Spying On The Times

The NY Times, with help from other media, is pushing the Bush Lied, Don't Let The Story Die theme pretty hard these days. Listening to the radio on the way home I was thinking that the Times is seriously out of step with the nation on this one - not exactly new, I know.

Still, when I came across some of the following at Yahoo this evening, it basically confirmed my suspicion. Fix your spy glass on these results based upon people's interests and not the headlines of the Times.

News of the Bush administration's domestic spying program has been sneaking around in the headlines, and our natural nosiness curiosity led us to investigate further. ... But what's happening in the Search box?

Searches on "spying" spiked over the past week, up 370%. But in overall searches, "spying" and "domestic spying" don't place any higher than in our top 500,000 searches. Seems most people don't feel the need to worry about the domestic spying game. ... According to Search data, people seem much more interested in cleaning up nasty PC spyware and finding gadgets to help them do a little spying of their own.

Read the whole thing

Comments

[shonane]

I don't think the Times is out of step with the nation on this one. People are busy with Christmas and holidays and a lot of people are just now becoming aware of this story.

I am taking time to listen and hear this story evolve, and to hear some of the discussions on TV re this. I don't have to do searches to read about this online, because I get a lot of email newletters that have links to articles and discussion boards on this and other hot topics of interest so the things I have read would not show up in these searches. The Times is one of them and they have their own discussion board re these articles.

As best as I understand what has occurred, this administration has broken the law. I listened to another discussion about it today. There are both Republican and Democratic members of Congress that seem to be extremely unnerved that this has occurred.

[COLUMBO]

This is a struggle between the Congress and the Executive branches over asserting power. The executive is on solid legal footing based on the authority the president was granted by Congress-the way it was written; however, some members of Congress seem to be attempting to retroactively assert that the expansion of the power given to the president to fight this enemy does not extend to fighting them inside this country. If Congress succeeds in legal gymnastics to reword it as such, al qaeda will cease to exist in 60 countries-and begin to flourish in just one: the U.S.A.

This will backfire....while the public interest is far from the hysterical pitch of the MSM, the majority of people in fact do support the power of the president being used to listen to people inside of this country who communicate with known al qaeda operatives.

This is the same power asserted by Clinton, Bush 41, and Carter in times of peace.

[shonane]

Here is a very different perspective than yours Colombo.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/schell

[TheAlamo]

This is the same power asserted by Clinton, Bush 41, and Carter in times of peace.

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 27, 2005 10:13:51 PM

Here is a very different perspective than yours Colombo.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/schell

Posted by: shonane | Dec 27, 2005 11:44:12 PM

First, Castro....er....Columbo. So, it is reasonable to assume that if Clinton broke the law, then Bush can break the law too? Heck, if that's the case then why are murderers not set free? There is NO JUSTIFICATION--EVER, for violating the Bill of Rights. Are you an American or a Nazi?
How hard is it to obtain a search warrant? When government ignores the law, why should you or I obey it? And if we do not, will we be defined as "terrorists?" Mark my word today---THAT is what will be coming down the pike...new, and elastic definitions of what a "terrorist" is. Watch.

Shonane:
This is a good article, but the writer failed to point out another important fact. I quote him:

"The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?"

There has been no legal declaration of war. Therefore, there are no "inherent" powers. I am curious as to the definition of the "enemy." With all of the attempts at ursurping posse comitatus, and the attempted elimination of "political speech," along with the attempted state confiscation of property without just cause, I am wondering why people cannot see the word "dicatorship" in their heads. It is very possible that they actually think Hitler acted totally alone in taking control of Germany....that the Reichstag ceased to exist, did not "rubber stamp" things, and that all people just bowed to Hitler when he walked into the room. Even the communists have the "congressional" rubber stamping that ours has given these who break the law.

We once again have a government that spits in the face of the people, denies their express power, and seeks to totally eliminate their voice in matters that concern their own lives. THAT is defacto dictatorship.

But, then, public school books have a way of making it look like guys like Hitler and Castro acted solely on their own with no help or accomplises.
Right.........

[COLUMBO]

First, Castro....er....Columbo. So, it is reasonable to assume that if Clinton broke the law, then Bush can break the law too?

only if you assume that the law is being broken, Saddam....er....I mean Alamo. Each president over the last 20 years has asserted this power. With all the leaking to the NYT I cannot say that I blame Bush. The collected info is now battelfield intelligence....integrated with missle tipped drones....I don't think Bush is trying to bring indictments

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There has been no legal declaration of war. Therefore, there are no "inherent" powers.

Congress gave the president the powers of war to fight al qaeda...they now maintain retroactively that the power does not extend to fighting them in the USA (contradicting the actual the wording)....in such a case, ours would be the safest country for al qaeda to take refuge

[COLUMBO]

Shonane

good propoganda....conveniently leaves out the language in the act declared by Congress in which the president's power to fight al qaeda is asserted...it will be determined that no laws were broken in this case

sorry

[COLUMBO]

Newsweek reported that U.S. interrogators had flushed a Koran down a Guantanamo Bay toilet. After Hurricane Katrina, reporters said that sharks from Lake Pontchartrain were swimming through New Orleans, and roving bands of armed gang members were attacking the helpless. Myth after myth.......John Stossel

....and he's not just talking about "The Nation."

[TheAlamo]

There has been no legal declaration of war. Therefore, there are no "inherent" powers.

Congress gave the president the powers of war to fight al qaeda...they now maintain retroactively that the power does not extend to fighting them in the USA (contradicting the actual the wording)....in such a case, ours would be the safest country for al qaeda to take refuge

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 9:51:54 AM

Columbo, my suggestion would be to read the Constitution of the United States...you do not live in Russia.
It is a document written by farmers and merchants, and was purposefully written so that the common man (meaning you and I) could understand it completely. If you need "interpretation" of a document written by farmers and merchants, then it is my guess that you are a successful graduate of the government school system, which, taught you nothing...and by your above totally incorrect post, seems to be a given. If I were you, I would at least be ashamed to admit that I could not understand a dcoument written by persons with little or no "education" as we know it today. But then, maybe you didn't learn to read too well either, another "success" of the government school system.

There is NO provision for congress to transfer the powers of declaration to the president, nor is a resolution a declaration of war. If the "war" was legal and just, then a declaration of war by the congress of the United States would be in order. How hard would that be? The same idiots that gave their legal authority away by "resolution" can make the SAME SIGNATURE on a legal declaration. Why did they not?
My guess is that since they cannot declare war on an adjective, it seems they have attempted to abdicate their lawful positions, and done so illegally, I might add. This gives the executive branch defacto dictatorial powers as it stands, and is functioning today--that...totally illegal as well. When the executive branch exerts this kind of power, then you live in a different country than the United States of America. When you support such crime, then you become an accessory to that crime. You, therefore, are just as guilty as they are.

When government, made up of men, (just like you and I) can just ignore the law of the land at their leisure, then by what do we judge them? If they can just ignore the bounds that were purposefully placed upon them, then what do you call that? I call it criminals.
If they can break the law, being mere men, then why can't you? If they can, and you cannot, then it is obvious that we no longer live in a "free" society, but one of class distinction. They rule, you obey.

As I said before, you are a slave, and the schools have done a wonderful job of stealing your freedom from you, along with the trash that sits up in Washington. The Constitution is not grievous, and is totally adaptable with the amendment process...which is the legal way to change it. If these bastards are too damned lazy to do it the right way, then they should be impeached, and those who support them, deported to China or Cuba.
This means you, of course. You would have a much simpler life in Cuba or China, because you would not be allowed to exhibit your ignorance as you can here, because political discussion that involves criticizing the leaders is forbidden. Which, you, of course, being the slave that you are, would welcome.

Be of good cheer, though. The day is coming soon when the definition of "terrorist" will likely include anyone who does not agree with the actions of these scumbags. When that happens, you won't have to listen to the truth any longer, and you can continue to pretend you are "free." Not only that, you won't have to bother coming to sites like this, because they won't exist. Yeah, you have a real future ahead.
Get your armband and your jackboots, practice your goosestep and stiff arm salute. You belong.

(BTW, you will notice I asked several questions of you in the above post. You can find them with sentences that end in ?
If you cannot answer these things on your own power, don't bother sending some link with a news reporter's take on things. You just add insult to your own self, when you do so. Get some self respect. Learn of your country and its governing documents. Quit letting the news writers deicde your life for you.)

[shonane]

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=66532&ntpid=1

[COLUMBO]

Alamo:

This was enacted in 2002. Go read that. Congress granted authority to engage al qaeda using whatever means necessary. Since he has initiated steps inside the USA some have retroactively maintained that this is a violation of the law...but under this act, the language placed no geographical boundaries. The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago-before the internet, the telephone, and the satellite-things being used against us.

Lincoln said the Constitution was not a suicide pact.

[COLUMBO]

shonane

The president will not be censured, and he will not be impeached....two thirds of Americans polled support the measure to listen to communications between those with known al qaeda ties here in the USA with the counterparts overseas.....the spin that he routinely spies on Americans is obviously not being bought by Americans. To continue to try to sell this nonsense is political suicide.

Sorry

[Sgt. York]

What bullsh1t.

Bush is pissing all over the US Constitution.

The arguments the Congess wrote a bill that let Bush piss on the Constitution, or that Democrat politions are puzzies [they are] and did not do anything to stop Bush from pissing on the Constituion, or that other Presidents have previously pissed on the Constitution is pathetic and beside the point.

This is AMERICAN and we don't elect dictators who are above the law. If Bush can "suspend" laws then explain why he can't create assasination squads to execute his political enemies or even Americans that simply irritate him.

You morons are fvkking-up America. Why don't you fake conservatives, demonic neo-cons, and pro-police-state dolts move to Syria or North Korea? You would obviously be happy there. The dictator will protect you from all those "evil doers" without all that silly judge, warrant, trial, jury nonsense.

==========================

[TheAlamo]

Alamo:

This was enacted in 2002. Go read that. Congress granted authority to engage al qaeda using whatever means necessary. Since he has initiated steps inside the USA some have retroactively maintained that this is a violation of the law...but under this act, the language placed no geographical boundaries. The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago-before the internet, the telephone, and the satellite-things being used against us.

Lincoln said the Constitution was not a suicide pact.

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 2:47:02 PM

shonane

The president will not be censured, and he will not be impeached....two thirds of Americans polled support the measure to listen to communications between those with known al qaeda ties here in the USA with the counterparts overseas.....the spin that he routinely spies on Americans is obviously not being bought by Americans. To continue to try to sell this nonsense is political suicide.

Sorry

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 2:52:02 PM

How pathetic can you get? You cannot answer the questions can you? IF we are at war then WHY not a declaration of war? IF THEY can ignore the law...why can't YOU? Congress CANNOT GRANT ANY authority. This is WHY we have a WRITTEN set of laws for them to OBEY---just like you and I are supposed to do. If they want war---declare it congressionally. They cannot give away that power, and the executive branch cannot take it.

The year 1943, world war 2 is in full swing. (we are at war with real terrorists, that actually have the means to invade America)
United States Supreme Court. (I assume you know that is one of the THREE branches of government) Jackson decision. Paraphrase. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can the Bill of rights be infringed upon by man, or law, because they are not MAN MADE LAWS. They are natural laws that belong to every human being on this earth--even you. You cannot GIVE THEM AWAY, since they are natrual laws, and not of man. ANY act ingringing upon these rights is ILLEGAL. Do you get that? Can you understand the fact that just because 400 of the 435 congressmen/women break the damned law, it is NOT justifiable? If they drop 50 neutron bombs on us...they CANNOT take your rights away. If they want to search people, listen to their conversations then get a damned search warrant---it has worked for over 200 years, and the only reason it will not today is that the executive branch wants dictatorial powers. Period. Period. NO OTHER REASON.

We are NOT, I repeat NOT a democracy. What is the difference? In a democracy the government can run roughshod over your rights as they are doing currently, and as long as the majority of idiots agree, then they TAKE what they want from those who may not want to give it.
In a REPUBLIC, which the United States IS---you cannot abridge the law by majority vote, either by the people OR the damned government crooks. In other words, if 99.99999% agree to break the law---they CANNOT MAKE IT LEGAL, by sheer numbers of participants. This was meant to be, by the founders to protect us from idiots who wil buy anything from a smooth talking government official--which, you, of course have done.

It makes no difference if 99.99999% of the people support what the president does. IF it is against the law, then tough do-doo. Don't do it. You are willing to trash 200 years of successful history for some camel jockeys, that if you haven't noticed are NOT blowing up oil wells? You can't get the picture? These criminals are not an army--they are criminals. They have NO MEANS of conquering the United States. Giving up your rights for them is pathetic. And, while you think you have the right to give yours up (and you don't) you damned sure do NOT have the right to give up the rights of others. The fact that you turn your head when government commits crime not only shows ignorance, but cowardice as well. Like I said, you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

Get some self respect. You are not a blob of jelly for them to mold however they see fit. You are every bit as good as they are, and deserve the maintain your own dignity and property instead of groveling at their feet as you do.

[shonane]

'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001736558

Where’s the Outrage?
Bush’s defense of his phone-spying program has disturbing echoes of arguments once used by South Africa’s apartheid regime. Why Americans should examine the parallels.

Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Arlene Getz
Newsweek
Updated: 3:33 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562528/site/newsweek/

Above the law?

Bush: “I am the law”

By Max J. Castro

“L’État, c’est moi.” I am the State:” That’s what the 17th century French monarch, Louis XIV (1638-1715), told the Parliament of Paris after some of its members dared to question funding for the war against Spain.

“La Loi, c’est moi; I am the Law:” That is what George W. Bush, so anti-French, so unlike the Sun King and yet so monarchical, has in effect told those who question the president’s right to do whatever he wants under the guise of the “war against terrorism.” Or, Bush being Bush, he would probably say: “Me, I’m the law, that’s me, the law is me.” (to read more ....)

http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Max_Castro&otherweek=1135231200

[COLUMBO]

bill of rights says nothing about the internet, telephones, or satellites

[TheAlamo]

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=66532&ntpid=1

Posted by: shonane | Dec 28, 2005 1:58:21 PM

So, comrade columbo, did you read this? Even republicans are going after this abuse of power. But, you, stay the course, support crime at the highest level. I mean, what would it do to your poor little psyche to admit you were wrong. Better to rah-rah the criminals than to admit to looking as foolish as you obviously are.

[COLUMBO]

It makes no difference if 99.99999% of the people support what the president does.

no congress would remove a president that has 99% support-this was the point I was making....I am not debating the constitution....what I am debating is whether the president misused power given to him under a congressional act-and whether it is disingenuous for the same folks who signed it to claim otherwise for political expediency

this is a turf war between the Congress and the executive....a power struggle if you will.....and Arlen Specter stated that he thinks there will be hearings with further legislation to follow

[Thealamo]

bill of rights says nothing about the internet, telephones, or satellites

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 5:18:58 PM

Are you serious? Hell, I thought we had an adult on the line here, but I have to ask you. Does your mother know you are playing with her computer?

I suggest you read the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. They are part of the Bill of Rights that CANNOT be legally infringed upon by government, or individuals.

You should read them, you might find them interesting. It would be a good idea to have just a VAGUE knowledge of what you are willing to give away because of your uncontrollable fear.
Man, get some self respect and quit quivering in your shoes every time you hear the word "terrorist." Get ahold of yourself. If you are afraid, buy a gun, learn to use it. Carry it with you so nobody "terrorizes" you out of your undies.

Hell you are 10 times the terrorist that the camel jockeys are anyway. I am 100,000 times more afraid of idiots than I am somebody blowing me up tomorrow.

[COLUMBO]

Alamo:

Hahahah.....Rep. Conyers????? ROFLMAO!!!!

[COLUMBO]

http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2005/welcome.asp

[Thealamo]

this is a turf war between the Congress and the executive....a power struggle if you will.....and Arlen Specter stated that he thinks there will be hearings with further legislation to follow

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 5:23:16 PM

Idiot. It is a turf war between the people and the government. The SAME THING that has happened to 100% of the countries before us. But, then you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
How does it feel to have that no. 9 hook in your jaw? They pull left, you swim left. They pull right, you swim right.
And, in the end they will end up gutting you, just like they have 100% of the time before this nation.

I have no problem with ignorance, because it is cureable. Stupidity, however is a different matter, because it is a choice. Nothing I have written here that cannot be researched by you and my points proven. Should you choose not to do it, then you have made the choice of your own label.

[shonane]

no congress would remove a president that has 99% support-this was the point I was making....I am not debating the constitution....what I am debating is whether the president misused power given to him under a congressional act-and whether it is disingenuous for the same folks who signed it to claim otherwise for political expediency

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28

First, this president does not have 99% support and he barely had over 50% to win the elections. His poll ratings on performance are really bad now - have you seen them? Second, Congress never gave him this authority period IMO, thus he has not misused power since he never had it authorized. That is what all the stink is about. What he has done is specifically prohibited by both our constitution and the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Colombo - I seems to me that you are just stating your "in advance" opinion without reading any of the linked editorials discussing this issue. If you think it is OK for Bush to break the law and you agree with his argument that it is necessary for national security, you can promote that position. There will be others who will agree with you - not me obviously - but some will. However, when you argue your position, at least get the issue straight and don't include obviously wrong statements like Bush having 99% support as even middle school kids know better than that. Also,the politics will alway be involved in this type issue - just like the uproar over the stain on Monica's dress was - but this issue is much more than politics.

[callmeBetty]

As an aside, FISA has only rejected 6 (six) requests for warrants since it's inception and was created for "quick" responses, for no/minimal delays, so that argument is weak too...........

The murky territory is not in the request for FISA warrants, but more to the backstory about how the 'info' that is presented and used to justify asking for a warrant is 'collected'........ therein lies the rub and potential misdemeanors, so to speak.

(*from 'Hardball? or whatever it is with Chris Matthews? - or the show after it, one of those, but the speaker was a FISA director so the info seemed legitimate)

[COLUMBO]

shonane

refer you to Alamo's point (99%):

"It makes no difference if 99.99999% of the people support what the president does."

I disagree....no Congress would ever have the balls to remove any president with 99% approval-while Bush is only at 50%, he has skyrocketed since this issue popped onto the radar screen-about 14 points....it is a big-time loser for the left

[COLUMBO]

shonane

maybe you should read more carefully ;-)

[COLUMBO]

"Idiot. It is a turf war between the people and the government."

That is the war you are perpetuating....in Washington there is a turf war over whether this-or maybe 6 of the last eight administrations who have asserted this power had the authority to do so....after 911 Congress implicitly gave this president the power to wage war against al qaeda...I would point you to an op-ed by Tom Daschle where he included the language from the bill-all the while maintaining that it implied that the authority does not extend to US territory-language that was not included in the Congressional authorization

The test will be whether domestically acquired battlefield intelligence is a violation of US law. In this context (unchartered territory)-it will be virtually impossible to charge it as such...to do so would be a serious blow to the existing counter-espionage infrastructure that has existed for decades

Again, a different war than you are fighting....my guess is that it will be several years, if at all, before you need to worry about being caught dialing phone sex or downloading porn. JMHO.....

[callmeBetty]

>he has skyrocketed since this issue popped onto the radar screen-about 14 points

Yeah, it's ALL about the points, Columbo... It's all about the packaging, not the content anymore.

[Dan]

Rep. Conyers?????

Careful, I hear his wife packs a hell of a punch. LOL

[TheAlamo]

after 911 Congress implicitly gave this president the power to wage war against al qaeda...I would point you to an op-ed by Tom Daschle where he included the language from the bill-all the while maintaining that it implied that the authority does not extend to US territory-language that was not included in the Congressional authorization

The test will be whether domestically acquired battlefield intelligence is a violation of US law. In this context (unchartered territory)-it will be virtually impossible to charge it as such...to do so would be a serious blow to the existing counter-espionage infrastructure that has existed for decades

Again, a different war than you are fighting....my guess is that it will be several years, if at all, before you need to worry about being caught dialing phone sex or downloading porn. JMHO.....

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 6:20:45 PM

Okay, I forgot your age...so let's go back and do it again since you seem to be very, very, slow.
Congress CANNOT implicitly, or by ANY other means....GIVE POWER AWAY. Now is that plain, do you get it?
So, how can anything beyond that be just? The government was set up with three separate branches for this EXPRESS purpose.
Now, read the above 5 times. Say it to yourself, so that you can get it.

The next part is good. "...domestically acquired battlefield intelligence." Man you are a newspsper creation.
First of all "battlefield intelligence" suggests there is a "battlefield." Where is it? Secondly, in order to have a battlefield, you have to have a war. When no war is declared, there is no war. Therefore, there cannot even be any "batttlefield intelligence."

Third, and most importantly, our borders are wide open, and there is nothing being done at all, leaving the country wide open for the "battlefield" they so longingly desire to have.

Okay, let's see if you can get this.
No. 1. Is the Contitution of the United States the law or not? If it is not, then what is? (answer this before moving along to the next one...if you can, that is)
No. 2. If the Constitution of the United States IS the law, then what should happen to those who break the law? (again, answer the question before moving ahead)
No 3. No one is complaining about LEGAL wiretapping, that which is justified by search warrant. Therefore the only complaint is against ILLEGAL violations of the fourth and fifth amendments. I could care less who is doing it...democrats or republicans. That is NOT the issue. Who screws you, is irrelevant when you are getting screwed. WHY is it so hard to do it legally? (and, I am not interested in the propaganda about backside disclosure or info either one---national security issue---remember?)

Now, I will repeat this part again, because you did not get it above. Forget posting newspaper writer regurgitations as your agrument, since they are totally wrong. Answer the above questions. If you can, of course. If they are too difficult, let me know and I will define the words that you cannot grasp.

Finally as to your weak statements about porn, my guess is that you speak from experience, but hey, that is why the first amendment is important. If you get off to it, more power to you.

[COLUMBO]

Congress passed a bill giving this president the authority to fight al qaeda using the powers of warfare....go find it and read it when you are done reading the Constitution...and you will find that I am in fact-correct, and that your condescending, John-Kerry like arrogance has not served you well.

[COLUMBO]

Yeah, it's ALL about the points, Columbo... It's all about the packaging, not the content anymore.

The packaging, in this case, is that "Bush spies on us." The public knows this not to be the case. The NYT and the ACLU have investigated and come up with nothing. Sometimes the liberal left should give the American public the benefit of the doubt. I merely put forward the position that the American public supports the content, and doesn't buy the packaging, and will not support a Congress that declares war on this president.

[TheAlamo]

Congress passed a bill giving this president the authority to fight al qaeda using the powers of warfare....go find it and read it when you are done reading the Constitution...and you will find that I am in fact-correct, and that your condescending, John-Kerry like arrogance has not served you well.

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 7:54:49 PM

That's what I thought.
The response of an emotionally disturbed child. And a liar at that. You cannot "pass a bill" ursurping the supreme law of the land. You are, in fact, 100% INcorrect, but you should be used to it by now because you get 100% of your information from the MSM news.

After you read the above again, and decide whether you are smart enough to answer the questions, feel free to come on back. Until then, go play marbles or something you have even a semblence of intelligence in. If people want to read newspaper articles, they have the skills to do so.

If you cannot answer the questions, then don't bother me anymore.

[COLUMBO]

ok Custer

[shonane]

This is an excerpt from a Dec 20 article re the polls. The jump is among Republicans, with barely a change by the Dems. I think the success of the Iraqi election - finally we are all pleased - and Christmas good will helps to bump up. As the issue of this thread is discussed more, then we will see if this holds. Even so, it concludes that a majority, or 52%, disapprove of the job he is doing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bush's Support Jumps After a Long Decline
More Americans Upbeat on Iraq, Economy

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job

[shonane]

Colombo - The bill you are referring is very short and it does not give the president the authority to do what he has done. He is claiming that it did, except lots of members of Congress are saying that this was never even discuss, much less authority given. I watched a lot of the debates on this bill on cspan and read a lot about it during the debates. I have read the bill. Also, it did not declare war, just authorized Bush to invade Iraq if he decided that he needed to. At the time is was passed, UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and many in Congress hoped Bush would never decide to go into Iraq, but he did so immediately. Again, the bill does not address the topic of this discussion.

[shonane]

will not support a Congress that declares war on this president.

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28,
========
Well Clinton was a popular president among many, not only in the US but in the world, and Congress went after him for lying about getting a blow job. Why would they not support going after a president that is illegally spying on citizens?

[COLUMBO]

simple-Congress would never have removed Clinton-it would have been political suicide...and it will be now because Americans support the measure in question by 2-1. Careful-noone has confirmed that U.S. citizens have been surveilled with no warrant. Noone has confirmed that anyone with no al qaeda ties has been surveilled. They are integrating the intel with military assets overseas to vanquish these folks....WTC1 demonstrated that indictments are futile.

as for the bill, there was one after 911-before Iraq...I was not refering to the authorization for war in Iraq...the one I am referencing gave broad authority to mobilize military assets -which includes gathering intelligence. The House did not intend to give Bush a get out of jail free when it neglected to confine the language to 'international.' They knew exactly what they were doing and what it meant. His defense will be this underlying broad authority....which was signed by a majority-not the fact that the power in question has been asserted by 6 of the last 8 administrations.

[COLUMBO]

Daschle's misleading op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

actual agreed upon language:
"Granting the president all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks of September 11th."

Daschle says Bush wanted to include "inside the United States" and that Daschle would not allow it. First, there's nothing in the language prohibiting this. Second, there is no record anywhere of this discussion.

Again, the dems illustrate why they cannot be trusted with national security.

[shonane]

The Freewheeling Executive

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051222/the_freewheeling_executive.php

[COLUMBO]

c'mon shonane...you keep posting DNC rags....reading this stuff is bad for your health....Congress either knew what they were doing when the language was omitted, or they didn't have the balls to go to the public after 911 and say the only safe haven for terrorists will be inside the USA because we have a 4th amendment...what would they be afraid of? because it was what America wanted....and still wants by 2-1.

The war against al qaeda has been waged since 2001....the war against Bush was declared in 2000....it is disingenuous to confuse the two-and bad for America.

[shonane]

Discussion is all over about this. I also have been very concerned about some provisions of the Patriot Act ever since it was passed and hope Congress takes the time to eliminate some of the provisions - last I read has a 6 mo extention now. These are links from one day in one of my Liberatrian newsletters from this past week following an editorial about this issue.

* U.S. Constitution, Art. II Sec. 2, Powers of the President.
LINK: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

* Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' LINK: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

* Bush defends eavesdropping, blasts senators on Patriot Act. LINK:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/19/MNG9JGAFEV10.DTL

* Sen. Feingold's remarks on ending debate on PATRIOT Act. LINK: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1216-29.htm

* Bigger Brother, Los Angeles Times editorial. LINK:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-security18dec18,0,5190326.story

[shonane]

Colombo, this is not about Bush or a war against Bush. This president, or no other president, has the power to waive the 4th amendment or any other part of the consittution. It is that simple. Bush admits he has been doing it and says he plans on continuing to do it. It is criminal to violate the consitution. TheAlamo already explained this and is correct in presented conclusions IMO. TheAlamo has been equally critical of Clinton related to some other issues.

[TheAlamo]

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 28, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Posted by: shonane | Dec 29, 2005 12:29:58 AM

You two need to think about something here. Let's assume I am the "evil" president...makes no difference which party.
What would I like to see the nation to do to cover myself?
Argue over semantics, argue over party affiliation and never, never, understand who has the power in this country, and never, never, address the law on the subject, just the emotions.
In the United States, the most powerful person is the citizen of this nation. The president, legally ranks almost dead last.
The heirarchy of government in the United States WAS (and still should be) you, your city council, your mayor, your state assembly, your governor, your congressman, your senator, THEN the president, and of course, the judges are supposed to be impartial to anything but the law.
You have worked this argument from an inverse position.

The reason there was a Constitution in the first place was to set down RULES, for the GOVERNMENT---not the people. Laws governing the "people" for the most part were to be at the state and local level. The ONLY function of the national government is to protect the rights of the citizens, and wage war.--- A legally declared war, by the congress of the United States. NOT a "resolution" giving away power they do not have, to someone who has no authority to accept it, if they could.
IF that Constitution is "dated" then there is a process to change it. It is called an amendment. In this way, the people have a say so in the matter.
My question is this. Where do the rulers of this land, the people, fit into either argument?
The express reason that the Bill of Rights was written was to insure against ursurpation by ANY branch of government. Whether they are in collusion or not, makes no difference. Whether they try to bypass the Constitution in one manner or the other---makes absolutely NO difference at all.
You cannot abolish the Constitution by passing "resolutions" or laws that are in direct contrast with it. If so, then you have become victims of a dictatorship, simply because the law no longer means anything. Just the whims of the powers that be.

I strongly urge you to study some history, particularly you Columbo, because you are about as dense as the Amazon rain forest. Show me ONE government where the people thrive under this sort of "rule." We are not to be ruled. We are to make the rules, and those rules have guidelines that CANNOT be abridged, no matter what they say the emergency is. If so, then we will stay in a constant state of war, thereby giving them the implied "right" to comepletely eliminate the Bill of Rights.

Now columbo, you probably support that, but don't ever bring up the statement that we are fighting for "freedom" since you support destroying those very freedoms they are supposedly fighting for.

If you continue arguing over the differences of HOW they are going to screw us, or WHO it is that is doing it---you give them exactly what they want. BOTH of the past two administrations have made mince meat out of the Constitution. If you can respect that from either, then God help us. And who loses---the people as a whole...makes no difference what "party" they support.

The focus, should be that BOTH parties ignore the law of he land. That is punishable by impeachment, and in the case of treason, such as selling military secrets to the communists for campaign donations--should go on trial under the possible penalty of death.
BOTH parties are ruining this country, and they continue to get away with it because no one pays any attention to what they DO. If the "left" can't get it done then the "right" will do it to the cheers of its followers. Either way, even though they talk a different tune---the results are the same, from BOTH parties.

[shonane]

TheAlamo - You have mentioned before that you believe Clinton sold military secrets to China for campaign funds.I never reached the point that I was convinced he did, but maybe you are right. I assume you researched this more than I did. Otherwise, I was supportive of most of the policies under the Clinton administration unlike the current one. I know, you think he should be hanged.

I agree with most of your points otherwise. Erosion of person privacy and protections of the constitution has been going on long before Bush was president. However, IMO this administration has taken it to the extreme/over the top.

[TheAlamo]

TheAlamo - You have mentioned before that you believe Clinton sold military secrets to China for campaign funds.I never reached the point that I was convinced he did, but maybe you are right. I assume you researched this more than I did. Otherwise, I was supportive of most of the policies under the Clinton administration unlike the current one. I know, you think he should be hanged.

I agree with most of your points otherwise. Erosion of person privacy and protections of the constitution has been going on long before Bush was president. However, IMO this administration has taken it to the extreme/over the top.

Posted by: shonane | Dec 29, 2005 1:44:42 AM

Actually (the treason) it goes all the way back to Nixon who "normalized" relations with the communist Chinese. Here we are 30 years later, and they control our total financial future because they control our national debt, which, 99% of ALL politicians support its continued growth. If the Chinese pull the plug on the debt, then we are in deep do-doo.
Bush covered up Clinton's sale of technology by stopping all investigation into his antics. Tells you about the "animosity" between parties. The quicker Americans realize that they (the 2 parties) are in this thing together, the better. There is nothing different about the two parties except the rhetoric. 10 years ago it was the "left" assaulting the Constitution. Now it is the "right." Their agenda is the same. The rhetoric is the only difference.

Until people like Columbo gain some self respect, and take back their righful position as ruler of this nation, we will continue to slide into the abyss that is all too typical of any government that has been successful in the past at having any semblence of liberty. If you are following England, they too, are headed right back down familiar roads for them, as their government is doing them in just like ours is.

None of this is new. It is history repeating itself, and if you check it out, you will find that the "crises" situations such as wars, tend to be where the people lose out.

[COLUMBO]

Bush has been given legal cover by Congress to hunt these guys wherever they are-period. If you want to hang every politician that ever passed a law because it isn't in the original constitution-open a new thread. Spare me the hysterical nonsense and namecalling.

81% republicans support him to this end

57% who declare no affiliation

51% DEMOCRATS

The NYT and the Dems picked the wrong fight here....I think that is the subject of this thread....IMHO.

As for privacy-you own your home-it was not built by the government. Your government built the internet and launches the satellites. They've put as much into the capabilities used to monitor communications to keep us safe. One thing keeps them from listening to us inside the U.S.-the law. There is no proof that any have been broken in this case. None. No liberties have been eroded. None. Zip. Zero.

[COLUMBO]

Clinton stooge leaking top secret information to the media?

Federal District Judge James Robertson, who resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in protest over secret wiretaps ordered by President Bush, is regarded in Washington legal circles as one of President Bill Clinton's most liberal and partisan judicial appointments.

Robertson has ruled consistently against the Bush administration's handling of enemy combatants. On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed his 2004 ruling that a military commission could not try alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

In private practice in Washington before going on the court, Robertson was an aggressive civil rights advocate. He spent 1969 to 1972 with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, serving for a time as the organization's chief counsel in Jackson, Miss. In 1994, Clinton named him to the federal bench, where he remains despite his resignation from the FISA court.

[Thealamo]

Columbo:

Just keep licking their boots, goose stepping, and practicing your one armed salute.
That terrible, nasty Bill of Rights will be dead soon, and maybe they will let you join in as one of their youth group leaders. They certainly won't have to worry about you being the parrot for the party line, you were made for it.

Hey, I have always wanted to ask one of you slaves a question. What does the bottom of a boot taste like anyway? I will never know unless I hear it from one with experience.

[COLUMBO]

Code Red Alamo-you can't handle the truth

Shame on you shonane....Clinton appointed a non-cleared bouncer from Little Rock to manage the FBI files of those on the 'enemy' list ....perhaps the FISA judge had a file in that stack?