Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns "were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues" because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

Yeah, a letter that he sat on for a year before trotting it out for display. Makes me wonder???

..but then again I can't remember if you've ever said you support anything Prs. Bush has done. - Parated2k

I did voice my support, here in the hallowed halls of JU for Bush's nominee - Mr. John Roberts.

Just to remind some:

Back in the 2000 campaign I volunteered at the local GOP campaign HQ to help elect candidate Bush. His only promise back then fullfilled today is his originalist judge pick. The faith-based initiatives were clunkily and unsatisfactorily implemented. Cutting taxes pre-911 seemed like a great idea, but post-911, that campaign hint seemed erroneous. Over the years, this administration has continually made decisions I disagree with. I feel our Republican legislators and the executive branch have taken the party down several incorrect avenues.

If Prs. Bush has a secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties, he'd better hurry. He's moving way to slow to be able to enjoy the totalitarianism he's after. ;~D

I somehow doubt he's going through "all this trouble" to help the next president enjoy the fruits of his labor. Who knows, it could be a {{gasp}} democrat!


There are both Republicans and Democrats who, throughout the years, have consistently provided groundwork and laying of an infrastructure that consolidates more and more power at the federal level. We've seen a more rapidly advancing move towards an undemocratic society in just the last few years, but it would be incorrect to lay all the credit at the feet of President Bush.

The Clinton Administration was the first blatant precursor towards such moves (see: Executive Orders, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City Bombing, and The Butcher of WACO; El Reno) but thanks to an overly friendly press (back when I thought there was a real Liberal Media) there was little dissemination of or trumpeting of these glaring steps against democratic society.

There are numerous individuals serving in our government and leading the way within the private sector to create the barcode society. Some are well-intentioned groups (MADD), others are structural masterminds (PNAC) and others are corporates trying to make a buck (Verichip, Lockheed Martin) .

I'm not in any way saying there are some shadowy "Illuminati" or globalist masterminds feverishly toiling day in day out to bring about the "Great American Prison" under the control of a "New World Order" but I am saying that many different groups within America today are attempting to recreate an America that is within their own personal interest(s) without regard to the America our forefathers had designed.

President Bush may genuinely feel some archaic bits of unused liberty may need to fall in order for America to stay secure, I say ,no, because 'securing' America, at least by the means his administration (with cooperation from both aisles in the legislature) have wrought forth means destroying part of America.

It was President George W Bush, himself, who said, "The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life..."

Link

Let's not let the terrorists win.

Deference, if you really do believe that our government shouldn't treat anyone within our borders the same as any other enemy on any other battlefield, I'd appreciate your opinion on this... - ParaTed2k

That is, admittedly, a very complicated issue that I still need to research to give a 'correct' answer on, but I will initially say that I believe labeling Americans 'enemy combatants' for any reason opens up a pandora's box this democracy may not recover from - it would fundamentally change our approach to due process and would require the perverting of 200 years of faithful fourth amendment service.

I would offer to you the example of John Walker Lindh (spelling probably incorrect) who was found on foreign soil fighting against our soldiers. John should be subject to the military, not the civilian courts. If John had been on American soil I would support him being tried in a civilian court. Needless to say, I think it would be very straghtforward prosecution of the individual either way.

End ParaTed2k Response
-----------------------

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . - COl Gene

No, I don't agree.

Hardly. Either the law was broken or it wasn't. If Libby ideed leaked Plame's name and that turns out to have been a crime, then whoever leaked this classified information is just as guilty. - Daiwa

I undestand your point. The issue of a double standard and the selective enforcement of laws... I'll tell you that I don't personally see the Libby incident and the NYT incident as the same thing.

I'm going to reiterate my point about the Apples and Oranges - I don't believe going after the leak in the NYT case is beneficial to America. I think that leak served Americans well. We can have an open and honest debate as to whether or not we really want to cede such powers to the government.

In Libby's case, it's possible he provided a very personal disservice to an individual by providing personal information about them with malice aforethought and so should be punished for it if that is what he is guilty of and if that can somehow be proven in a court of law.

I don't know what law states the press cannot report on the actions of the government, so in my book, the legality of the action is under question only. Perhaps the leak is bound by a law and under that law should suffer the deterrent punishment, but if that leak was provided a trial by jury consistent of his peers I would think those peers would find the contribution to the public by that leak far outweighs the principle of deterrence set to guard against other sensitive information leaking.

It is highly interesting to me that Americans are told time and again to "take a hike" based on the excuse of "National Security". The end all, be all, no-explanation-need-be-given-or-expected thinking driven by this excuse is a ridiculous means of avoiding taxpayer inspection of opaque governmental workings. We are told there is no accountability owed or bilateral loyalty within this dark corner of government.

I urge citizens to reconsider continually giving our government a free pass when it simply tells us - Trust Me, I owe you citizen - the bearer of my sustenance - nothing, because this is for your own good.

Finally, Daiwa, in response to your post #15, I'll explain to you as clearly as I can what I'm driving at by referring you to that old post of mine:

I'm attempting to discuss the issue - not the man. That is why you get referred to it and that is precisely how it jives with this title and with this line:

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

It's not about the man Bush, it's about the 'Bush Act' or the 'Bush Administration Agenda', etc. .

I haven't tried, convicted, etcetera and so forth Mr. Bush - I'm not attempting to and that isn't the purpose or intent of my posting.

The article's intent was to provide information to JU denizens that it isn't simply 'liberals' taking an opportunity to bash Bush - there are Republicans voicing their concerns on this issue as well, who view this as a serious debate. Some are attempting to write those Representatives off as simple opportunists as well.

I'm curious as to why anyone will try to write off any criticism of this administration as simply political opportunism every time there is problematic action stemming from the White House.

It almost seems as if there is a desire amongst some at JU to divide users into two groups cheerleading for 'their team' and to simply have those two groups constantly trying to out-boo the other. Ludicrous.

"Web Browser - take me to JU."

"Ludicrous speed, Captain?"

"LUDICROUS SPEED!"

Thanks for the clarification Deference, again, that is why I don't simply write you off as a mindless "Bush basher" like I do Colon Bin Gangrene.

Yes, there have been many attempts by politicians to federalize as much authority as they can. Things like Ruby Ridge and Waco are nothing new though. Unfortunately.

Equally unfortunate is the demands by "we the people" for the federal government to take control of everything. Don't like how the education system is going, demand NCLB. Don't like how Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin handled Hurricane Katrina? Blame Bush and demand that he take Emergency Management from its rightful place at the local level, and give it to FEMA. Don't like how your state elections turned out? Demand that we do away with elections at the state level and have one big happy Federal election.

The thing is, National Defense IS a federal responsibility. Fighting a war is more than just a bunch of folks shooting at each other, while other folks hold up signs demanding they stop. Electronic warfare is just as effective as combat in denying the enemy the ability to continue the fight. The enemies of the U.S. are using EW against us. What are we going to do to counter it?

I am not saying what Bush has been doing is legal or not. I am not qualified to make that judgement, and there's not even enough information to come to a logical conclusion.

What I do know is, not one of the people in Congress who are speaking out against Prs. Bush's directive seem to have any answers themselves. Only criticisms.

With all the attempts to federalize everything, Congress has done a great job of making sure they aren't considered responsible for any of the actions of Congress. It must be great to be in a position of power, without having to accept the responsibilities of that position.

Thank you for the excellent reply, Ted.

One more Republican conservative Sam Brownback speaks out regarding the wiretapping issue;

From ABC's This Week;

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?

BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we’re going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.

I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.

I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?

BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.
Link

dayyum deference.

i gotta feeling barry is resting a lil easier knowin youre on the case.

i know i am.

dayyum deference.

i gotta feeling barry is resting a lil easier knowin youre on the case.

i know i am.

Thanks, bro. Though I'm hardly enough, people have got to wake the F*CK UP!

waitaminute...who the fuck is barry?

Seriously, who the fuck is Berry?