Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

Well it seems like we'll never be able to find out if Gonzales has, in fact, set the record straight. The senate has now rejected an inquiry into what happened! So once again the republican controlled congress covers Jr's ass.

This is really becoming depressing. Will there ever be any accountability of this administration?????



Senate Panel Decides Against Eavesdropping Inquiry, for Now

By DAVID STOUT
Published: February 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — The Senate Intelligence Committee decided today not to investigate President Bush's domestic surveillance program, at least for the time being.

"I believe that such an investigation is currently unwarranted and would be detrimental to this highly classified program," Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the panel, said this afternoon following a closed session.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/p...3b4304beb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

Obviously we are fighting against terror. Congress has not declared war. You can try and trivialize the wording of the constitution on this if you want, but I don't think it helps your argument. In addition I don't think you would approve of people trivializing the words and powers talked about in the constitution if it was dealing with the 2nd amendment.

By the way by your argument if the President thought it would prevent further attack he could, take the guns from all gun owners. He could force them to turn them in. All he has to do is say that it would protect the country from further attack.

That kind of things is one reason why this is so dangerous.

 

I tried to make this argument with ROXRAN, and he has his blinders on. If Bush is allowed to have executive powers that trample the Constitution (which is what I see happening now), there is no reason to think the 2nd amendment couldn't be trampled on in the name of "national security." In my opinion.



Keep D&D CIvil.

 

NEIGHBORHOOD FASCISM

By Niki Raapana
February 17, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
East Germany passed a public disclosure act soon after communism "fell." The German people took their new freedom seriously. They insisted on their right to see government documents.
The office in charge of turning over police files became overwhelmed with requests. A month after the new law passed, some 36,000 people demanded to see what was inside their communist files.
Lots of requests were for names of the people who had filled in the blanks for the KGB and local cops. As the number of requests grew, German officials became very concerned. What if these people seeking their files planned some kind of retribution against the informants?
I never did follow up on that bit of news. I have no idea how many East Germans saw their files, or if the situation became violent. An American like me can only guess what it would be like to live under constant surveillance and surrounded by nosey informants for forty years. I have no real concept of the kinds of hate a system like that breeds in men. I never thought I would.
But now I'm not so sure about that.
American communitarians promote the same kinds of surveillance and neighborhood informants the communists used to control East Germans. Americans are slowly being taught what East Germans had to learn very quickly. Today the KGB trains "community" police all over America. Our friendly neighborhood cops are saving our communities from criminals and terrorists.
It's evolutionary. The theory of human evolution poses man has gone through many stages of development. (The Bible says God created man in his image.) An offshoot of of human evolution is social evolution. Communitarians say it's society which passes through evolutionary stages.
What America is experiencing is the natural conclusion to all of human society's evolution. Some bad, selfish people need incentives to evolve, but for sure, all cops are good now. Leaders are humanitarians. Even movies and rock stars have become better people. We should listen to their advice. All rich people care about human rights now. And based on our ability to take the best and leave the rest, we can now admit the communist system has a few good ideas.
Like the feared and hated KGB, communitarian police train citizen groups to monitor American communities. Except the modern system is way more evolved than what they had in 1950s Eastern Europe and Soviet Russia. American cops "care" about the communities they serve.
The American KGB is nicer. They partner with Israeli Mossad assassins to train community cops properly. Israeli cops are the "experts" in combating terrorist attacks. They know that cops need personal files on everybody just so they can help them "find jobs." The database doesn't just identify the "bad guys." It's used for good things too. Cops find problems and fix them. They don't hurt the good people. They help.
Don't ever ask what happened after the German people were liberated from Hitler by the Soviets in 1945. It doesn't matter anymore why the Americans waited for the communists to enter first. It's ancient news that over 100,000 German women were raped during the fall of Berlin by their communist saviors. Freedom fighters would never do that. Modern soldiers don't plunder, rape and kill; they're peacekeepers. The global army cleans up after disasters and nice things like that.
We're in the final phase of humankind's social evolution. We are all reborn as freeborn fascists. Don't think for a second you can opt out of evolving. It wouldn't be natural if you could.
Community policing is a federal program under the Department of justice. American community cops are not actually neighborhood cops. Unlike real cops who investigate and arrest people for real crimes, these new cops provide community services. Our new cops are problem solvers.
The Office of community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was established by President Bill Clinton in 1995. COPS was authorized by the revised Violent Crime Act of 1994. 100,000 new cops were added to police stations across America throughout the late 90s. When American community groups began writing land management plans to go along with the UN Local Agenda 21 cops agents of change were trained and ready to take their places on LA-21 planning committees.
LA-21 COPS suggested numerous ways to solve community problems. The new COPS helped local governments rewrite local rules to allow COPS access to private homes. Each community now has a special unit of Community Services Officers (CSO). CSO duties include visiting homes and people in the neighborhoods and identifying personal problems. COPS train all government employees to report any signs of a "threat" while inside homes on routine duties.
The list of threats that must be reported includes messy kitchens, unlocked garbage cans, unwashed children, domestic noise, abuse, mar1juana growing operations and meth amphetamine labs. Workers are trained to log threats into a national ID database program called COMPASS. COMPASS is the acronym for Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety Strategies. COMPASS was created in 1999 by officials at the COPS headquarters in D.C.
American property and privacy rights were balanced against communist-community safety. This is a natural evolutionary process. It was predicted by Karl Marx. MArx understood the power of constant conflicts. He encouraged opposing values. He taught his followers how to feed on arguments that would naturally change the ideas and the values of the people involved.
For example: American prize home ownership. It's one of their highest ideals. Communism holds private property in utter contempt. The Communist Manifesto insists it must be eliminated. So, the communitarians more evolved solutions says property should be regulated and monitored.
It's sometimes called conservation easements or wetlands protections. Other times it's called a Scenic By Way or a Community Land Trust. It's often called a 2020 vision. In old urban areas it's called Brownfield's. Everywhere it's called Rebuilding Community. (Bush identified Rebuilding Community in his 2002 State of the Union address. He called it part of the War on Terror.)
Another example is privacy rights: Americans demand privacy. Communists invade and control all areas of private life. So, evolved communitarians suggested just limiting personal privacy, while enhancing government secrecy.
A global communitarian database of individuals is necessary to fight crime, drugs and terrorism. A communitarian assets database was also recommended in LA-21 efforts. We should all be grateful that thousands of Americans have lost their homes and property. It's obvious these owners were not responsible enough to care for it. Some people don't deserve to own private property and can't be trusted with their own life. We must revise local laws that hinder the COPS' efforts to build safe and livable communities. Revising public nuisance abatement procedures, noise ordinances, and regulations concerning rental properties are all necessary facets of social justice. It's too bad some people have to lose their homes. But if they can't abide by rules that enhance the quality of life then they can't be allowed to stay in the neighborhood.
Still, there is not one scrap of scientific evidence to support the theory of social evolution. Communitarian professors base their belief in one thing: faith. That makes it more of a religion than a science. But it is the basis for many new laws so maybe there's some substance to it, somewhere. How long will it be before all national laws based in Natural Law become extinct? Does this put freeborn Americans on the endangered species list?
© 2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Niki Raapana was trained in government document research at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Raised by a career Army NCO, she traveled the U.S. most of her life. Her dad taught her it is every American's job to defend the rights of people who are unable to defend themselves.
After her landlord complained that the city was out to steal his land, Niki agreed to study Seattle's development plans for him in March 1999. In September 1999 she found out the city planned to do a lot more than steal Hugh's land. She identified the Communitarian Network's connection to the plans in March 2000.
Niki filed many public disclosure requests for Hugh Sisley and in the fall of 2001 the City of Seattle ceased actions against his properties based on Niki's research. By 2002 she had provided 2500 documents for Dawson et. al. v. The City of Seattle et. al, a 4th Amendment lawsuit currently under consideration before the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
Niki co-founded the Anti-Communitarian League with her (then) teenage daughter Nordica, in April, 2001.

link

 

You're just repeating yourself over and over when you concede several key details.

1. I'm quoting your own supreme court decision. AND IN THAT DECISION, Justice Jackson ruled that the only way to resolve this type of conflict is to strike down Congress's power to restrict presidential power. Read the quote I had above. They are from the same ruling. You're citing the wrong Supreme Court case. The 1930s Curtis Wright case involving President Roosevelt would be the right one to cite since it was the original basis of wartime presidential power. The point is that in order for the court to actually leave intact the president's ability to wiretap without warrants, the court would have to strike down FISA which seems almost impossible unless you can win that wiretapping without warrants is at the heart of article II. Good luck doing that.

2. Your assertion about how the constitution will trump FISA and give the president power seems rather questionable. The courts have already ruled that the President couldn't indefinitely detain an American citizen without trial which is a pretty big signal that the court won't just defer to the president entirely. Also, the court has NEVER ruled in favor of the president when there was specific legislation regulating his/her ability to act.

3. Even using your logic, about how the president gets his power minus Congress's, I think a fair case can be made that Congress gets quite a bit of power in the foreign policy arena. Congress is the one that declares war, ratifies treaties, confirms ambassadors and representatives abroad etc.. All of these (especially the ability to declare war) demonstrate that Congress has a significant presence in the foreign policy arena and thus the right to regulate foreign policy.

4. Here's one thing I dont get about the Conservative position on this. You cry about how strict constructionism is so key and how we need to follow a strict interpretation of the constitution that would prohibit derived ideas like abortion and gun control and yet you cite the loosest possible interpretation of article II. Oh well go figure.

 

That last part is interesting. When I read The Constitution, I see the following in Article I...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

When I look at Article II, I see...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officer...

When I look at Article III, I see this...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In Article IV, I see...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In Federalist 47, I see Madison saying: "...where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted."

Hamilton in Federalist 75:

"The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."

Hamilton again in 69...

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Based on my admittedly liberal bias in reading the Constitution and the opinions of those who wrote it, I reject your blanket statement that the President has "authority over foreign affairs."