THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican, You'are fallinga apart at the seams. You ask a question, then answer it yourself. From your post:

That's standard LIEbral doctrine! They claim to believe that Terrorist Malignancy is a mere police problem.

So you too apparently believe Terrorist Malignancy is a police problem, and its stated goals are delusional and will have no actual effect:


The you in that last statement prior to the comma, is what I, ican, wrote referring to you, cicerone imposter, not me, ican. The rest of the statement after the comma is your mis-characterization of what I, ican, wrote about what you, cicerone imposter, apparently believed about the Terrorist Malignancy's stated goals.

...

If you're really interested, in securing liberty for human beings, you can start by stopping the Bush dictatorship. He wants to control how the rest of the world lives while our country's people goes without the necessities to our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Start with the illegal wiretaps; that would be an excellent start.

Your delusions about Terrorist Malignancy tells us all we need to know about your inability to understand anything. You still don't understand why most Arabs consider us the terrorists. Your blinders and calcified brain has no room to see any realities that surrounds you. All you see is the "Terrorist Malignancy" out to kill you. You belong in a padded room - and it should be locked from the outside.

ican, Your ignorance is showing again. Look up FISA. That law made it illegal for any government official to authorize wiretaps on Americans without court approval. Your brain is definitely calcified.

Your evidence is garbage like your rhetoric about "Terrorist Malignancy." Go back into your padded room, boy.

ican, It's not our place to "secure liberty for as many innocent human beings" on this planet. Do you understand anything about logistics and cost?

Iraqi PM 'prepared to step down'
Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari says he is willing to withdraw his nomination to lead the new government if the Iraqi people want him to do so.
"If my people ask me to step aside I will do this," Mr Jaafari said, shortly after attending the much-delayed inaugural session of Iraq's parliament.

The Shias' nomination of Mr Jaafari has been a major sticking point in forming a government as he lacks wider support.

He has been criticised for not doing more to curb Iraq's violence.

Growing sectarian violence in the country has prompted predictions that Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

Despite the first session of parliament being brought forward by three days from its postponed date, the BBC's Jim Muir in Iraq says this is not a sign of accord.
It is three months since the election, and unresolved differences between the parties are likely to delay the formation of a new government for several more weeks at least, our correspondent says.

The inaugural session lasted just 30 minutes as wrangling over power meant members were not even able to elect a speaker. The job is part of a wider power-sharing package.

Possible solution?

Political sources say one idea that has been agreed in principle, partly because of heavy pressure from the US ambassador, is the formation of a new leadership council.

This would be made up of the president, the prime minister, the speaker of parliament, the head of the judiciary and political chiefs.


Its exact function - and even its title - have not been agreed, but if it does see the light of day, it might help take some of the heat out of the debate over who should be the next prime minister, our correspondent says.
Iraqi and international observers believe a national unity government is the only hope of saving the country from worsening civil strife and will help lessen insurgent attacks.

The streets of the capital were quiet as the parliament held its first session thanks to a vehicle ban introduced in an effort to curb car bombings.

Appeal for calm

The meeting was held inside a convention centre behind the concrete blast walls of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

The ceremonial session, in which the 275-members of parliament were sworn in, was broadcast live on Iraqi television.

It began with a recitation of the Koran, followed by a minute of silence in memory of Iraqis who gave their lives in the struggle against the Baathist regime of former President Saddam Hussein.

Adnan Pachachi, the oldest member, addressed those gathered, urging Iraqis to avoid a civil war.

"The country is going through very difficult times and it faces a big dilemma after the Samarra bombing and the attacks that followed. Sectarian tension has increased and it threatens national disaster," Mr Pachachi said.

Debunking the Carter/Clinton Myth
by georgia10
Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:15:07 AM PDT
You know the **** is about the hit the fan when the wingers turn to Clinton to try and excuse King George's behavior. We saw it with the illegal invasion of Iraq ("but..but...CLINTON said Saddam has WMD!") and with the nuclear option ("but...but...you hated the filibuster when the Clenis was in power!"). But no distortion is more blatant, I think, than the one being circulated now that both Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless searches.

Think Progress does a quick and painless job of eviscerating the myth. Let's take a closer look and put this lie to rest. Yes, both Clinton and Carter issued executive orders pertaining to foreign intelligence surveillance. But neither of these even remotely authorized warrantless searches of American citizens, as Bush's order does.

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:


Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?


the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.


Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:


1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:


the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.


Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!

Flip it!

::

BUSH'S ORDER IS UNPRECEDENTED AND ILLEGAL
In stark contrast to the Clinton/Carter orders, Bush's order marks the first time that an American President has unilaterally turned our nation's massive spying apparatus against its own citizens. Unlike the Carter order, Bush has not followed the check-and-balance requirements of FISA. And unlike Clinton, his order allows the government to spy on communications of ordinary Americans. We learn this morning that Bush's haphazard approach of "screw the law and the spy at will" has resulted in the interception of purely domestic communications. We also learn that Judge Robertson, who is one of only 11 judges appointed to the secret FISA court, has resigned in protest of Bush's policy. Republicans are calling for inquires into the matter. This is a grave matter. Do not let the apologists on the right use illogic and outright lies to defend the violation of our constitutional rights.

As this investigation proceeds, defenders of the President will grow more and more shrill. They'll hiss, they'll attack, they'll fight like a wounded and dying animal to protect their Dear Leader. But the law doesn't lie: Bush's order is unprecedented. And no amount of spinning can change that fact.

Breaking news-- Picked up from Reuters by FOX.

We are engaged in the biggest air strike since Operation Iraqi Freedom right now.

Near Samarra.