BBB
The above select group of White House lawyers remind me of the Arther Anderson auditors who helped cook the Enron books.
BBB
US probes eavesdropping leak
I find it interesting that the Justice Department didn't start a leak investigation when Bush first learned the N.Y. Times had the info over a year ago. Is it because the Justice Department management didn't know the program existed? ---BBB
US probes eavesdropping leak
Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.
"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.
Earlier this month Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times () "a shameful act." He said he presumed a Justice Department leak investigation into who disclosed the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation would get under way.
Justice Department officials would give no details of who requested the probe or how it would be conducted.
The disclosure of the covert domestic spying program has triggered concerns among both Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers questioning whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Several lawmakers have backed a planned hearing on the issue by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania.
Bush and senior administration officials have argued that the policy of authorizing -- without court orders -- eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails by Americans suspected of links to terrorism was legal and necessary to help defend the country after the September 11 attacks.
The White house has sought to play down the impact on civil liberties, saying the program was narrow in scope and that key congressional leaders were briefed about it.
When one person represents a third of all postings and 3/4 of the lines of postings (most of which is cut and paste) has the thread not been throttled, if not killed?
Finn, In you wildest wet dreams.
I have no objection to pastes so long as the content is relevant to the thread topic (or some new direction a thread might take) and BBB's pastes here are relevant.
Why not consider that we are here to learn rather than just pissing at each other like dumb drunks in a bar conversation who both already know it all already?
Read this, then read it again.
Quote:Recently in a debate with Doug Cassel, John Yoo took part in the following exchange:
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty...
Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
It ought to be clear that such an understanding of the President's powers under the constitution makes that power effectively absolute. If the President believes, according to Yoo, that there is need to crush the testicles of person's child, that child innocent of any wrong-doing, then the President can go ahead and do that, and no law or treaty supercedes that presidential perogative.
blatham wrote:
Why not consider that we are here to learn rather than just pissing at each other like dumb drunks in a bar conversation who both already know it all already?
Hmmmn, I'll have to think about that.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:
Why not consider that we are here to learn rather than just pissing at each other like dumb drunks in a bar conversation who both already know it all already?
Hmmmn, I'll have to think about that.
Actually I have, and one of my 2006 resolutions is to be a nicer sort of A2K poster: to not directly piss on dumb know it alls; to be more supercilious about it...like you.
Hey, the resolution doesn't go into effect until 12:01am (CST) on 1/1/06.
I am amazed that Blatham can post so much drivel without as much as referring to a link. He has( or thinks he has) a massive intellect. I am very much afraid that an intellect that is massive can still be massively wrong.
Blatham is a master of generalities. He drones and postures and gives us, as Finn put it so aptly, a manner that is " SUPERCILIOUS". Indeed, Blotham has indeed warned us, in his exalted and assumed position of all knowing guru that the direction of the polls are giving a good sign(Polls for Bush declining).
This shows that Blatham knows what is in his head but not what is in reality. I cannot aspire to the heights that Blatham inhabits but I do know more about polls than he does.
The latest Rasmussen Reports Poll shows that President Bush's Job Approval Rate has gone up rather well to 47%. If we view Blatham's post, we might conclude it was still in the high thirties.
This shows conclusively that not only is Blotham a massive intellect but he is also a unreformed spewer of hot air.
Check out Rasmussen Reports.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:
Why not consider that we are here to learn rather than just pissing at each other like dumb drunks in a bar conversation who both already know it all already?
Hmmmn, I'll have to think about that.
Actually I have, and one of my 2006 resolutions is to be a nicer sort of A2K poster: to not directly piss on dumb know it alls; to be more supercilious about it...like you.
Hey, the resolution doesn't go into effect until 12:01am (CST) on 1/1/06.
Note the modifier "just". I have as much fun pissing as anyone, but that isn't enough to engage. If that's all that is going on, it is a closed loop, like simpleton drunks in a bar who haven't had a fresh thought in a decade.
Sorry. Am wearing full strength Acme Piss-Guard. But Happy New Year to you - and to everyone else as well.
I am sure that when Blatham refers to "Simpleton drunks in a bar who have not had a fresh thought in a decade", he does not include himself among those dipsomaniacs. He has, of course, many fresh thoughts--always fresh thoughts. The problem is, of course, his thoughts are so fresh that they are disconnected from reality. Blatham would not deign to reference a link. He is the repository of "fresh" thoughts. As is the container for bovine excrement.
Oh, Francis, I am very much afraid that you are taking that out of context. That container for "bovine excrement" was in a post about Blatham. You really should read it again.
