News-Record.com

"Dictator" may be a bit stong, but the LTE is correct: President Lincoln took agressive actions to thwart the splitting of a four-score plus year-old union. Too bad - we could have black folk doing for free what we are now paying the brown folk to do: the jobs' "real" Americans won't do.

There the LTE's reality stops. The "other's" questioning the illegality of President Bush's [easy to get but arrogantly ignored approval] for wiretapping include Mr. Ashcroft.

... and the British did "intercept messages" to foiled a plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic - but it's been reported they didn't even know of the plot until a year earlier when they were tipped off by a Pakistani insider.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/world/15250016.htm

Now India hates the Pakis', but here's an interesting take:

http://www.indymedia.be/en/node/3540

If you cannot understand the difference between "with a warrant" and "without a warrant or any other sort of oversight", you need to start reading before firing off a LTE.

NO ONE is arguing that wiretapping, as governed by the FISA act is illegal. Far from it- it's a valid tool to be used in this war. Civil libertarians argue that the use of warrantless wiretaps, IN VIOLATION OF THE FISA LAW, is illegal.

How hard is that to understand? Jimminy.

James isn't Indymedia the one that was pushing the bogus Downing Street memos and the Rove/Plame/Wilson nonsense?

Middy:

Two wrongs do no make a right. Wiretapping without a warrant is against the constitution. If there is a security concern over an individual(s) let the powers that be go in front of a judge to get such a warrant. Anthing else is a violation of our rights and could and probably is used in an abusive manner. I am sure the majority of British feel the same way I do--Tony Blair is being forced out of office if you have not noticed and your friend Bush hopefully will be next.

I'm all for government searches and wiretaps to stop terrorist attacks.

But, call me silly, I also believe a little thing called the Constitution prevents warrantless searches.

FISA courts issue secret wiretap warrants. The proceedures for the government to request and recieve a warrant for the wiretap are very easy. Last I saw, almost every single request by the government resulted in the warrant being issued.

That, to me, shows a level of oversight to the Executive Branch, from the Judicial Branch.

If the government's need for a tap is so great, all they have to do is approach FISA court and simply ask. Why would they not want to do this?

Swanks asks why won't the administration share with the FISA court their reasons for wanting to wiretap American citizens. It's because they are obsessive about keeping their plans secret. The Bush administration is one of the most secretive in history. I just started reading Worse than Watergate by John Dean. It's chilling how the administration refuses to release any kind of information unless they're forced to. The Bushies secrecy disturbs me, but I am comforted in the knowledge that the pendulum eventually swings the other way. Let's hope that swing takes place before it's too late.

Denzien, thanks for pointing out the civil libertarians are NOT against all wiretaps. Rather, we are against those wiretaps that have overstepped the constitution WITHOUT a warrant! How difficult is that to understand?

Shalom

I don't know anything about the Indymedia - just posted that link 'cause it offered more depth into the ISA rumors

... but I have heard Pakistan is a complex country ... you know - a Key Ally in the War on Terrrism that also sells nuclear secrets, a Key Ally that arrests al Quada members but harbors Osama Bin Laden.

... and this is the first I've heard the Downing Street memos were "Bogus". Do tell, Hughie.

There are no "original" Downing Street Memos. The items presented as being legitimate were "typed" copies of "said" memos which were destroyed.

Much like Dan Rather, it's the seriousness of the allegation, not the validity of the source.

Hugh,

Please provide a link or another source that validates your claim. I'm interested in knowing where you got the information that there are no "original" copies. I'm not saying I doubt you but what proof do you have?

“The memo's authenticity was not disputed by Blair's office.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

I have only found political blogs that discuss the fact that it was copied, which is not a smoking gun that proves it was “bogus”. I will ask the same question again in more detail. What reputable news source or government source in either the U.S. or U.K. state that this document is believed to be a false account?

The Sunday Times in England published it with no mention of it being “bogus”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

With all the hub-bub out of the Clintonites about this new tv movie concerning 9/11 there must be some truth behind it.

Stay tuned...

Steve. D.

By "False Account" do you mean like the information on Saddam's WMD's delivered by a Top Secret (and still undisclosed) source in Italy ... later confirmed by a Top Secret (and still undisclosed) source in Italy ...??

"There are no originals .. "

Kinda like GWB's texas driving records? Somehow missing in the archives?

(sorry - needed to ding today)

Great posts JDR! Let me add to that...

"Much like Dan Rather, it's the seriousness of the allegation, not the validity of the source."

Dan Rather admitted and retracted the story but never recovered from the controversy. However, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's former secretary Marian Carr Knox who called the documents a forgery also said this about them, “I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct.” That kind of sounds like the allegation was true despite the fact that the source was not valid. Many suspect this was a trick masterminded by Karl Rove.

Now let’s talk about some of the right wing’s ideas about valid sources. Bill O’Reilly once claimed he successfully instituted a boycott of French goods that caused their economy to lose billions. In the interview I linked below from CBC news, O’Reilly is threatening a similar boycott of Canada for their refusal to turn over AWOL American soldiers. It’s a riot. Talk about bad sources. At least Dan had a forged document. O’Reilly pulled his source, as Al Franken would say, “Out of his butt”.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RbX-2X7_h-M

he he he. Thanks Stevie D. I really needed that.

Bill O'Reilly -- what a complete moron.

Glad ya liked it Howie! ;-)

Suggested Links:
http://www.parisbusinessreview.net
http://www.parisbusinessreview.com

Good stuff. My favorite was when he was debating Gen. Wesley Clark about possible American war crimes (both at Abu Grahib and later at Haditha in July). He insisted on two separate occasions that American soldiers had captured SS troops as they were surrendering and shot them in cold blood in the town of Malmedy, Belgium. In fact, it was 84 of our own soldiers who were massacred with hands in the air as they were surrendering to SS troops. Yet on two separate occasion, weeks apart, Bill attempted to make his point by desecrating the memory of these men. Take a guess how long it took him to apologize and set the record straight. If your guess was "He still hasn't", then you win today's prize. As I said, what a complete moron who will say anything to get sheep to watch his pathetic impersonation of news commentary.

What's today's prize? A new F-150?

I read the Iranians are now making there own version of the F-18 (?) - and are damm proud of it.