Constitution in Crisis

That's what we are becoming, and it's all in the name of "terror":

The FBI acknowledged Wednesday it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.

The breach occurred before the FBI enacted broad new reforms in March 2007 to prevent future lapses, FBI Director Robert Mueller said. And it was caused, in part, by banks, telecommunication companies and other private businesses giving the FBI more personal client data than was requested.

[SNIP]

An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.

So are we going to have a big debate over giving the FBI immunity? What if I just happened to intercept a phone call or someone's internet traffic. I would end up in jail! Why is the FBI suddenly above the law?

The Soviet Union isn't gone - it has just moved to America:

The N.S.A.’s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials, yet that alliance is strained by legal worries and the fear of public exposure.

To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. But in 2004, one major phone carrier balked at turning over its customers’ records. Worried about possible privacy violations or public relations problems, company executives declined to help the operation, which has not been previously disclosed.

Do we have any leaders in Congress who actually care about this country and will take the actions needed to stop this act of tyranny? Since Harry Reid is giving the administration what they want on the Telecom companies, I would venture to say no. Goodbye America - it's been nice knowing you.

I have had jobs in management and owned my own company, and if anyone blatantly defied something I said needed to be done, they would either be looking for a job or be reassigned to a lessor capacity. So why doesn't the chief executive of this country follow such a simple business philosophy?

When news first came out about the waterboarding tapes being destroyed, we found out Harriet Miers even had the common sense to say no. The CIA ignored that and did it anyways. Now, in the very sense of checks and balances, we find out the CIA destroyed them despite court orders:

The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

Now I know the Democrats are scared of being labeled "weak on terrorism" if they go after Bush or his bumbling band of Keystone Kops to harshly. To quote the great philosopher Kermit the Frog; "it isn't easy being green". I understand that, so I want to offer a new tactic. Any person or organizations trying to undermine and destroy the basic foundations of our nation, like three equal branches of government and checks and balances, must be classified a terrorist. This includes George Bush, Dick Cheney and anyone who follows their illegal orders like little puppets.

Tell the people you are protecting us from a terrorist organization that is far more dangerous than al Qaeda - a terrorist organization that is trying to destroy the very fabric of our freedom. After 9/11 Bush said they attacked us "because they hate our freedoms". Well his illegal stripping of those freedoms should be considered an attempt to aide our ally. That in itself is treason. Tell George Bush him and his Justice Department has had numerous chances to prove they stand for the United States in investigating their countless scandals, but instead have let the American people down. The entire Bush regime must be declared a terrorist organization and Congress must pursue that organization with utmost vigilance.

I'm not scared of terrorists hiding in caves wanting to hurt us, I am terrified of a rogue administration who wants nothing more than to dismantle our country and everything it once stood for. An administration lead by a person whose very own grandfather wanted to see this country destroyed and helped the Nazis rise to power. The Republicans said Clinton's administration ignored the threat of terrorism and that lead to 9/11. Well we are now ignoring this new threat of terrorism and the consequences of that would be far greater than 10,000 9/11s.

And here is the very reason that I hate cell phones:

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.

The issue is taking on greater relevance as wireless carriers are racing to offer sleek services that allow cellphone users to know with the touch of a button where their friends or families are. The companies are hoping to recoup investments they have made to meet a federal mandate to provide enhanced 911 (E911) location tracking. Sprint Nextel, for instance, boasts that its "loopt" service even sends an alert when a friend is near, "putting an end to missed connections in the mall, at the movies or around town."

I bet you really feel nice and cozy knowing your government is watching you so close. This is the perfect reason why the Republican party needs a strong libertarian branch again. The rest of the GOP is for big government and less for user rights and privacy.

From the administration that HATES everything America stands for:

A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

Maybe it would be better if the administration followed the law. Wow - that is an absurd idea. I thought we protections in place to make sure that an administration followed laws. Oh wait! The cowards running Congress took that option "off the table". They hate America just us much as Bush does.

It is time for a full criminal hearing into the Bush White House. Here is the latest revelation on the NSA wiretapping:

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio's lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans' phone records.

In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest's refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.

(emphasis added)

Think Progress reminds us of this argument for the spying:

After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

But that statement has now passed into the vault of constant lies told by this President.

Putting this into the perspective of time, Bush took office on January 20, 2001. Six months before 9/11 would be 3/11. That means less than two months after taking office, this White House was working on violating the rights of Americans. Also - this tapping did nothing to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Is Nancy Pelosi still thinking about giving Bush everything he wants on FISA? If so then she is as guilty as Bush when it comes to shredding the Constitution. Bush wants this new FISA? Fine - time for full blown Congressional inquiries into the program. No executive privilege. We need full Watergate style hearings now.

We have yet another example of George Bush's disregard for the laws of this country:

Opening a new front in the Bush administration's battle to keep its records confidential, the Justice Department is contending that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The department's argument is in response to a lawsuit trying to force the office to reveal what it knows about the disappearance of White House e-mails.

The Office of Administration provides administrative services, including information technology support, to the Executive Office of the President. Most of the White House is not subject to the FOIA, but certain components within it handle FOIA requests. Last year the Office of Administration processed 65 FOIA requests.

I have given up on the Democrats doing anything about the total disregard this administration has for the law. The Democratic leadership has turned into a copy of the Republican leadership. Maybe its time to push the Republicans to take action. Perhaps we should remind them that they are allowing precedent to be set here and do they really want this expanded power to be granted to a President Hillary Clinton? Maybe they need to start thinking about that and will take action against George Bush.

According to former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts, that is exactly where this country is at now.

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

This entire article deserves a good reading.

Robert's article came out on July 16. On July 17th, Bush signed a new Executive Order. Raw Story gives us this synopsis:

Continue reading »

I had a feeling the news of Cheney's saying he is not part of the executive branch would start a fire storm. I just had no idea it would be this big.

Rahm Emanuel is showing a pair and ready to really go after Cheney in a way that sounds perfectly legal:

Following Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the US government, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) plans to introduce an amendment to the the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut funding for Cheney's office.

The amendment to the bill that sets the funding for the executive branch will be considered next week in the House of Representatives.

Emanuel also suggested that Cheney needs to return his salary to the U.S. taxpayers and move out of the house paid for by us. Since that house is paid for by us and for the Vice President of the United States, who is part of the executive branch, I say Cheney be evicted immediately. Hell - I say he gets charged with trespassing!

The Washington Post has also started a four part series today about Cheney, entitled "Angler". Think Progress has already torn into part one and discovered this:

Shortly after Bush was elected, “Cheney preferred, and Bush approved, a mandate that gave him access to ‘every table and every meeting,’ making his voice heard in ‘whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in.’”

According to the article, Cheney used that influence to bypass key presidential aides and thwart any dissent about Bush’s authorization of the unconstitutional military commissions to try detainees. The Post reports “almost no one” had seen the legal draft establishing the commissions, except Cheney’s closest aides. Cheney then took astonishing measures to ensure that internal objections would not reach the President, even resorting to spying on White House staff:

Unless Cheney is trying to put himself in the judicial branch, it is not up to him to decide what is legal and what is not. That is the job of the judiciary. As matter of fact our Constitution states just that. That means we have Cheney violating our constitution yet again, and that is grounds for impeachment.

The worse part for Cheney is that some of the administrations staunchest supporters are even against him on this. Take Glen Reynolds:

DICK CHENEY AS A LEGISLATIVE OFFICIAL: Ed Morrissey is not impressed with this gem of a legal argument. He's right not to be, and he's right that this is a political and legal embarrassment for the Administration, but it's not because of the constitutional language he quotes.

[SNIP]

Like a lot of the Bush Administration's arguments, this is one that would make an interesting law school paper topic, or law review article, but that is politically idiotic and legally self-defeating. It's reminiscent, as one of Capt. Ed's commenters notes, of the Clinton Administration's effort to stall Paula Jones' lawsuit by claiming that as Commander-in-Chief the President is a serving member of the military. Clever, in a way. But definitely not smart.

Yup - there is now a darker cloud hanging over the administration and their generally weak umbrella of right wingers is folded up and tucked away in the trunk. Now will more people sign onto Kucinich's papers of impeachment against Cheney?

Right wingers always look at us like we are crazy when we talk about the flat out lies the White House tells. Well here is they are actually the ones who deserve the crazy look.

Think Progress has a video up of last night's Countdown. During yesterday's White House briefing, Dana Perino told reporters this in regards to Cheney exempting himself from the law:

PERINO: If you look on page 18 of the EO, when you have a chance, there’s a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency. And the President also, as the author of an EO, and the person responsible for interpreting the EO, did not intend for the Vice President to be treated as an agency, and that’s clear.

Sure - that makes it all better. Doesn't it?

But wait! Keith Olbermann didn't buy it and the people at MSNBC looked into this further:

OLBERMANN: No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 — which is about something else altogether — and 5.2 — which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.

So again we have a White House flat out lying to the American people. True what do we expect from Dana Perino. It was her husband who thought he was above the law and landed himself in the slammer. Just another part of the Bush crime family.

Then the Democrats need to start the subpoenas and date him to try and claim "executive privilege". Sorry - that applies to the "executive" branch - a branch Cheney is not part of under his own "rules". Let's see how the administration argues it's way out of that one.

If there weren't grounds for impeachment of Dick Cheney, there certainly are now:

The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President's office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability.

This is the most preposterous thing said by one of our elected officials ever. I wonder how a murder defense of "I don't consider myself a citizen of the United States and therefor not bound by their laws" would fly.

Here is a great idea. Democrats should move on impeachment now. With Congress at an all time low in the polls, what do they have to loose? Hell - kick out Bush while your at it and you might win over half of the 70% of people in this country who don't approve of him. That would put you back over 50%.

(image courtesy of Democracy Lost)

Once again we have a scandal surrounding the current White House and once again we have the right-wing talking heads out there with towing their typical defense of "well Clinton did it". This time the excuse is being applied to the U.S.A. purge. A lot of Bush apologists are out there using this claim that "Well Clinton got rid of all 93". That is true, but not valid when talking about the current purge. If they want to use that excuse then they might as well say Bush 41 did it and so did Reagan. When ever an administration takes over they generally fire all U.S.A.s and start fresh. This is a practice that has gone on for a very long time, and a practice that really should be changed. I'll have more on changing it in a bit, but first I want to discuss why this incident is not the same as Clinton's firing of all 93.

The entire purge story had the potential of becoming a non-story really quick. Back in January all Gonzales had to do was tell Senate the truth as to why they were replacing the attorneys. Instead he went before Congress and lied by saying these were all performance issues, and not related to any political moves. Well, as recent evidence shows, that was a bold face lie. Congress does not like being lied too; it hinders their power to provide oversight. We have laws against lying during testimony. These laws apply to all three branches of our government. We saw Scooter Libby get convicted on two of these laws - obstruction of justice, which covers the executive branch, and perjury, which covers the judicial branch. There are also crimes of lying to Congress, as Glenn Greenwald explains:

Of course, the reason that lying to Congress is a felony is because Congress is composed of the representatives of the American people, and when executive branch officials lie to Congress, they are lying to the country. They subvert the entire constitutional order by preventing the American people from exercising overisight over the executive branch through their representatives in Congress, and it turns the President into an unchecked, unaccountable ruler. That is precisely why lying to Congress is considered to be virtuous and an entitlement by this administration and the movement which spawned it (the truly bizarre demands for Lewis Libby's pardon further reflect not merely an indifference, but this same admiration, for those who lie in pursuit of The Right-Wing Cause).

Glenn even goes into further detail of how this has become a Republican practice dating back to the Nixon years.

This is all relevant because Gonzales did lie to Congress. If he would have simply told the truth in January then people would not have had to dig for the truth. The reason these firings raised any questions in the first place is because the White House was using a new provision snuck into the Patriot Act to appoint new U.S.A.s without confirmation from Senate. That is where this became an abuse of power.

Continue reading »

Is the President an idiot? That was the question that caused a bunch of heat when Joe Scarborough asked it a couple of months ago. Well consider Bush's latest signing statement and then do the math:

President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.

To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."

Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.

So Bush wants to be able to hire another Michael Brown to head FEMA. A smart man would take Congress' advice and make sure that the person they hire is qualified for the job. Not in Bush's mind. I guess since he is not a smart man, then he must be an idiot.

The Republicans say that if the Democrats win they will impeach Bush. The top legal minds in this country all agree that these signing statements by Bush are violating our Constitution. The Republicans voted to impeach Clinton over a little lie about a blow job. Is our Constitution not that important? Of course not. Not to the imperialistic mindset of the GOP. Instead they put politics ahead of country and choose to ignore the massive amount of laws George Bush continues to violate. Every single one of them should be considered an enemy of America. They attack everything America stands for and that attack goes unchallenged. If we let this continue then America's future is very dismal. Do you want to have that for your children and grand children? Do you want the legacy of our generation to be "the generation that destroyed America"?