WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-20 13:24:41 +0000

Mark Shields had a good jab last night on NewsHour. Something to the effect of, "If the administration is claiming they have the authority to ignore FISA whenever it feels necessary, why do they need the Patriot Act?" It's not so much that FISA is a strong safeguard (5? denials in 30 years) it's that the administration decided they did not to need pursue legal channels in fixing whatever flaws in FISA they had in mind. Very Nixonian. Does anyone doubt that Congress would have done whatever the administration asked in Oct. 2001 vis a vis FISA?

Posted by G lib on 2005-12-20 15:40:43 +0000

Something to the effect of, "If the administration is claiming they have the authority to ignore FISA whenever it feels necessary, why do they need the Patriot Act?" -- TGL, my sentiments exactly. Why try to create Orwellian legal channels if you're just going to ignore them?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-20 16:30:21 +0000

Does anyone remember that scene in "Clear and Present Danger" when Henry Czerny says, "This is my get out of jail free card. You don't have a get out of jail free card, do you Jack?" Is this J.D. Rockefeller's get out of jail free card? Seems like it...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-20 17:31:30 +0000

"Snoopgate" Decent name.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 02:25:19 +0000

The WaPo article underscores the reality that Congress did not "go along" with the wiretapping when they became aware of it. Which is one of the arguments that the administration/GOP/WSJ is pushing. Anything that Bush _can't_ do with his War powers? I'd like to know.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-21 03:11:41 +0000

So Bush demanded domestic wire-taps without a warrant, threatened the NYTimes not to print the story saying so, and then there's this: President Bush -- April 19, 2004 "For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wiretaps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there's to be permission from a FISA court, for example." So Bush even knew he was breaking the law!!! This is insane. Impeach tomorrow!!!

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 03:54:27 +0000

Frankly, I have no idea what Bush is talking about based on that quote. Oh, I can't wait to have an articulate President again. The bit about the NYT publisher and editor being summoned to the White House is rich. Cheney is amazing, BTW, he's not even concerned with trying to protray the wiretapping as legal or within the bounds of executive privilege. Cheney's flat out saying: We need more power! Once again, none of these activities would have halted the violent attacks by Islamo-Fascists on Sept. 11, 2001. If you haven't already, get yourself to a B. Dalton or Borders and get this book,

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-21 05:41:55 +0000

Shit Sandwich = FISA judge resigns! "Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year."

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-26 17:18:45 +0000

"And so, as I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties and it's necessary."

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-26 18:53:59 +0000

SGIGMATSP - So Glad I Got Me A Terrorist Surveillance Program The amount of double speak around this issue is incredible. I'm not sure what's more incredible, that Bush/Cheney/Rove are attemping it, or that half the country is gullible enough to believe it. Any Democrats and independents out there who think gathering intelligence on terrorists is a bad idea? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-26 21:25:50 +0000

legaly or illegaly?

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-26 22:45:33 +0000

Legal. Except if they be the illegal immigrants type of terrorists. Takin' my job away. Don't stop the tap at the wire.... tap the black!