King George spies on loyal subjects just in case….

That loud thud you heard Saturday was the other shoe falling in Washington when President Bush went on live television and admitted he had the National Security Agency spy on US citizens. He hid behind the cloak of the 9/11 attacks to justify his actions in issuing the order.

“The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.”

The Bush administration also said that not only did Congress allow the President to issue such an order in the blank check resolution they gave him in October 2001, but that Congressional leaders, GOP and Democrats, had been briefed on the spying on several occasions.

The NY Times wrote this on Sunday:

“The disclosure of the security agency’s warrantless eavesdropping on calls between the United States and Afghanistan sheds light on the origins of the agency’s larger surveillance activities, which officials say have included monitoring the communications of as many as 500 Americans and other people inside the United States without search warrants at any one time. Several current and former officials have said that they believe the security agency operation began virtually on the fly in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Eavesdropping Effort Began Soon After Sept. 11 Attacks

As any fisherman will tell you, when one tosses out a net sometimes you get other things beside fish. That is the Bush operation in a nutshell. It assumes we are guilty till proved innocent and their fishing operations have had limited success. Fewer than a couple dozen people arrested in the US for suspected terrorism activities since 2001 have been terrorists.

In a Washington Post article in June 2005 found:

Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.

Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes — including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui — have clear links to the group. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.

But a large number of people appear to have been swept into U.S. counterterrorism investigations by chance — through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck — and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups.

For example, the prosecution of 20 men, most of them Iraqis, in a Pennsylvania truck-licensing scam accounts for about 10 percent of individuals convicted — even though the entire group was publicly absolved of ties to terrorism in 2001.

U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges

Bush’s actions may also conflict with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) that requires court orders before spying on anyone can be started. That act was made law after the widespread surveillance done on protest groups and others in the 1970’s by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and the abuse those agencies were found to have done.

A basic civil right is that search and seizure requires a warrant from a court. It is a check against an abuse of Federal power against people. President Bush seems to be abusing his authority.

Now I fully expect to see, later Sunday morning, the usual administration talking heads trying to spin Bush’s actions and try to turn it around and make it look like those for civil rights are in league with terrorists. Watch the morning shows and you will see it and hear it.

Then there is this bit from his “speech”:

“The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.”

President’s Radio Address (12/17/2005)

He is asking us to trust him and his appointed officials to operate in a correct manner. This is the same guy that just days ago admitted he tried to sell the war in Iraq based on bogus intelligent info, that we aren’t holding suspects in secret prisons in other countries where torture is not a big deal, and Iraq is getting better everyday. I find it hard to see President Bush and “trust” in the same room not alone in the same sentence.

According to the NY Times:

“In the early years of the operation, there were few, if any, controls placed on the activity by anyone outside the security agency, officials say. It was not until 2004, when several officials raised concerns about its legality, that the Justice Department conducted its first audit of the operation. Security agency officials had been given the power to select the people they would single out for eavesdropping inside the United States without getting approval for each case from the White House or the Justice Department, the officials said.”

And this is what happens, and we told you so, when Congress signed away their oversight on the “war” on terrorism in October 2001.

Congressional leaders, Democrat and Republican, have some serious explaining to do as to why they let the spying continue as long as did and it seems it still is. Their shock and indignation seem very hollow indeed.

The Democratic Party died today

I am announcing my official break with the national Democratic party.

I was never a party member. I have never declared my party at election time and I refused to vote for party candidates during the primaries, but in recent years I have voted Democratic and given them money – especially during the 2004 elections. But even that level of support has ended for me as of today.

The party died for me on Wednesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee’s senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his endorsement of Judge John Roberts, shortly after leaving the White House where the 2nd vacancy in the Supreme Court was discussed with President Bush.

Leahy said:

[Judge John] Roberts “is a man of integrity,” said Leahy, who told Roberts over the telephone about his decision. “I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.”

John Roberts Picks Up Democratic Support

The problem is that Roberts refused to answer truthfully many of the questions during his confirmation hearing. For example:

“At least two other matters enjoy sacramental status. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Roberts — who had promised the committee to tell the truth, “so help me God” — whether he accepted the “absolute” separation of church and state and whether he would support giving special treatment to racial minorities.

Again, Roberts promised to follow the Constitution, which is why Feinstein undoubtedly will vote against his confirmation.”

The problem with Roberts

Basically Roberts is Scalia light. Someone who plans on ruling based on the 200 year old text of the Constitution rather than on the interpretation of those words as the court has done since judicial review – which by the way also isn’t in the Constitution – was invented.

Abortion isn’t in the text so women have no right to it. Separation of church and state isn’t in the text so it doesn’t exist either and so on.

Scalia’s Dissenting Rhetoric

The truthful answer he should have told Senator Feinstein was – No, but instead he side stepped the question with a vague answer.

So much for Roberts being a man of integrity with no agenda .

The only thing that could save my support for the Democrats would be that maybe Leahy worked out a deal – he gives up on Roberts and Bush nominates a less conservative woman for O’Connor’s spot.

Some how I doubt it.

Some would argue that the Democrats realized that the Roberts nomination was a done deal what with the GOP majority. It would seem that Leahy wanted to preserve what political capital the Dems have and hold off a fight until it really matters.

Bullcrap!

How important is the appointment of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court? Political and religious conservatives are frothing at the mouth to get Roberts on the court since they seem to think he will start putting the court back to where they think it should be – like “separate but equal” is ok and women *ARE* property of their husbands.

Face it, the Democrats got outplayed again by Rove and company and were handed their balls.

If principles don’t mean enough to them, to fight to the bitter end, then why should I vote for them or give them money?

I still don’t plan to declare a party but I do plan on supporting my local and state Democrats where it makes sense but my days of supporting the National party are over.

How did Bush win Ohio in 2004?

On May 15th, 2005, the Columbus Dispatch published a detailed analysis of the vote that day based on information from the Secretary of State’s office.

It shows that while Kerry won the major cities, except Cincinnati, Bush and the GOP crushed Kerry in the rural areas. They did it by a massive get-to-the-polls push in the 3 days before the election. The GOP targeted likely Bush voters using marketing data.

The other points found that led to the Bush victory in November: it was the first presidential election since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, the country was at “war”, Bush had a unique relationship with religious conservatives, and state Issue 1 was on the Ohio ballot (banning Gay marriage).

I put together a couple of the articles and the graphs on a mini-site for those interested in reading more:

https://www.dougberger.net/ohio2004/index.html

“Rathergate” still doesn’t change the facts

Okay, let me get this straight.

An “independent” investigation of the 60 Minutes September 2004 report on discrepancies in President Bush’s National Guard service record cost the jobs of 4 CBS staffers. Senior vice president Betsy West, 60 Minutes executive producer Josh Howard and senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy have all been asked to resign. Producer Mary Mapes was dismissed for what was called a “Myopic zeal” in reporting the story based on documents that may have been forged.

Yet the investigation could not state conclusively whether the documents were forgeries or not. The report also found no evidence that political bias was a factor in the network’s journalism.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/cbs-memogate.html

The secretary for the General who’s signature appeared on the documents said the documents weren’t real BUT the information contained in them was correct.

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-memos-knox.html

Also the same discrepancies were reported by different news organizations during the same period of time (September 2004) using different sources.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/cbs-bush-documents.html

Meanwhile, the stories reported in the New York Times prior to the invasion of Iraq that said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction caused not even a whimper of outrage. Even after the Times admitted the reporting was “insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged,” the reporter who wrote the stories still works of the paper and reports on Iraq.

So as FAIR comments: it does matter who you piss off rather than what the truth is.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/cbs-memogate.html

Ironically, the information in the “fake” memos has been reported as not true – which is not the case. Once again the President gets a pass.

Sad.

“Moral Values” cause ignorance

Here is a look at “moral values” that some continue to insist decided the 2004 Presidential Election. The first view is from the Red area with a rebuttal from a Blue state supporter:

Conservatives in rural Ohio big key in Bush victory

OTTAWA, Ohio (AP) – Glen Beutler lost his job making patio doors when his employer shut down three years ago.

He was exactly the kind of voter John Kerry was counting on to help him defeat President Bush.

Instead, Beutler and many of his neighbors across rural Ohio worried about the economy voted for Bush because they felt he shared their values on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and gun owner rights.

“Around here, family and values still comes first,” Beutler said.

“It was nice to see the rural people have the advantage this time,” said Cora Bour, the GOP chairwoman in Seneca County.

“In our area, we have a lot of farmers and people who are just down to earth,” she said. “A lot of people see that in President Bush. A lot of it had to do with his faith too. That’s the way we are around here.”

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/updates/9988.html

Am I Blue?
I apologize for everything I believe in. May I go now?

By Michael Kinsley

Sunday, November 7, 2004 Washington Post

There’s just one little request I have. If it’s not too much trouble, of course. Call me profoundly misguided if you want. Call me immoral if you must. But could you please stop calling me arrogant and elitist?

I mean, look at it this way. (If you don’t mind, that is.) It’s true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose abortion and where gay relationships have full civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values — as deplorable as I’m sure they are — don’t involve any direct imposition on you. We don’t want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same gender, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant?

We on my side of the great divide don’t, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don’t claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29470-2004Nov5.html

I simply find it amazing that people will vote against their best interests for the sake of “moral values”. Our government was created to protect the rights of all citizens. It is highly unamerican for a group to pass laws or support candidates who want to discriminate simply because “they” don’t like what they want to outlaw.

As Kinsley said, how arrogant is that?

The same people who voted against Kerry because he “might” want to ban guns (though he never said it) are the same ones who want to prevent a group of people from committing to the person they love in a legal union.

They are the same people who want to force women to carry unwanted babies to term yet don’t bat an eye at the government sending their children into a war that was not needed and hasn’t made the nation safer.

They are the same people who trust Bush with the economy even when they lose their jobs or savings to unethical business practices allowed and encouraged by the same administration.

A friend of mine tried to say, before the election, that the electorate was ignorant if they voted for Bush. I tried to dissuade him from saying that with no evidence. Now I am coming around to his way of thinking.