In congratulating authorities in Great Britain and the United States for foiling the airline bomb plot Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., offered an "I told you so" of sorts to critics of the Bush administration and, presumably, congressional overseers such as himself. In a statement noting he had been informed of the plot earlier in the week, Roberts said: "This is the kind of success that our intelligence and law enforcement personnel work hard to achieve — a success achieved despite damaging leaks and unjustified criticisms of the methods they use to detect and prevent terrorist attacks."
So this plot was uncovered by monitoring — without a court order or any meaningful legislative oversight — the international e-mails and phone calls of Americans?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
66 Comments
This is why this man should not only be turned out of office, he should be impeached now.
Mr. Roberts, monitoring e-mails didn’t foil the plot. Infiltrating the criminal organization with special agents did.
It’s called “human intelligence.”
No wonder it’s a hard concept for you to grasp.
Thank God it happened in England instead of here.
Here, we’d still be translating some grandmother’s yiddish phone call to Poland from last week.
Pat represents everything that is old, bigoted and corrupt.We’re still waiting on the reports from the ‘full investigation’ that this good ol’ boy seems to have forgotten about. Maybe that’s why he carries those memory pills.It’s wonderful that these people were stopped, but I doubt seriously that Pat and his cronies had a damn thing to do with any of it.They’ll crow about this for a long time, just as a diversion if nothing else.
Aesop had it right:
“Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”
Give me my civil liberties back, Bush! I would rather thousands of innocent people die and loose our status as an economic powerhouse than have the government tap the phone lines of so-called terrorists!!! Just because you thwarted yet another terrorist attack using warrantless phone taps, does not justify loosing my civil rights.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
Redrad— what does “chatter” mean to you?The US picked up chatter and forwarded the info to the British.
When Win14TheGipr is right, he’s right.
Giving up one’s rights is for pussies.
Rhonda you are getting awfully shilly lately.
Yesterday you gave us the “scary terrorist” bit.
Today you give us the “wise leader/scary terrorists” bit.
Rhonda “heart” bush?
RedRad:
0-2 on legalities. Can’t impeach a Senator.
Opinions like Win14thegipr are dangerous. Incomprehensible too, if I can use a big word. It’s 0K with him if 1,000 people die, and our economy tank as long as someone in the government can’t see who he called. Our government’s main function is to protect us.
The British don’t have the kind of legal impediments to surveillance that we have here. This plot is evidence that these kind of measures are necessary.
CF, it’s good to see you posting here again.
Paul, your Time link says:”MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group’s communications.”
That suggests the “chatter” was in the U.K., not the U.S.
Paul, if there was U.S U.K. “chatter”, why couldn’t a warrant for the taps be issued within 72 hours?
Oh, yeah, you’re right, GMC.
And why? Because the Senate ruled that Senators cannot be impeached.
Ahh, the perks of office.
Still, Supreme Court judges can be impeached.
Let’s start with Scalia . . .
Rhonda,”So this plot was uncovered by monitoring — without a court order or any meaningful legislative oversight — the international e-mails and phone calls of Americans?”
(emphasis added)’Tip Followed ‘05 Attacks on London Transit’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001654.html“there was NO evidence that the plotters or any accomplices had set foot in the United States. …One U.S. intelligence source, however, said some of the British suspects arrested had made calls TO the United States.”
I think it was the group’s travel to Pakistan and meeting with Al Qaeda there that sorta gave away the plan.
Duh.
Brilliant detective work spotting that one.
Geez, anybody can plot.
When terrorist attack becomes as much as a threat as lightning strikes or sharks, then we can start actually worrying about it.
About that chatter: I hate to do this, but some people just can’t grasp that mountains of irrelevant data about innocent people doesn’t yield clues to terrorism, particularly when the attackers can use secret codes (e.g. “grandma went to the store”–that’s a terrorist! Or a grandma), or high-tech concealment devices that stegonography.
I apologize in advance for this.
Here a very small snippet of text, in which I placed a barely obscured “terrorist” message. Try to find it:*****************.NET Framework Essentials
Preface
A condensed introduction to the Microsoft .NET Framework, this book aims to helpprogrammers make the transition from traditional Windows programming into the world of .NETprogramming. The Microsoft .NET Framework includes the Common Language Runtime (CLR)and a set of base classes that radically simplify the development of large-scale applications andservices. This book examines the CLR in detail, so that you can put its new features to good use.The book also illustrates how language integration really works and guides you throughcomponent and enterprise development using the .NET Framework. In addition, it introducesyou to four key .NET technologies: Data (ADO.NET) and XML, Web Services, Web Forms(ASP.NET), and Windows Forms.
We used Beta 2 of the .NET SDK to prepare this manuscript and to develop all the examples andfigures in this book. While we have done our best to ensure that the technical content of thisbook is up-to-date, it is possible that some items have changed slightly from the time of writing.By the time this book gets to you, there may be a newer release. Also, checkhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/net, http://www.gotdotnet.com, and the O’Reilly web page for thisbook, http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/dotnetfrmess/, regularly.
Audience
While this book is for any person interested in learning about the Microsoft .NET Framework, ittargets seasoned developers with experience in building Windows applications with VisualStudio 6 and the Visual Basic and Visual C++ languages. Java™ and C/C++ developers will alsobe well prepared for the material presented here. To gain the most from this book, you shouldhave experience in object-oriented, component, enterprise, and web application development.COM programming experience is a plus.
About This Book
Based on a short course that Thuan has delivered to numerous companies since August 2000,this book is designed so that each chapter builds on knowledge from the previous one for thoseunfamiliar with each technology. To give you a heads-up, here are brief summaries for thechapters and appendixes covered in this book.
Chapter 1 takes a brief look at Microsoft .NET and the Microsoft .NET Platform. It thendescribes the .NET Framework design goals and introduces you to the components of the .NETFramework.
Chapter 2 lifts the hood and peers into the CLR. This chapter surveys the rich runtime, as well asother features, of the CLR.
Chapter 3 introduces you to .NET programming. You’ll examine a simple program that usesobject-oriented and component-based concepts in four different languages: Managed C++,VB.NET, C#, and IL. You’ll also experience the benefits of language integration.
Chapter 4 demonstrates the simplicity of component and enterprise development in .NET.Besides seeing component-deployment features, you’ll also examine complete programs that
page 2
.NET Framework Essentials
take advantage of transaction, object pooling, role-base security, and message queuing—all inone chapter.
Chapter 5 describes the architecture of ADO.NET and its benefits. Besides being disconnected topromote scalability, the ADO.NET dataset is also tightly integrated with XML to enhanceinteroperability. This chapter introduces you to the .NET data-access objects, as well as the XMLnamespace.
Chapter 6 describes the next generation of software components, ones that can be accessedthrough the Internet. In this chapter, we discuss the protocols that support Web Services, as wellas how to publish and discover them. You will see how XML, used in conjunction with HTTP,breaks the proprietary nature of current component-oriented software development and enablesgreater interoperability.
Chapter 7 introduces you to ASP.NET, which now supports object-oriented and event-drivenprogramming, as opposed to conventional ASP development. In this chapter, Web Forms andserver controls take the center stage. In addition, we examine how to build custom servercontrols, perform data binding to various .NET controls, and survey state management featuresin ASP.NET.
Chapter 8 takes conventional form-based programming a step into the future with the classes inthe System.Windows.Forms namespace. Similar to Win32-based applications, Windows Formsare best used for to build so-called rich or “fat” clients; however, with the new zero-effortinstallation procedure of .NET and the advent of Web Services, Windows Forms are appropriatefor a host of applications.
Appendix A contains a list of links to web sites with information regarding languages that targetsthe CLR, including some burgeoning open source projects.
Appendix B contains a list of commonly used acronyms that are used in .NET literature andpresentations.
Appendix C contains several lists of commonly used datatypes in .NET. This appendix alsoillustrates the use of several of its collection classes.
Appendix D surveys the important tools that the .NET SDK provides to ease the tasks of .NETdevelopment.
Now that you know what this book is about, we should explain what this book is not about. Thisbook does not focus on the marketing aspects of .NET or on other components of the .NETPlatforms, including .NET Enterprise Servers, .NET Building Block Services, or .NET OperatingSystems. Likewise, we do not cover the recently announced HailStorm service or the workMicrosoft is doing to make the .NET Framework available on a host of devices.
The latest .NET framework release will be available on September 11th.
Assumptions This Book Makes
This book assumes that you are a Windows and web application developer fluent in object-oriented and component-based programming. It also assumes that you have some basicknowledge of XML. While COM is not a crucial prerequisite, if you have COM programmingexperience, you will appreciate this book and the .NET Framework all the more.
page 3
.NET Framework Essentials
Conventions Used in This Book
We use the following font conventions in this book:Italic is used for:
• Pathnames, filenames, and program names• Internet addresses, such as domain names and URLs• New terms where they are definedConstant width is used for:• Command lines and options that should be typed verbatim• Direct quotes and specific method names from code examples, as well as specific valuesfor attributes and settings within code• XML element tagsConstant width bold is used for:• User input in code that should be typed verbatim• Items in code to which we’d like to draw the reader’s attentionConstant width italic is used for replaceable items in code, which should be replaced withthe appropriate terms.
In code syntax examples, we occasionally use [value]+ to represent one or more instances of avalue and [value] * to mean zero or more instances of a value.
How to Contact Us
We have tested and verified the information in this book to the best of our ability, but you mayfind that features have changed (or even that we have made mistakes!). Please let us know aboutany errors you find, as well as your suggestions for future editions, by writing to:
O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.101 Morris StreetSebastopol, CA 95472
(800) 998-9938 (in the U.S. or Canada)(707) 829-0515 (international/local)(707) 829-0104 (FAX)You can also send us messages electronically. To be put on the mailing list or request a catalog,send email to:
info@oreilly.com
To ask technical questions or comment on the book, send email to:
bookquestions@oreilly.com
We have a web site for the book, where we’ll list examples, errata, and any plans for futureeditions. You can access this page at:
page 4
.NET Framework Essentials
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/dotnetfrmess/
For more information about this book and others, see the O’Reilly web site:
http://www.oreilly.com
For more information on .NET in general, visit the O’Reilly .NET Center athttp://dotnet.oreilly.com/ and the .NET DevCenter at http://www.oreillynet.com/dotnet/.**********************
The Greatest Hoax
The Jews have shown their true face as being the real “terrorists” in Lebanon, for all of the world to see. So something was needed by them to counteract that glaring truth. Hence, Bush’s pal Tony Blair, working with the Israeli Mossad, cooked-up this massive hoax for Arabs to bring down aircraft leaving Heathrow Airport in Britain headed for the United States. But not just any Arabs would do. They needed the Arabs that had been left-out of the “axis of evil,” the nuclear armed Pakistanis.
Rice had made a trip to India and OK’d India to expand their nuclear arsenal, but the Neocon PNACers could not count on India to “take-out Pakistan” when the time came. So, what better way to include Pakistan than to make them the object of the Heathrow Hoax. 24 losers were not hard to find and recruit in Pakistan. The so-called liquid explosive did not exist, therefore there was no danger they might go it on their own.
The FBI in Florida had drummed-up 7 losers supposed to bring-down the Sears Tower, but had displayed their losers too soon and the world could see just what the FBI was really doing. Those 7 boys could not blow-up a balloon, never mind even find the Sears Tower.
This new Hoax is just what Karl Rove needed as the speech Bush read contained “Islamic fascists” plus a repeat of his favorite: “They hate our freedom.”
This Hoax has legs: Even soda pop is now a “terrorist weapon.” Boom! Splash!
The only crime in all of this has been committed by the true “terrorists; The British Government, The White House and their buddies, the Israelis.
The rest reads like a cheap paperback. Only this one includes inconvenience.
BTW
Rice had Israel give India our latest radar to guard against incoming Pakistani missiels. They don’t really trust Israel or us { wonder why? } so even with that radar they couldn’t be sure that they wouldn’t be next.
The Israelis sold that the Radar to the Chinese and even Rumsfeld was hot about that. That radar has the capability to blind our Regious {sp} class radar array.
The Heathrow Hoax
Just in time for the elections.
Paul’s link pointa out US intelligence kept British intelligence informed of communication between the US and Britian by the terrorists. What it doesn’t tell you is the initial leak of the plan came from inside to community of Muslims where the terrorosts were living.
It wasn’t until after that, US intelligence knew which people to monitor. And monitor illegally, I assume. I wonder if they got the okay from FICA, or just went about their merry way without proper clearence?
What the hell does it matter JM????????
Okay, you stumped me, Rage.
Didn’t spend hours on it or anything, but whatever’s in there, I couldn’t spot it.
You’re right though. Acting like we’re all potential terrorists is not the way to go.
They should do what the British do–infiltrate the groups, follow their movements, track down the contacts, and make arrests.
It’s called police work.
Dropping bombs on towns in Iraq is wholly counter-productive.
RedRad:
Sigh. Do you have a copy of the Constitution. Perhaps you could turn to the section regarding impeachment, and the qualifications for Senators. If Kansas has a provision for recall (and off the top of my head, I don’t know if it does), the voters may recall him. The Senate itself may remove him. Art. I, Sec. 5. But impeachment is removal of officials OUTSIDE the legislative branch; much like executives prosecuting themselves, legislatures do not impeach themselves. The Senate, in fact, votes on impeachments.
Get a clue.
Was there a point in there somewhere, GMC?
Looks like the Republican party is looking for a boost in the polls so they are trying to blow this story up as much as possible. The Republican party has always been weak on terrorism and it’s nobody’s surprise the British did most of the work on this. Sure a liquid bomb attack happened 10 years ago, and sure TSA received no training on these sorts of materials, and sure a NBC news team was able to get these materials through security back in March but the media is trying to present the Bush administration as “on the ball” this time.
If terrorists really want to smuggle materials aboard a flight they just need to go through an Alabama airport when college football is being aired. Security is so glued to the tv they’ll let anyone through.
RedRad:
Sure. It’s that when you write about “impeaching” a Senator, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Did you not see this post, GMC?
“Oh, yeah, you’re right, GMC.
And why? Because the Senate ruled that Senators cannot be impeached.
Ahh, the perks of office.
Still, Supreme Court judges can be impeached.
Let’s start with Scalia . . . ”
You disagree with me even when I agree with you.
Hmmm . . .
BTW, I found this info in response to your first post–To the average American, the word “impeachment” is associated with the unsuccessful impeachment of President Clinton discussed above. Therefore they believe that only Presidents can be impeached. But the Constitution states in Article II, section 4, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United Sates,” are subject to impeachment. While it is clear who the President and the Vice President are, there is ambiguity regarding the definition of a “civil officer of the United States.” The first impeachment in the United States was that of Senator William Blount, who was impeached for helping the British conquer Louisiana and Florida. On July 8, 1797, he was expelled from the Senate, the day after he was impeached. Blount argued in front of the Senate that “civil officers” were officials appointed by the President and, since Senators were appointed by a state legislature, it was unconstitutional to impeach a Senator. On January 10, 1798, the Senate defeated the resolution, stating that Blount was a “civil officer” of the United States and, therefore, subject to impeachment. Then, on January 14, 1799, the Senate dismissed the impeachment charges against Blount. Since the Blount case, the House and the Senate have defined “civil officer” as anyone who is appointed to office by the President. Under this interpretation, the only impeachable officials other than the President and Vice President are federal judges and cabinet members. The Constitution does not completely define who can be impeached, because it does not define civil officer, but officials interpreted civil officers to be anyone appointed by the president. The American Bar association has restated this position by stating that civil officers are “federal judges, cabinet member, but not Senators and Representatives” (Impeachment: A Look at the Process).
http://faculty.headroyce.org/~us_history/2004/c_kh/who.html
Interesting. Perhaps I’m being unnecessarily pissy!
Didn’t know that bit about Blount. It does make sense, however, that impeachment apply to members of the executive and judicial branches, but not members of Congress. Judges, since they are appointed for life, are limited only by the threat of impeachment. Executive officials serve at the pleasure of the president, and would be subject to impeachment, just as the president is.
But it makes little sense for the legislature to impeach themselves. The respective houses need no impeachment to expel a member; they have the constitutional power to do so anyway. And the members of the legislature are subject to regular elections that judges, at least, are not. The voters, presumably, will turn them out.
Note as well that unlike sitting presidents, members of Congress are NOT immune from criminal prosecution. In large part because the President IS the institution; he personally has authority. Prosecuting him is prosecuting the institution (in addition to the problem of an executive prosecuting himself). But a member of Congress is only a member of an institution, and has no authority as an individual at all (thought the members like to think so!). Prosecuting a member does not attack the institution.
cosmos,the courts have little or no authority over matters of war.Every President in the history of the U.S. has had to assert Presidential war power, even though the Commander in Chief powers of the President are clear in the Constitution.You don’t need a warrant to shoot the enemy, whether in this country or abroad.You dont need a warrant, therefore, to listen to the enemy.this is war, not a simple law enforcement matter!
“He had rendered the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.”
Quiz, time, kiddies! Who wrote that, and what was he talking about?
Paul, this one’s for you. . .
Paul, BTW, who are we are war with?
That’s right, CF! Our civil liberties are more important than any other human life. Don’t you get it, Outlander. That’s what this country was built on. If we are to honor those military men and women who have died to protect our civil liberties, we must fight ourselves (using the power of the ballot, blogs and press) to protect the ACLU and the Democratic pary.
Because God knows, that we will get our civil liberties back from Republicans when the Islamic nation defeats democracy!
Viva Civil Liberties!!!
Paul, as usual, you’re wrong.
The law, according to FISA and the criminal code.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Without_a_court_order
And you AVOIDED my question re 72 hours ‘Emergency Orders’.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805—-000-.html
Rage
I’m guessing Jefferson wrote that in the Declaration of Independence in reference to the abuses the colonists suffered under King George III?
Here’s what the administration was trying to do while the plot was being hatched: WASHINGTON – While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
ADVERTISEMENTCongressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security’s research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a “rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course,” Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
“The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security,” the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency’s 2007 budget.
No wonder Roberts is this administrations’ water boy.
Maybe Chertoff would buy that poster’s lucky rock, that has been keeping evil away.
“I’m guessing Jefferson wrote that in the Declaration of Independence in reference to the abuses the colonists suffered under King George III?”
JR is, of course, quite correct.
A pity that modern tories don’t get it.
Anybody else keeping up with the latest?
BUSH STAFF WANTED BOMB-DETECT CASH MOVEDWASHINGTON – While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
ADVERTISEMENTCongressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security’s research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a “rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course,” Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
“The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security,” the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency’s 2007 budget.(snip)Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department’s research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_go_ot/terror_explosives_detection_6
Everybody feeling safer now?
RD- I read a book by the fomer Inspector General of Homeland Security , i can’t recall his name , or the title. In it he detailed a lot of the specific programs, and after the expediture of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are essentially no better prepared than befor 911. Since he wouldn’t go along with the party line, his tenure was not extended. By not espousing the “Offical Truth”- he was canned.
Too bad the NYT didn’t get a hold of this plot and warn the terrorist against the impeding investigation and subsequent arrest.
Those “alledged” innocent people that the British arrested are victims of a Bush plot!
gster, I’m not surprised.
RD- Sorry I can’t recall the specifics about the title and author- it was published this year and is very well written.
Paul,
We’re not actually at war, legally. The administration did not want Congress to declare war, because that would have activated international treaty restrictions that the administration wanted to evade. In other words, the War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII were declared wars. Other invasions, and actions, such as Jefferson’s attacking Barbary Coast piroates,the so-called Banana Wars in Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti and Dominican Republic, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation Desert Shield, do not represent Congressionally declared wars as defined by the Constitution. They are constitutionally undefined conflicts.
The president is commander in chief of the armed forces at all times, in war and peace. He is not commander in chief of American civilians, the Congress or the courts. Nixon was investigated, and would have been impeached and removed from office during the Vietnam War (Conflict), had he not resigned.
Nobody said then, “We’re in the middle of a war, you can’t disrupt the president or undermine his credibility at this critical time.” Or maybe somebody in the White House might have said it, but nobody else listened.
Had George Herbert Walker Bush ordered the troops to seige Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein when it was a cakewalk to do so, with 500,000 troops from 20 nations, and more available if needed, we wouldn’t be in this current mess.
It has been reported that the Paskistani government uncovered the plot and informed the British. So the administration doesn’t appear to have played a key role in uncovering this plot, and if it didn’t, there’s no basis for its taking credit for such.
It is very interesting that it has not just moved Iraq to third big story (after second-big Lebanon), but rather completely off the newshows and newspaper pages. This is totally bizarre. Reporters must still be sending in reports from Baghdad, but it’s like the civil insurgency in Baghdad which affects our men and women is of no importance, temporarily. In the 1960’s and ’70’s, despite race and antiwar riots and Watergate that took headlines, there were TV and first or second-page newspaper stories from Vietnam every day.
>>500,000 troops from 20 nations<<
Not doubting you heartlander, but where’d you get that figure? I’d like to see a nationality breakdown, and where they were deployed.
“Paul,
We’re not actually at war, legally.”
Thank you, heartlander, for fleshing out the very point I didn’t have time to make, and very well at that.
I would only add the obvious: you can’t declare war on a human emotion. And, unfortunately, in true doublespeak fashion, the War on Terra depends on keeping people afraid. “Fear itself” is the object.
CosmosI did NOT avoid your question.The direct answer to your question is that a President of the United States has the power to spy as an act of war.Period.The President of the United States does NOT have to ask FISA or any other court for permission to spy.The Congress can’t “grant” the President the power to spy, using FISA, or take that power away.FISA, a CongressionalAct, does NOT have the power to water down the power of the President.Any and all Constitutional powers held by the office of President, prior to the passage of FISA, remained AFTER the passage of FISA.The Constitution can NOT be legislated away.Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, they ALL thought that spying was a matter of national security and a Presidential power.The historical and legal precedents are firmly on the side of President Bush.What if Congress passed a law that said every target in a war had to be presented to a judge for approval before we could blow it up?? That law would, of course be null and void, completely unconstitutional.If you can kill someone, legally, you can listen to their phone calls first, before you kill them.Simple logic, don’t you think?Again, FISA can not limit the power of the President.It is not legally possible for Congress to limit the power of the President in this way.—-Now cosmos, lets look at a practical matter: you cant get a warrant against the entire world, can you?With both the financial transaction tracing and the phone “chatter” surveilance, the US anti-terrorism effort is to look for patterns.We don’t always KNOW who is behind the chatter or the transaction at first, at least not enough to get a warrant.Dont you want authorities to move quickly when they find several large transactions moving from a known terrorist bank account into the U.S., even if we are not sure where it will end up when it gets here?If large numbers of phone calls from known terrorists are made into the United States, how do we get a “warrant” if the calls were made to annonymous “tracphones” ??Warrants are not a practical matter in time of war.—-I will concede that a warrant might be necessary in order to convict a US Citizen in a court of law, if we want to bring criminal charges. However, I believe that Bush is trying to prevent death and destruction, and kill the enemy. Prosecuting the enemy in a court is a low priority to Bush, as it should be. In cases where prosecution was an issue, Bush has used FISA. In cases where public safety and speed were bigger issues, Bush has asserted his authority to legally avoid FISA.Please show me case law on searches and eavesdropping done with out warrants, where the penalty was any more than the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” or not allowing the evidence to be used in court?Prosecution against the government for eavesdropping done in good faith is pretty much non-existant.—-”The Constitution is not a suicide pact” Abe Lincoln
America has always spied on other countries, but spying on American Citizens has always been a Republican fixation.
Republicans are toast.To: Buddy McKee who wrote (747415) 8/11/2006 11:19:11 AMFrom: pompsander Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 747457Bush backers may abandon Republicans By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 7:24 AM ET
WASHINGTON – Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend — growing opposition to President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president’s approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president’s decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.
More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall’s congressional elections — 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.
Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters — 57 percent — disapprove of the job Bush is doing.
“The signs now point to the most likely outcome of Democrats gaining control of the House,” said Robert Erikson, a Columbia University political science professor.
Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House to seize control after a dozen years of Republican rule, and the party is optimistic about its chances amid diminishing support for Bush and the GOP-led Congress.
Republicans argue that elections will be decided in the 435 districts and the 33 Senate races based on local issues with the power of incumbency looming large.
“This election will be less about a political climate that is challenging for both parties, and instead about the actual candidates and how their policies impact voters on the local level,” said Tracey Schmitt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman.
But fewer than 100 days before the Nov. 7 election, the AP-Ipsos poll suggested the midterms are clearly turning into a national referendum on Bush.
The number of voters who say their congressional vote this fall will be in part to express opposition to the president jumped from 20 percent last month to 29 percent, driven by double-digit increases among males, minorities, moderate and conservative Democrats and Northeasterners.
“I don’t feel like the war was the answer,” said Paula Lohler, 54, an independent from Worcester, Mass., who is inclined to vote her opposition to Bush. “It seems like it’s going on and on and on and nothing’s being done.”
That attitude propelled anti-war challenger Ned Lamont to Tuesday’s Democratic primary win over Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a stalwart supporter of Bush on the war.
“I think it’s going to be similar to what we saw in 1994 and the tremendous dissatisfaction with Democrats,” said Dick Harpootlian, the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. “Republicans are going to feel the wrath, feel the pain of being associated with President Bush.”
In the South, Bush’s approval ratings dropped from 43 percent last month to 34 percent as the GOP advantage with Southern women disappeared.
House Republican candidates looking to oust incumbent Democrats seized on the silver lining of the AP-Ipsos poll. Many of the 1,001 adults and 871 registered voters surveyed Aug. 7-9 said they’ve had enough with the status quo. Only 26 percent of adults said the country was on the right track, and just 29 percent approved of the job Congress is doing.
“It’s a good year to be running against an incumbent,” said Republican David McSweeney, an investment banker looking to unseat first-term Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean in the Chicago suburbs.
“Approval ratings for Congress are below where the president is,” said Jeff Lamberti, a Republican taking on five-term Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell (news, bio, voting record). “It’s a real opportunity for a challenger.”
A Democrat seeking an open seat in a competitive Colorado district — Ed Perlmutter — is certain his party will capitalize on the national mood.
“There’s a point where people just get mad,” said Perlmutter, a winner in Tuesday’s primary.
On the generic question of whether voters would back the Democrat or Republican, 55 percent of registered voters chose the Democrat and 37 percent chose the Republican, a slight increase for Democrats from last month.
“I’m not too happy with Bush at the moment,” said dental lab employee Chrissie Clement, 36, of Poynette, Wis. “I think he could do more for this country. We need to get somebody new in there and get a different party in charge.”
Charles Taylor, 56, who works on newspaper presses and lives near Roanoke, Va., said, “I would like to see Republicans keep control of Congress. I vote Republican to support the president.”
Republican consultant Kevin Spillane said August polls typically have been filled with bad news for Bush and the GOP, but they eventually turn it around in November. Still, he said, “The bottom line from the numbers is no Republican incumbent should be caught unprepared for November.”
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for adults and 3.5 percentage points for registered voters.
Paul,
We’re NOT legally at war, you AVOIDED my question a 2nd time, and you obviously do NOT understand the constitution of our government.
Rage,
Thank you for that quote.
‘The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies’http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html“He [King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
I still don’t get how those terrorists were in England. We sent our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq so we could fight them there. It’s not nice that they don’t play by the rules it makes it appear like our occupations of those countries is useless.
According to Desert-Storm.com
http://www.desert-storm.com/
the U.S. sent 540,000 men and women to Operation Desert Storm. It reports that 15 additional nations contributed 323,950 “troops” and 10 other nations contributed hardware and personnel described as “soldiers” and “sailors” and other categories. Several nations deployed air and naval craft, without designation of the numbers of personnel involved. Notably, 7 Middle Eastern Muslim nations contributed 211,800 “troops”, including Syria which provided 40,000, and Egypt 40,000. Saudi Arabia, whose northern oil fields would have been gravely at risk without intervention sent 118,000 “troops”.
So actually the total number of reported international “troops” was 863,950 according to this site. GlobalSecurity.Org cites total armed forces strength in Dec. 90 before the invasion as 1.1 million, and ground force strength as 831,000.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_storm-orbat.htm
Whatever the precise number, Operation Desert Storm represented a manpower commitment commensurate to the task at hand. It stands in stunning contrast to Operation Desert Shield, in which ODS participants urged the US to give the weapons inspectors more time before taking military action, but the neocon chicken hawks ignored them, and also decided that fewer than one-fourth as many troops would be sufficient, including half as many American troops as the career military officers of the Pentagon sought.
Alexander the Great and the Romans shrewdly invaded countries and defeated their armies, but left the native political hierarchies intact. In essence the old leaders became subordinates who lived well if they cooperated, so they did. Alexander even forced his generals to marry the daughters of local leaders as a calculated measure to cement stable authority. (Alexander was driven by conquest lust and was not interested in administration, but his lieutenants were capable governors.)
We wrecked Saddam’s organization, imposing gross chaos and attempted to impose a completely new regime using people who had no experience governing a nation.
We cannot prove, in retrospect, that Saddam’s subordinates would have acceded to American authority, but it’s reasonable to propose that they would have realized it was in their own best interest to cooperate and live well under American rulership.
To back-up the Heathrow Hoax…..
US Propaganda is going full-force with “Links To Al-Qaida”
ABC..CBS..NBC..CNN and FOX NEWS all pounding away on “Links To Al-Qaida” Time and time and time again… pounded it into your heads. This Propaganda Campaign is a full-court Press. Karl Rove has yanked all the stops out, while the Israeli butchers are busy murdering the civilians, all the old men, women, and childern in Lebanon.
All the War-Crimes the Zionists can think of to a People who offer no threat to them………None whatsoever.
ED,
You don’t consider launching rockets into Israel any threat at all?
What about raiding the border and taking soldiers hostage?
Nope… no threat at all.
Why did Hezzbolah have all those rocket stock piles?
Ed,
I have to go with Nathan on this. Do you think all the TV references you cited are really some type of dupes? I’m no fan os Israel, but they do have a right to exist, and the muslim mindset does not believe in religious tolerance.
Steve,As I was told earlier this week, on a different thread I think, the President is Commander in Chief both in time of war and in time of peace.—Also, our Commander in Chief IS a civil authority, and therefore the words of the Declaration are not really relevant here.—Again, if we want to prosecute terrorists in Court, a warrant might help.If we want to act quickly, save lives and insure secracy, then the FISA court should be avoided.(especially if we dont have a name to put on any warrant)
Bush is the Commander of whaterver??– There goes this nights sleep , and many more.hat did we do deserve this fool??-Can we trade him in for a swarm of locusts?The dead waking?Paul being lucid?
PAUL,
“If we want to act quickly, save lives and insure secracy, then the FISA court should be avoided.”
AGAIN… please explain how FISA prevents acting “quickly”? Surveillance can start immediately (as if FISA did NOT exist), then there’s 72 hours to get a warrant.
Are you accusing the FISA court of leaking info?
Meanwhile our homeland security is busy bringing charges against three cell phone bootleggers, for having a van load of cell phones! They think the target was a bridge. Rhonda would say we dodged a bullet thanks to bush. Imagine the damage of a thousand cell phones going off simultaneously! Yep, they hates our freedom.
The Brits may have uncovered a terrorist cell, but bush’s boys uncovered a thousand Terrorist Cell——phones!
SteveCell phones are very useful as remote bomb detonators.
Also, arguements can be made about whether Bush should or should not use FISA courts in indivual cases.My point is only that this is Bush’s call to make.Not the courts.Not Congress.Only the President can dictate the plan of war, including surveillance.The Constitutional power of the President did not change when FISA was passed, that is not how our system works.
Paul–
Question: has Bush done anything or not done anything that you disagree with?
Gster
Israel has forfeited its right to exist.
A country must not be an international law-breaker and have the morality of a serial killer and expect to be a nation.
Some people belong in jail and some countries need the governments swinging from a rope.
The carnage in Palestine and Lebanon are war-crimes punishable by death, not rewarded by statesmanship.
Nathan
Hezbollah has fired rockets into Israel in retaliation for the carnage which Israel started in Lebanon.
Hezbollah, which the EU will NOT classify as a so-called “terrorist” organization, by rather a charitable organization which it is, captured two Israeli soldiers to trade for 1000 women and children being held in Israeli jails, then Israel answered by firing artillery shells into Lebanese villages, then Hezbollah answered with rockets, then Israel answered with total destruction of Lebanon, which the world condemns.
You’ll buy any sack of shit that Bush or Israel is selling.
I don’t understand why anyone even attempes to argue with Paul. He is a shill for the neo-con arm of the Republican Party, and arguing with him is like arguing with an ex-wife. He hears the beat of one drum and that drum is the Bush administration. Any other drums are filtered out by the fuzzy logic he’s been brainwashed with.
JM, you’re right. It’s like arguing with an idiot, or a drunk.
Paul is UNABLE to understand the simple facts:* We are NOT at war.* There is nothing in the AUMF that overrides the more specific laws in FISA.
* The Constitution does NOT give the president unlimited powers — it’s a system of checks and balances. Note the Hamdi case decision in 2004, and Steel Seizure Case during Korean War.
JM, Cosmos-
Sign me up to!! Paul is an empty suit full of hot air and rantings. George Bush is not the King of anything except of incompetence.
You can bet Paul would argue untill he was blue in the face, that even if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, we would still be technically at war with terrorism, and the presidential powers argument would continue. Hell, if Bush were to declare martial law here in the U.S. you know fools like Paul would back him!