cicerone imposter wrote:It seems Blair inherited the Bush Doctrine on terrorism.
Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt
John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September -- for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans.
Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).
Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city.
"I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'
"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article332149.ece
http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/independent101205.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1937539_2,00.html
Gosh it's gratifying to see that the Police State is spreading across the Atlantic. You know, I bet that bastard Dubya forced the Brits to do this!
Go Impeachment!
I agree! I'm sure the Brits will be working on Blair's case of falsifying WMDs in Iraq. Good for the Brits!
Two crazies removed with (almost) one stone!
BumblebeeBoogie shows a frantic desire to impugn the Administration by using a bogus source. Truthout is a piece of bovine excrement. Anyone who reads the site notes the DISCLAIMER at the bottom of the page.
quote:
"Go to original" linka are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORGINATING SITES,THE VIEWS POSTED ON TRUTHOUT M A Y N O T MATCH THE VERIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CHECKING THE "GO TO ORIGINAL' LINKS."
From time to time, I have checked out Go to Original and found critical sentences missing in the Truthout Garbage site.
Bumblebeeboogie must be desperate for links if using a crap site like Truthout.
Kuvasz lists "talking points" which are allegedly Republican based.
What nonsense-----
I have some talking points which are factual:
A. Bush is elected in 2000. Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate.
B. In the off year election of 2002, the party in power gains seats in the House and Senate shattering the tradition that the party in power ALWAYS loses seats in off year elections.
C. Bush is elected in 2004. Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate.
The only thing that really matters in politics, even in GEORGIA, is whether your party is in power. Kuvasz may think he is back in 1947.
All the media that tells about Abramoff and associate crooks (mostly republicans) are "a piece of bovine excrement."
Friday, January 6, 2006
Abramoff's tentacles ensnare the Northwest
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
Already first at the scene of hurricanes and floods, the American Red Cross may find itself in a new role -- providing disaster relief for politicians trying to escape the corruption stain expanding from fallen Washington, D.C., lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Already the Alaska chapter of the Red Cross has received $1,000 from the campaign fund of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. The gift offsets a personal contribution made by Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to five felonies and pledged to cooperate with prosecutors.
Other charities have been beneficiaries as politicians of all stripes have scrambled to get rid of contributions in any way related to Abramoff, who was once employed by the Seattle-based firm of Preston Gates & Ellis.
How many careers will be taken down by a backstage power broker who entertained friends by mimicking Michael Corleone in "The Godfather"?
Four Republican lawmakers, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- who called Abramoff one of his "closest and dearest friends" -- are under Justice Department investigation.
But the scandal may prove unmatched in its breadth: It has touched characters ranging from a conservative Mercer Island rabbi and talk show host to a former British prime minister.
Above all, Abramoff's work as a super-lobbyist -- and his deployment of millions in contributions from tribal clients -- provides a look at the early-21st century "gilded age" culture of Washington, D.C.
Most of those tribal contributions went to Republicans, but some Democrats have found themselves in an embarrassing position. A little more than a third of the $5.35 million in political donations made by Abramoff's tribal clients went to the opposition party.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has been spotlighted by The Associated Press for not giving away to charity $41,000 received from Abramoff's tribal clients. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., also apparently is not giving back $10,000 in similar contributions.
Their problems pale compared with those of Conrad Burns, who received $150,000. The Montana senator is trying to explain his actions to federal investigators as well as voters: He is up for re-election this year.
"This Abramoff guy is a bad guy," Burns told a home state TV station. "I hope he goes to jail and we never see him again. I wish he'd never been born, to be right honest with you."
When they can't attack the facts, they attack the messenger. Typical right-wing SOP.
It is apparent that Cycloptichorn and Blotham are woefully uniformed about lobbying and lobbyists.
According to a well know expert, namely William Safire, in his "New Political Dictionary,"
quote:
"Lobbying has grown more diverse. The federal government and some of the states have imposed legislative restrictions in an attempt to end the more blatant abuses. MOST LOBBYISTS NOW OPERATE OPENLY AS REGISTERED ADVOCATES FOR THEIR EMPLOYERS AND CLIENTS, APPEARING BEFORE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AND REGULATORY AGENCIES PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THEY ARE OFTEN USEFUL IN SUPPLYING INFORMATION ON COMPLES ISSUES...When a reporter asked President Harry Truman in 1948, "Would you be against lobbyists who are working for your program" The President replied, "We probably wouldn't call those people lobbyists. We would call them citizens appearing in the public interest."
Mortkat wrote:BumblebeeBoogie shows a frantic desire to impugn the Administration by using a bogus source. Truthout is a piece of bovine excrement. Anyone who reads the site notes the DISCLAIMER at the bottom of the page.
quote:
"Go to original" linka are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORGINATING SITES,THE VIEWS POSTED ON TRUTHOUT M A Y N O T MATCH THE VERIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CHECKING THE "GO TO ORIGINAL' LINKS."
From time to time, I have checked out Go to Original and found critical sentences missing in the Truthout Garbage site.
Bumblebeeboogie must be desperate for links if using a crap site like Truthout.
Here I go again, jumping on BBB the fecund linkster, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how anyone can discern any motive of BBB since all she does is cut and paste articles. Is there cognizance behind the cut and paste feature? Arguably there is a public (A2K) service, but is their a mind?
January 7, 2006
Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.
The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report, requested by several members of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on the legality of the program, in part because it said so many details remained classified. But it raised numerous doubts about the power to bypass Congress in ordering such operations, saying the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well grounded" as the administration's lawyers have argued.
The administration quickly disputed several conclusions in the report. Ofcoarse; they're now running for their lives.
The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless."
The president acknowledged last month that he had given the security agency the power to eavesdrop on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in the United States without a warrant if they were suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure of the program, first reported in The New York Times. With Congressional hearings expected this month, the Congressional research report intensified debate on the program. Administration lawyers quickly responded that Mr. Bush had acted within his constitutional and statutory powers.
"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people (*Where have we heard this before?) from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, adding that the program represented "a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time."
Many Democrats and some Republicans pointed to the findings as perhaps the strongest indication that Mr. Bush might have exceeded his authority in fighting terrorism.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who leads the House Democratic Policy Committee, said the report "raises serious questions about the president's legal authority to conduct domestic spying."
Mr. Miller said the justifications for the program were unacceptable.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the report made "absolutely clear that the legal authorities advanced by the president in justifying domestic surveillance are on very shaky ground." *That's my senator.
Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, weighed in for the first time in the debate. Mr. Kean said he counted himself among those who doubted the legality of the program. He said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in 1978 after widespread abuses by intelligence agencies, created a system for court-ordered wiretaps for terrorism and espionage suspects. That system "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," Mr. Kean said.
"We live by a system of checks and balances," he said. "And I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."
One reason the administration has cited for not seeking to change the intelligence law and obtain specific approvals for eavesdropping was that it might "tip off" terrorists to the program. The Congressional research service found that unconvincing.
"No legal precedent appears to have been presented," the study said, "that would support the president's authority to bypass the statutory route when legislation is required" simply because of secrecy.
Opinions on domestic spying have largely broken down, though not exclusively, along partisan lines, causing splits between the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress created in 1914, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, staff director of the Congressional inquiry on the Sept. 11 attacks.
Because of its importance, the report was repeatedly reviewed by senior staff members at the research service for accuracy and bias before its release, officials there said.
Some Democrats say the administration bypassed the authority of Congress in ordering the eavesdropping. One congressman said he was actively misled. In a letter released Friday, Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, complained to the N.S.A. over what he described as deception by its director, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander of the Army.[/color]
Mr. Holt, a physicist who has worked as an arms control specialist at the State Department, visited the agency on Dec. 6 for a briefing by General Alexander and agency lawyers about protecting Americans' privacy. The officials assured him, Mr. Holt said, that the agency singled out Americans for eavesdropping only under warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
After the program was disclosed, Mr. Holt wrote a blistering letter to General Alexander, expressing "considerable anger" over being misled. An agency spokesman, Don Weber, declined to comment on the letter.
It is manifestly clear that most of the left wing posting does not understand lobbying and political contributions.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO AN OFFICE HOLDER OR A POLITICAL PARTY. IT ONLY BECOMES ILLEGAL WHEN IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND THAT QUID PRO QUO CAN BE PROVEN IN COURT USING EVIDENCE.
I do hope that most people on this site remember that Bill Clinton regulary took $100,000 from people who were allowed to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. Was that Illegal? Not unless it can be shown that the Administration at the time did something directly for the donation.
I do hope that most people on this site remember that Bill Clinton accepted a LARGE CONTRIBUTION from the Chinese. Big Time donor Johnny Chung told congressional investigators that General Ji Shengde, head of Chinese Military Intelligence had given him $300,000 to donate to President Clinton's re-election campaign.
Was that illegal? Not unless it can be shown that the Clinton Administration did something for the donation.
Soon after the donation, Clinton PRESSED HARD for the Most Favored Nation status for China.
A quid pro quo?
No- not according to Clinton. He said;
I DO NOT THINK IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT I CHANGED LEGISLATION JUST BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL DONATION.
This story is just about as bad as the unauthorized wiretapping of American citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all you Bushco supporters, you should not only be ashamed, but where's your support for our troops? It sure didn't come from this very incompetent administration that continued to accuse everybody else of not being patriotic.
January 7, 2006
Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
I'm not sure how often I mentioned in this thread the ill-equiped soldiers fighting for our country, but was attacked by Bushco supporters. When the family and friends of these soldiers learn how this incompetent administration treated our soldiers on the front lines, this administration is going to pay big time in more ways than one. I want all of you to remember the number, 80 percent. For shame.
I'm just wondering what excuse Bushco supporters will use now?
I don't know who ERIC Lichtblau and Scott Shane are but I do know they are not experts in the laws concerning wiretapping.
Who would be the experts?
What about people who were IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AS HIGH RANKING OFFICERS IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?
Case in point---John Schmidt- former Associate Attorney General of the United States. For those who are deficient in their understanding, a former Associate Attorney General is not only miles ahead of reporters in their ability to analyze legal matters but a former Associate Attorney General who served under Clinton can not be said to have a Republican leaning.
John Schmidt wrote:
"FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation, What was needed after Sept. 11th , according to the President, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case by case judgment. IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THE SUPREME COURT SECOND GUESSING THAT PRESIDENTIAL JUDGEMENT>'
It would appear that this case will not be settled LEGALLY until it reaches the Supreme Court.
In the meanwhile, the only fallout from this "alleged" infraction by the President would be in the court of public opinion.
Those who are not familiar with the very fine plling service- Rasmussen Reports- should link to it. There they will find that the claim of "a violation of the law" is a LOSER for the Democrats.
Rasmussen Reports says that 32% of the people polled say that there is too much concern being shown that individual rights are being subverted in the name of national security.
The same poll shows that 29% say that there is not enough concern being shown for individual rights.
27% say that the amount of concern being shown is just right.
ON WHETHER PRESIDENT BUSH BROKE THE LAW IN ORDERING WIRETAPS.
52% of self indentified Democrats say he did
15% of self-identified Republicans say he did
33% of self-identified Moderates say he did
46% of self-identified Moderates Say he DID NOT.
A LOSING PLOY FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
Finn-BBB's Modus Operandi is one which is easliy recognizable on any political discussion site. She obviously trolls for any garbage she can find, Move on. org; Truthout; the Nation; etc. and then replicates it. She obviously is not aware that a copying machine that cannot or does not answer questions about its output is worse than useless.
cicerone imposter wrote:This story is just about as bad as the unauthorized wiretapping of American citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all you Bushco supporters, you should not only be ashamed, but where's your support for our troops? It sure didn't come from this very incompetent administration that continued to accuse everybody else of not being patriotic.
January 7, 2006
Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
I'm not sure how often I mentioned in this thread the ill-equiped soldiers fighting for our country, but was attacked by Bushco supporters. When the family and friends of these soldiers learn how this incompetent administration treated our soldiers on the front lines, this administration is going to pay big time in more ways than one. I want all of you to remember the number, 80 percent. For shame.
CI:
The lack of sufficient body armor is one of the things that bothers me the most. Much was made of the Democrats that voted against the initial 85-90 Billion that was designated for this war, and I remember all the talk about how they weren't supporting the troops, etc. What we never did hear much about was the fact that the money was indeed approved, yet the body armor still was not provided. All I remember hearing was the constant bitching from the Republican side about how the Demos were hampering the war effort. The fact remains that they did get the money, not to mention the 20 Billion that was "appropriated" from the Iraqi treasury when we took over that mysteriously disappeared. Supporting the troops makes good campaign slogans, why isn't it being done??
Anon
The cartoon is funny to some people but not to the people who lost husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and children in the WTC when the fanatics flew planes into the building. However, I do not wish to offend talk 72000.He is obviously someone I want to talk to. He is aware, apparently that no plots of terror by fanatic Islamists have been planned or foiled since 9/11. I am jealous that he has such good sources.
Rasmussen Poll- Americans do not think that President Bush committed a crime when he ordered wiretapping to prevent other attacks on the USA. Source- Rasmussen Reports.
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that for every poll on one side there is one on the other?
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that the only thing that really counts is who is President, who controls the House and Senate and who is nominating people for the USSC?
Mortkat wrote:Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that for every poll on one side there is one on the other?
My poll is better than your poll, Mort B A T.
Mortfly wrote:Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that the only thing that really counts is who is President, who controls the House and Senate and who is nominating people for the USSC?
The thing that is REALLY important is that Bush is a LIAR and wannabe dictator who is disrespecting the rule of law and making fools out of every elected official sitting in Congress--and everybody knows it.
