael Smerconish, sitting in for Bill O'Reilly, the breathless conversation was about the a young girl who has been dead for 10 years. Can't be anything more topical than that, right?

Most Americans can't even find out their President is Breaking the Law on an ongoing basis by accident, for pete's sake. Every 90 days this program needed to be re-authorized. Every 90 days, President Bush recommitted himself, and his administration to violating the Bill of Rights.

 

[Marginal]

Well, as long as one terrorist attack on US soil can be considered equivalent to the threat the nation's security that the government was faced with in the Civil War....

 

[crushing]

Are we tapping the phones of domestic calls?

Did you mean to ask, "Are we STILL tapping the phones of domestic calls under President Bush?" Yes, he is standing on the shoulders of those that came before him and there certainly isn't any less tapping of phones than before.

"In a report issued last year [1998], the ACLU warned that the Clinton Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers
to spy on all Americans."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/release_11_18_99.html

"Wiretaps in 1996 increased by 30-40% according to the Department of Justice. The FBI's own report indicates that it plans to double the amount of private phone calls it intercepts by the year 2004, yet more than 80 percent of all conversations intercepted during a wiretap are of an innocent nature. During an average wiretap, 2,000 calls and 175 people are intercepted. That means in 1995 over two-million innocent calls were intercepted."

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/06/wiretap.html

 

[michaeledward]

Did you mean to ask, "Are we STILL tapping the phones of domestic calls under President Bush?" Yes, he is standing on the shoulders of those that came before him and there certainly isn't any less tapping of phones than before.

Are you saying that the Clinton Administration did have warrants for those phone taps?

You see that first link, about CALEA doesn't talk about warrant free surveillance. The second link, also references CALEA, does not speak to tapping of communications without a warrant.

The issue is not monitoring phone calls. The issue is that monitoring that is going on does not have any Judicial or Legislative oversight.


And even though I have just pointed out that you are referencing oranges when I am referencing apples, are you really arguing that because someone else did something wrong in the past, what is going on now can't be wrong? Really?

 

[crushing]

are you really arguing that because someone else did something wrong in the past, what is going on now can't be wrong? Really?

Yeah, who wouldn't argue that? Sheesh.

Good day.

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah, who wouldn't argue that? Sheesh.

Good day.

Hey, when you grabbed that quote ... you left out this very important point ..

And even though I have just pointed out that you are referencing oranges when I am referencing apples,

I might recommend the chapter "How to lie with footnotes" from Al Franken's book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them". It demonstrates how the pros make it look like someone said something that they didn't.

Nice Try, but you've got nothing on O'Reilly or Coulter.

 

[crushing]

And even though I have just pointed out that you are referencing oranges when I am referencing apples, are you really arguing that because someone else did something wrong in the past, what is going on now can't be wrong? Really?

Yeah, who wouldn't argue that? Sheesh.

Good day.

----------------------
Your post is no less condescending and insulting with the full quote. I thought the first part comparing fruit to fruit only added confusion. Also, I don't wish to be an O'Reily, Coulter, Ivins, Moore, Franken, or any other loyal partisan regardless of party, but at least I know who to turn to if I should want to know how to lie like a pro. Thank you.

 

[michaeledward]

This quote is from January ... Many pages earlier in this thread (I think page 14)

In an effort to stave off revisionist history, here's a link to the list of Democrats that have received money from Abramoff.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551786/posts

Draw your own conclusions.

Look who is back in the news. Mr. Abramoff. It seems Mr. Abramoff visited the White House quite regularly. The White House had told us he signed in to two events. The actual number is closer to 485 contacts with the White House. On at least nine of those visits, he listed his contact as Karl Rove. Other visits may have been to see Mr. Rove, but not listed as such.

That puts the tally at: White House = 2 -- Truth = 485

Of course, Congressman Delay has the opportunity to reenter the exterminating business. Congressman Ney has been run out of town. Look for Representative Burns of Montana to lose his re-election campaign.

Don't seem to be many Democrats yet touched by Mr. Abramoff's activities. Hmm .. makes one wonder.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15058366/

 

[michaeledward]

This morning we learn that Colin Powell was fired by the Bush Administration after the 2004 election. The termination came in a phone call from Andrew Card.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106_pf.html

 

[michaeledward]

Bill Moyer program "Moyers on America" on your local Public Broadcasting Channel sounds as if it will be interesting. Tonight, the episode is called "Capital Crimes", and focuses first on Jack Abramoff.

If you are not incurious, it may be worth a look.

 

[michaeledward]

Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) claims that Abu Ghraib was a "Sex Ring" - Not torture, but a "Sex Ring".

Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy and Making False Statements, will be serving 27 months.

Representative Charlie Bass (R-NH) refers to Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as "Hugo Chavez"

Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) is being investigate by the Justice Department because of actions taken on behalf of two Russian Companies tied to Slobodan Milosivic. The companies hired Representative Weldon's daughter as a consultant (despite lack of experience) for a total of one million dollars.

Representative Kolbe (R-AZ) is being investigated for a camping trip he took some ten years ago, which included two seventeen year old males that had recently completed terms as Congressional Pages.

Lastly, and it will be interesting to see if anything comes of this ... Craig Schelske has been served divorce papers by his wife, musician Sara Evans. Mr. Schelske was a Republican Candidate for Congress in 2004. Ms. Evans, in recent appearances on 'Dancing with the Stars' received rather ignoble support from former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who suggested his supporters extend their support to Ms. Evans. Ms. Evans divorce papers include some rather non-family values charges. Mr. Schelske apparantly has over 100 photos on his home computer with himself in a state of undress and physical arousal. Additionally, postings from 'Craigs List' were found on the computer, with requests for three party sex. Other photos include Mr. Schelske involved sexually with a woman other than his wife. --- While terribly sad, and unfortunate for Ms. Evans, amid the current 'family values controversy' in the Republican Party, this story may have more legs, than it truly deserves.

They just can't seem to catch a break. But this stuff is going on underneath the FoleyFollies, the Hastert Graveyard Speech, and the North Korea Nukular test.