2
   

Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Dec, 2005 07:11 am
I'm going to put this item here simply because related points have arisen earlier and because there are a fair number of folks present.

The issue is an example of how modern technology allows/facilitates an incredibly pervasive degree of citizen monitoring by government.

Where government falls to the temptation and rationales for actually utilizing the potentials for covert (or even overt) monitoring is where we can get into trouble.

The "war on terror" is, unfortunately, something close to the perfect rationale for invasive and pervasive monitoring. Likewise, a governing ideology which promotes notions of the 'patriotism' of NOT speaking in opposition to the state (particularly when under some presumed or promoted threat). And again likewise where the governing ideology holds and promotes the notion of responsibility trumping rights. And finally, where it is conceived that the state ought to be managed, even deceptively, by an elite who understand that the general population are simply not capable of formulating virtuous and productive lives on their own.

Quote:
In the last three months, judges in New York, Texas, and Maryland have all ruled that prosecutors need to demonstrate probable cause to be able to access cell phone tracking info from phone companies. Prosecutors, naturally, want the threshold to be lower. Scariest buried factoid: Your wireless company can track you even when you're inside buildings, regardless of whether or not you're actually on the phone. And some companies keep that information for years.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132056/

Thus, for the libertarian or liberal-minded among us, a poignant question presents itself, if only as a matter of serious prudence.

How might it be the case, or to what degree might it be the case, that the "war on terror" is being forwarded and/or exaggerated and described as it has been BECAUSE OF the instrumental fit with the more totalitarian notions and ideology presently influencing or inhabiting the present administration?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Dec, 2005 10:49 am
Stradee wrote:


<btw - you are a sweet man but don't tell anyone i said that>


Stradee - I'm at my best in the face of dispute & hostility. How can I continue my counter after statements such as this? I'm sure that you too are a sweet person and I thank you for the comment.

I do however believe that in California a misguided legislature (and Former Governor) have allowed the institutions of state government to fall into the hands of self serving organizations that deceive the voting public with absurd claims to be looking out for their interest, when in fact al they are doing is stifiling productive economic & social acvtivity by creative and hard working individuals - and doing so for their own benefit - not that of the public..
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Dec, 2005 12:00 pm
George, granted, there are issues that need addressing politically in CA, however, when a Republican administration sets out to get rid of a Democratic governor <who voters elected> using an 'energy crises' bilking millions of CA citizens out of billions of dollars - then calling a 'special' election'?

I'd rather work with a Democratic House and Senate.


Bernie, that is a great question!

Will check in with the thread after work today.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 02:00 am
Bernie, ordinary people can monitor cell phones. Police use cellphone signals to track speeders. Technology isn't just utilized by government
agencies. However, for government agencies to track, listen to citizens calls, or spy on their computers - I believe is wrong, and using the "war on terror" as an excuse ludicrous. Same goes for people that purchase monitoring equipment.

Researching cell phone monitoring:
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/Inter/All_you.htm

I do believe however, that an agency that suspects a group of planning, or carrying out destructive measures against citizens <bombs, etc.> should be investigated and monitored <but ONLY utilizing the courts first> and with enough evidence to warrant monitoring. Most conservatives will agree. However, rationale is not the administrations strongsuit.

What former Judge Robert Bork <a conservative> said just a few months ago:

"With a single stroke…the president has…widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work -- for liberals. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values." <whatever those values are anyones guess>

The George Will op-ed disturbing. Guess they have no other alternative than to muscle thier way into federally funded shcools. Not many lines forming at army recruitment offices - and those that have used deception for forcing people to join the service were arrested and prosecuted for their actions. The hypocrisy is gwb wasn't arrested - nor was Scalia.

The 'war on terror' an excuse for control, no more - no less. With states overburdened with extra costs, <remind me to tell you about the briefcase some poor man left accidently at a checkstand at the local K-Mart store> yet chemical plants are left virtually unprotected, not to mention the nations ports. What 'war on terrorism'.


A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. - John F. Kennedy
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:29 pm
I am very much afraid that Blatham is not aware that legislation in the USA is passed by the Congress of the United States and if the voters, the final authority, feel that their rights are being systematically taken away by the nefarious right wing cabal that "really" controls the legislature, the executive and the courts, they may, of course, vote the villans out of office.

Alas, that will not happen. The American people, despite the often confused bombast issuing from the extreme left wing, realize that the prime duty of government is to protect the populace.

I am not suggesting that govenment actions are beyond criticism. Courts do exist to rectify excesses. At this time, I am not aware that the cataclysms suggested by Blatham have been assuaged by any US court.


I do, however, wish that Blatham would attempt to turn his attention to events, which, if correctly reported, present the most horrific examples of the presence of a police state in Blatham's own country--CANADA!

Source- Tuesday November 22, 2005- P. 34- Chicago Sun Times

HEADLINE-

Government Handlers Assigned to Follow Pedophiles In Canada.

"Corrections officials in British Columbia( Oh , dear-not in Vancouver?) have quietly begun to follow released pedophiles everywhere they go in what is believed to he a FIRST FOR THE CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM"
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 02:48 am
Quote:
The revelation that Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and terrorist suspects inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters


Yep, it's gone. Secret laws to protect secret powers to conduct secret investigations, secretly. You're through the looking glass here folks....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 04:46 am
stradee

Re citizen monitoring...

Sure, monitoring is something even grocery stores now do (your Safeway card) plus all the other data banks associated with commerce and government. The big potential for civil liberties abuses follows from this incredible increase in monitoring capability. All you need to add to the mix is a totalitarian-minded administration who, like J Edgar Hoover or Nixon, finds plenty of rationale for using such potentials and who perceives legal checks on such monitoring as 'quaint' in these oh so dangerous times. Friday's revelation of Bush approving monitoring without notifying congress and without checks by the courts is a perfect example. Of course, we only know of this because it got leaked/discovered (as with all the propaganda being done). So, they are doing lots more they aren't telling us about because we would not approve.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 04:51 am
ps...you probably saw the coverage on Ken Lay's speech last week where he described the prosecutorial address to Enron's disgusting corruption as an instance of "terrorizing".

That makes a nice fit with Richard Perle's description of the New Yorker reporter who wrote about Perle's corporate connections and how he stood to gain enormously from forwarding exactly the sort of fears he had been forwarding. He described the reporter as "a terrorist".

Fukk I hate these guys.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 06:35 am
Quote:
After a series of embarrassing disclosures, Congress is reconsidering its relatively lenient oversight of the Bush administration.

Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by several recent reports, including the existence of secret U.S. prisons abroad, the CIA's detention overseas of innocent foreign nationals, and, last week, the discovery that the military has been engaged in domestic spying. After five years in which the GOP-controlled House and Senate undertook few investigations into the administration's activities, the legislative branch has begun to complain about being in the dark...

In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

"Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own," said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. "I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches."

Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.

more here
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:11 am
And a piece on surveillance and the sort of idiots who often weasel up into positions of power and authority and then mis-use that power because they are idiots and because power corrupts idiots faster than non-idiots...

Quote:
NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:42 am
I'd imagine all of the professors students are monitored, in light of these additional remarks, also offered in the article.

Quote:
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:47 am
JustWonders wrote:
I'd imagine all of the professors students are monitored, in light of these additional remarks, also offered in the article.


You are being cynical, right? (I mean, it's a) a university, b) history.)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:01 am
Why would that make them off-limits?

I wouldn't think the good perfessors or students have much to worry about...unless of course, they've enrolled in flight school.....takeoff and landing lessons optional. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:11 am
Different to your system as well, we have constitunional guaranteed science and academic freedom here.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:22 am
Excellent, Walter. You don't seriously think that if there are students and professors at your "bastions of academic" freedom that are "contacting Muslim hotspots" and monitoring al-Qaeda websites, your government isn't aware of them?

If you do, we should enter into a contract regarding a certain bridge in Brooklyn. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:38 am
JustWonders wrote:
Excellent, Walter. You don't seriously think that if there are students and professors at your "bastions of academic" freedom that are "contacting Muslim hotspots" and monitoring al-Qaeda websites, your government isn't aware of them?

If you do, we should enter into a contract regarding a certain bridge in Brooklyn. :wink:


Well, might be - but then illegally. And I really doubt it, such is done openly (= printed and published in university calendars).

Another example: for instance - and this is often used 'bashing' us - it is forbidden under criminal code to use Nazi enblems etc etc.
Of course, pupild read Hitelr's 'Mein Kampf' in history classes at school, political, sociological and history classes refer to present and former Nazi publications etc.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:24 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Excellent, Walter. You don't seriously think that if there are students and professors at your "bastions of academic" freedom that are "contacting Muslim hotspots" and monitoring al-Qaeda websites, your government isn't aware of them?

If you do, we should enter into a contract regarding a certain bridge in Brooklyn. :wink:


Well, might be - but then illegally. And I really doubt it, such is done openly (= printed and published in university calendars)


Here, it's legal.

50 USC 1802(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year....

Quote:
Another example: for instance - and this is often used 'bashing' us - it is forbidden under criminal code to use Nazi enblems etc etc.
Of course, pupild read Hitelr's 'Mein Kampf' in history classes at school, political, sociological and history classes refer to present and former Nazi publications etc.


I have no idea what your point is regarding your last paragraph.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:30 am
I said so elsewhere: here, in Germany neither the chancellor nor the president has absolutistic powers.

With my last paragraph I just wanted to mention that e.g political science, history, sociology, muslim science etc departments of publish/print their semester program openly so everyone can notice in advance what's about.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:34 am
There's a bit more to that section than just what you quoted, JW.

Quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:41 am
Just in case some missed it, here's what King Bush said:

"The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:41:51