Friday, December 16, 2005

Barbara BOO-shit's Sons: Zombies like Grandpa!

It is my feeling that actions taken by President have amounted to impeachable offenses.

I urge people to voice their opinions to the Media and the Press which has fallen down on the job, right along with our government.

It will take the voice of the _PEOPLE_ to restore our rights, save our country, and bring sanity back to our government.

I urge people to participate in the grassroots media campaign.

thank You Mr. Bush.

As a former prosecutor, the description of your statement would be "on a silver platter". As in the head of John the Baptist. As in the defendant handed the conviction to the jury, on a platter. A very big plate. Just the right size to contain a hubris bloated head.

Good Grief! When did I move to a totalitarian, despotic state? When did the Constitution get shredded by this President. When has a leader so clearly admitted violations of numerous provisions of federal law, posse comitatus, the Constitution, criminal procedure, and the list goes on and on.

Speaking on behalf of many people, some known, some unknown, the outrage is palpable. And, the idea that we would just lie back and think of England is not proper advice for any person in this country. It is not consensual to be, well, screwed this horrifyingly. And often.

Bush was right about one thing. His regard for the Constitution could not be of lower regard if he said so. Oops, he did say so. And it was reported on the "internets" Bush admires (not) so much.

If I come out of retirement (former Fed. prosecutor) and you and I get together do you think they would let us volunteer to co-prosecute the case?

Even my former Air Force Captain, Goldwater-Nixon Republican, and trained by Tony Scalia at the Univ. of Chi. Law School husband exploded and starting talking about "high crimes and misdemenors."

Those statements by Bush quoted above are the kind of answers from a Defendant where you pause, look at the Defendant in total disbelief, turn look at the jury and spread your hands in disgust. That's it they are done. When is the next date available for sentencing?


Reporter: Can we speak to the leak of Mrs.Wilson's name out of the Whitehouse?
Bu$h: "I told you ! I am not going to speak about and on going investigation."

Bu$h: "Let us talk about how innocent Tom Delay is and how he is being railroaded by an over zelous prosecutor."
Reporter: "That's an on going investigation and criminal case."
Bu$h: "What's your point?" "everyone is innocent untill proven gulity."
Bu$h: "Listen I am President of the U.S.A, if I say I can I can ! and I will speak selectively about what ever investigation I wish to !"

If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years
by John in DC -

This new domestic eavesdropping scandal has nothing to do with September 11. Rather, it has everything to do with George Bush thinking he's living an episode of the hit spy show "24," where a fictional US anti-terror agent regularly breaks the law in order to catch the bad guy.

Unfortunately, George Bush isn't Kiefer Sutherland, and 24 is only a TV show.

We now know that for the past 3 years the Bush administration broke American law in order to spy on American citizens. Why? Bush says it's because the current law was so onerous that our spy agencies couldn't find the terrorists in a moment's notice.

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.

But, if the president of the United States thinks US civil rights and privacy laws are too onerous and are hampering the war on terror, maybe - MAYBE - he breaks the law the first time the issue comes up - let's face it, he's afraid Osama is running out the door and Bush doesn't have time to call a judge. Okay, it's possible.

But Bush didn't do this once. He did it for the past 3 years.

The first time you break the law to catch a terrorist who is fleeing, I might forgive you.

But after that incident passes, you go to Congress and you ask them to change the law to address this urgent need.

You do NOT just shrug your shoulders and break the law repeatedly for 3 years because you're just too proud to ask Congress - to ask OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS - to weigh the case for and against your radical proposal to spy on the American people.
Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 25 minutes ago

In a stinging defeat for President Bush, Senate Democrats blocked passage Friday of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism at home, depicting the measure as a threat to the constitutional liberties of innocent Americans.

Republicans spurned calls for a short-term measure to prevent the year-end expiration of law enforcement powers first enacted in the anxious days after Sept. 11, 2001. "The president will not sign such an extension," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and lawmakers on each side of the issue blamed the other for congressional gridlock on the issue.

The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a House-passed bill to a final vote, eight short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster backed by nearly all Senate Democrats and a handful of the 45 Republicans.

"We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., arguing that provisions permitting government access to confidential personal data lacked safeguards to protect the innocent.

"We need to be more vigilant," agreed Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), a Republican from New Hampshire, where the state motto is "Live Free or Die." He quoted Benjamin Franklin: "Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

But Frist likened the bill's opponents to those who "have called for a retreat and defeat strategy in Iraq. That's the wrong strategy in Iraq. It is the wrong strategy here at home."

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said, "If 90-plus percent of the Democrats vote against cloture, and 90-plus percent of the Republicans vote for cloture, it is hard to argue it is not partisan." Cloture is a Senate term that refers to ending a filibuster.

The practical implications of an expiration of the original law remained somewhat clouded. James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said law enforcement agencies could continue using Patriot Act provisions against all known terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Zarqawi group in Iraq. He said even newly discovered members of these groups would be subject to Patriot Act investigative tools.

The events on the Senate floor underscored the extent of political change that has occurred since 2001. Then, Feingold cast the lone vote against the original Patriot Act, which was designed to give those tracking terrorists some of the authority that had been available only in intelligence investigations.

Much of the controversy involved powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, in secret, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity.

The bill also includes a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps — which may involve multiple phones — and continues the authority to wiretap "lone wolf" terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power.

Yet another provision, which applies to all criminal cases, gives the government 30 days to provide notice that it has carried out a search warrant.

During debate, several Democrats pointed to a New York Times report that Bush had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on individuals inside the United States without first securing permission from the courts.

"Today's revelation makes it crystal clear that we have to be very careful, very careful," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

No Republican defended the reported practice, and the bill's chief Republican supporter joined in the criticism. "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He pledged hearings in 2006.

Under the measure the Senate was considering, law enforcement officials could continue to obtain secret access to a variety of personal records from businesses, hospitals and other organizations, including libraries.

Access is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Specter told the bill's critics that before such permission is granted, a judge would have to "make a determination on a factual showing that there is a terrorism investigation that does involve foreigners."

On a second issue covered under the bill, a so-called National Security Letter, government investigators could continue to gain access to a more limited range of personal records without a court order of any kind.

Specter said the legislation permitted the recipient of a letter to appeal in court. "The essence of the protection of civil rights ... has been that you interpose an impartial magistrate between the policeman and the citizens. That protection is given," he said.

But Sununu countered that the appeal could only succeed by showing that the government had acted in bad faith. "No individual or business is going to be able to" win that case, he predicted.

On the Senate vote, two Democrats supported the GOP-led effort to advance the bill to a final vote, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Sununu and GOP Sens. Larry Craig of Idaho, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted to block the measure. Frist initially voted to advance the bill, then switched to opposition purely as a parliamentary move that enables him to call for a second vote at some point in the future.

On a separate issue, the House called for the Bush administration to give Congress details of secret detention facilities overseas. The vote was 228-187.

This is incredibly serious. Bush did what a dictator does, not what an American president should have done.

In America, when the president has a problem with the law he goes to Congress and presents his case, and asks our elected officials to weigh the merits of the case and then vote on changing the law. Only dictators say to hell with Congress, to hell with our laws, to hell with our democratic process.

This isn't just wrong what Bush did, it isn't just criminal, it violates the most basic tenets of our democratic form of government. We have a man in power in the White House who thinks he is above the law. Bush's holier than thou snubbing of the rule of law, the will of the American people, and the truth needs to stop now. From the invasion of Iraq to this current scandal, we see a disturbing pattern of a rather-average man who's thinks he's too good and too smart to be honest with the American people.

We need an immediate independent investigation, and if this story is confirmed, Bush should resign or be removed from office.


Post a Comment

<< Home