Congressional hearings on Domestic Spying: Shocker!!!

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Attorney General Gonzales refused to answer Leahy's question if first-class mail of U.S. citizens is being opened.

http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16279

Go to 9:50.


Note this violates the law: § 1703. Delay or destruction of mail or newspapers

(a) Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, unlawfully secretes, destroys, detains, delays, or opens any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail entrusted to him or which shall come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier or other employee of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, improperly detains, delays, or destroys any newspaper, or permits any other person to detain, delay, or destroy the same, or opens, or permits any other person to open, any mail or package of newspapers not directed to the office where he is employed; or

Whoever, without authority, opens, or destroys any mail or package of newspapers not directed to him, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

More erosion of our freedoms and liberties in America. Who are we to spread freedom across the world?
 
Equally shocking (well, not really) is that Republican senators refused to put Gonzales under oath. This way, he can't be held accountable for anything. Just like the oil executives.
 
Anything with Senator Pat is hysterical.

You're really hard pressed to find someone that's been in the Senate longer, 30+ years, that can complain about so much, for so long without realizing that hey.... he's been in a position to do something about what he complains about for decades but was seemingly too stupid to realize he had any power.
 
Geez, fucking, hell. These guys are so damn bitchy. I found myself yelling at both of them to shut up with their long diatribes of pointless dialogue.
 
I think probably the biggest issue being raised by these hearings is the way that Gonzales answers nearly much every question about what's happening with 'not in this program.' Is the Bush administration listening in on domestic calls? Not in this program. Is the Bush administration spying on people who don't have a direct link to terrorist organizations? Not in this program.

Which automatically raises the question, what other programs are out there? I'll bet you any amount of money that they've decided 'split up' the programs (starting, oh, say, yesterday) and claim that the only one Congress is asking about are the few pieces that they may have some legal basis for. All the illegal stuff? Um, that's some other program, and you never asked about THAT. Yeah, that's it.
 
Why refuse to answer anything since he isn't under oath; ya can't commit perjury if you're not in a position to lie under oath.

He could answer every question with "suck my ass," or "nope, we didn't do that," or "we don't wiretap anyone ever," and he can't be held liable. Given that this is probably more or less the same senate that took Clinton to the woodshed for lying about oral, it's disheartening to see that they can't apply the same strict standards to AN ISSUE OF NATIONAL fuckING SECURITY AND A POWER GRAB IMPLICIT OF A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS OUTSIDE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH that they did to a dude that got fellatio in the oval office.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Anything with Senator Pat is hysterical.

You're really hard pressed to find someone that's been in the Senate longer, 30+ years, that can complain about so much, for so long without realizing that hey.... he's been in a position to do something about what he complains about for decades but was seemingly too stupid to realize he had any power.[/QUOTE]


Ted Stevens.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why refuse to answer anything since he isn't under oath; ya can't commit perjury if you're not in a position to lie under oath.[/QUOTE]

Something I didn't know until today is that lying to Congress is automatically a crime, even if you weren't sworn in. I don't know if anyone has ever actually been charged with it (certainly not within recent memory), but Gonzales is probably wisely being being cautious by not really answering anything.
 
Oh, and the Democrats (finally) caught on to the implications of the constant mentions of 'not in this program' and asked if there are any other programs. Gonzales said he'd 'have to get back to them' on that. Uh-huh.
 
Well you gotta figure there's the NSA program, the FBI program (the one watching the Anti War Florida Quakers), the one the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security got their ass handed to them by the ACLU earlier today (surveillance on a group of 10 VEGANS out front of a Ga. Ham store. The protesters spotted the spook and wrote down his license plate number, he then demanded the paper they wrote it on, when they refused, he arrested them. Awesome, what a great undercover guy, he got outed by VEGANS. He'll be fine on the front lines against Bin Laden.), then the CIA's gotta have it's own program and for sure the Secret Service and the DOD.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']More erosion of our freedoms and liberties in America. Who are we to spread freedom across the world?[/QUOTE]

While I sympathize with the alarm over the executive branch's shocking and seemingly illegal behavior in this matter, I can't for the life of me understand why people like you seem to take such pleasure in the misfortune of our country...unless you just want bad things to happen so that the Democratic Party can have a better hope of returning to power. So, you also happy we haven't caught bin Laden? Our soldiers are dying in Iraq? Clue us in here EZB.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']While I sympathize with the alarm over the executive branch's shocking and seemingly illegal behavior in this matter, I can't for the life of me understand why people like you seem to take such pleasure in the misfortune of our country...unless you just want bad things to happen so that the Democratic Party can have a better hope of returning to power. So, you also happy we haven't caught bin Laden? Our soldiers are dying in Iraq? Clue us in here EZB.[/QUOTE]

Answering on behalf of EZB (though his opinion on this matter may differ...)

You know what I would take pleasure in? Having our country run by people who aren't incompetent fear-mongering thieves. Since that plan clearly hasn't worked out, I'll move on to plan 2: taking pleasure in making sure that blame is properly placed where it belongs.

I'm not happy that Bin Laden is running around out there - but I'm more than happy to repeatedly remind everyone that Bin Laden is running around out there because the Bush administration is incompetent, and simply didn't care enough about catching him because he's more valuable to them out there as a boogeyman.

I'm not happy that our soldiers are dying in Iraq - but I'll be fucking gleeful in reminding everyone that the only reason that our soldiers are dying in Iraq is because the Bush administration lied to drag us into an illegal war that they've turned into an unwinnable quagmire through sheer idiocy, and in the process created tens of thousands of terrorists who will torment us for decades to come.

I'd prefer that none of this had ever happened. I'd love to be in a world where Bin Laden was captured shortly after 9/11 and our well-equipped soldiers were tidying up loose ends in Afganistan (instead of letting that area of the world go hell because there's not enough soldiers to keep order), all while the national debt was being paid down because of our yearly budget surpluses thereby ensuring that our economy and Social Security would be safe and secure for the future. I'd take a great deal of pleasure in that.

Since that's not going to happen, though, I'll take my pleasure where I can get it: by dragging down the people who so carefully avoided the previously mentioned path into the hell in which they've thrown the rest of us for their own personal gain.
 
I agree with everyone Drocket said, except his last paragraph would differ from mine. I take no pleasure in dragging people down -- I take pleasure in getting Americans to wake up and see what's going on in their own country. To make them see that We the People are losing our liberties such as freedom of speech, right to assemble, protection against unreasonable search and seizures, in addition to a lying administration that sent over 2,200 sons and daughters of america to an illegal war. And I won't rest until every American realizes this.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Equally shocking (well, not really) is that Republican senators refused to put Gonzales under oath. This way, he can't be held accountable for anything. Just like the oil executives.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least the Senators took a stand when they swore in the baseball players prior to testifying before Congress. We all know baseball is far more important to the American way of life than civil liberties or energy.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Answering on behalf of EZB (though his opinion on this matter may differ...)

You know what I would take pleasure in? Having our country run by people who aren't incompetent fear-mongering thieves. Since that plan clearly hasn't worked out, I'll move on to plan 2: taking pleasure in making sure that blame is properly placed where it belongs.

I'm not happy that Bin Laden is running around out there - but I'm more than happy to repeatedly remind everyone that Bin Laden is running around out there because the Bush administration is incompetent, and simply didn't care enough about catching him because he's more valuable to them out there as a boogeyman.

I'm not happy that our soldiers are dying in Iraq - but I'll be fucking gleeful in reminding everyone that the only reason that our soldiers are dying in Iraq is because the Bush administration lied to drag us into an illegal war that they've turned into an unwinnable quagmire through sheer idiocy, and in the process created tens of thousands of terrorists who will torment us for decades to come.

I'd prefer that none of this had ever happened. I'd love to be in a world where Bin Laden was captured shortly after 9/11 and our well-equipped soldiers were tidying up loose ends in Afganistan (instead of letting that area of the world go hell because there's not enough soldiers to keep order), all while the national debt was being paid down because of our yearly budget surpluses thereby ensuring that our economy and Social Security would be safe and secure for the future. I'd take a great deal of pleasure in that.

Since that's not going to happen, though, I'll take my pleasure where I can get it: by dragging down the people who so carefully avoided the previously mentioned path into the hell in which they've thrown the rest of us for their own personal gain.[/QUOTE]

It's rather telling when you are gleeful that someone has made mistakes that cost lives. I understand you want things fixed, at least fixed from your perspective, but I don't see why any rational person would be glad Bush is doing a crappy job. The same could be said of Republicans during the Clinton administration.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's rather telling when you are gleeful that someone has made mistakes that cost lives. I understand you want things fixed, at least fixed from your perspective, but I don't see why any rational person would be glad Bush is doing a crappy job. The same could be said of Republicans during the Clinton administration.[/QUOTE]

Did you not read what he wrote?

He said he is NOT happy that all is going to hell in a handbasket.

This is a tool in the Republican oratorical arsenal I detest the most -- asserting that critics of President Bush want America to fail and are giggling at his flubs.

No. We are not giggling. We are disturbed and outraged and profoundly, sickeningly worried about the future of our country, which seems to be sliding closer to fascism on a daily basis.

Where is the glee in all that?
 
I didn't even have to read all of what he said to see he isn't "gleeful" about the situation, what the hell kind of response was that? It's rather telling when you create assumptions out of nowhere and fail to read someones response.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I'm not happy that our soldiers are dying in Iraq - but I'll be fucking gleeful in reminding everyone that the only reason that our soldiers are dying in Iraq is because the Bush administration lied to drag us into an illegal war that they've turned into an unwinnable quagmire through sheer idiocy, and in the process created tens of thousands of terrorists who will torment us for decades to come.[/quote]

In his own words, he points out with glee that the president or the country or Republicans or whoever has made mistakes, mistakes that cost lives. I don't see how else you can read it.

"Isn't it great? The president made mistakes and people got killed! Now the Democrats will have a better chance of gaining power!"
 
[quote name='Drocket']Are you taking lessons from PAD in being obtuse?[/QUOTE]

Apparently you got better lessons on being naive. You think WE are making more terrorists ? One visit to Pakistan from a Danish Imam can make more terrorists in a day that we can in three years in Iraq. There were terrorists calling for our extermination well before Iraq, before 9/11, before the first world trade center bombing, AND before the first war in Iraq.

And every time you blame Bush for lying about the war you so conveniently leave out the fact that Saddam bears the blame for our billions of dollars spent there for his non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions in addition to breaching the peace accords from the first gulf war.
 
I'm sure once we're done with Iraq we'll start discussing Israel and it's noncomplience to about 50 different resolutions, particularly resolution 242 requiring them to withdraw from occupied territories. But hey, maybe I'm just an idealist.

War is not the only punishment, and none of the resolutions mentioned war. And whatever you want to claim, "serious consequences" does not necessitate war.
 
I would expect you to not fall victim to the "resolution" argument, alonzo.

It's simply foolish to think that enforcing UN resolutions mattered to the United States (after all, the irony of this is that mostly those people who consider the UN to be a puppet organization at best, and unbearably incompetent at worst, are the same people *outraged* that the UN would be ignored).

Is Saddam's behavior over the past decade sufficient to have moved in on him and taken out his government? You bet your ass.

Is it more important than fighting the "war on terror," and is it prudent to allocate such military resources and funding to something completely and totally (well, prior to the invasion, anyway) unrelated to al qaeda? I'd argue that, even though fighting a concept, much less organizations not bound or easily identified within one nation-state is difficult as it is, our administration knew well and good enough that al qaeda and the prior Iraqi regime were totally unrelated (and they will be happy to simultaneously agree that they are unrelated as they do their best to insinuate similarities between the two, and also use the 9/11 card to justify being in Iraq).

The point is that Iraq, prior to the invasion was not, in any way, related to 9/11 and the war on terror; in the process of honing in on effecting regime change there, while a laudable task, there seems to be little to no progress in the war on terror, and it seems to be something that we, as a nation, are disconnected from.

That's the frame I'd like to see the Democrats argue: Let's actually start the war on terrorist organizations.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I would expect you to not fall victim to the "resolution" argument, alonzo.

It's simply foolish to think that enforcing UN resolutions mattered to the United States (after all, the irony of this is that mostly those people who consider the UN to be a puppet organization at best, and unbearably incompetent at worst, are the same people *outraged* that the UN would be ignored).

Is Saddam's behavior over the past decade sufficient to have moved in on him and taken out his government? You bet your ass.[/quote]

My statement was made to point out the fact that the u.s. doesn't care about resolutions, though some people do genuinely believe that to be a legitimate reason.

Though I would argue that while there were legetimiate reasons to take out saddam, the time had passed for that. For example, it was justifiable when he was gassing kurds.

Though I think by now it's pretty obvious that a lot of my arguments, while genuine beliefs on my part, are made simply because I want to argue.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm sure once we're done with Iraq we'll start discussing Israel and it's noncomplience to about 50 different resolutions, particularly resolution 242 requiring them to withdraw from occupied territories. But hey, maybe I'm just an idealist.

War is not the only punishment, and none of the resolutions mentioned war. And whatever you want to claim, "serious consequences" does not necessitate war.[/QUOTE]

242 requires israel to withdraw from war-claimed territories in exchange for an end to the arab-israeli conflict. Some don't want the conflict ot end until Israel is destroyed.

Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the territories a continuing necessity. This continued disagreement continues to be reflected even in Israel's peaceful relations with more "moderate" neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and is still a major stumbling block in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- the former insisting upon an end to terrorism as a prerequisite to negotiations, the latter claiming Israel's continuing violations of 242 as one of the justifications for Palestinian militancy.

Unfortunately, there is no "palestine" mentioned in resolution 242. It also does not limit the refugee problem to be handled by Israel as it calls all states to deal with the problem. Unfortunately for the palestinians, none of their so-called arab 'brothers' wants them in their country.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

And every time you blame Bush for lying about the war you so conveniently leave out the fact that Saddam bears the blame for our billions of dollars spent there for his non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions in addition to breaching the peace accords from the first gulf war.[/QUOTE]


Oh, I see, so the president lies, but we need to always mention how bad SADDAM was and how Bush's lies were justified because of it? What are you getting at? Is this really your basis for defense of your presidents lies, by sideswiping them for another dictators actions? It's pretty clear this is the main position of people who want to defend Bush, but really do you have anything else up your sleeve? Maybe a viewpoint that you have thought up yourself *GASP

You're just running out of excuses to defend the president. Next time you gasp for air try to break up your sentences a little as well, its awfully annoying, as if your run on arguments weren't enough.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']242 requires israel to withdraw from war-claimed territories in exchange for an end to the arab-israeli conflict. Some don't want the conflict ot end until Israel is destroyed.

Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the territories a continuing necessity. This continued disagreement continues to be reflected even in Israel's peaceful relations with more "moderate" neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and is still a major stumbling block in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- the former insisting upon an end to terrorism as a prerequisite to negotiations, the latter claiming Israel's continuing violations of 242 as one of the justifications for Palestinian militancy.

Unfortunately, there is no "palestine" mentioned in resolution 242. It also does not limit the refugee problem to be handled by Israel as it calls all states to deal with the problem. Unfortunately for the palestinians, none of their so-called arab 'brothers' wants them in their country.[/QUOTE]

Why should the polish be expected to take in germans (or vice versa)? The palestinians don't want other to take them in, just as israeli's don't want others to take them in. But there are about 50 resolutions israel has ignored, some dealing with the refugee problem and israel directly. I also found it hard to argue that israel supports the legitimacy 242 when they actively worked against it by establishing settlements in those areas. You don't establish temporary settlements of that size in areas you have to give back.

Also the conflict wasn't always a primarily violent one, again the first intifida was marked (particularly the beginning) by demonstrations and protests and Israel's response was anything but peaceful. And I'd argue that Israel's aggression isn't a justification for militancy, but the reason for militancy on the scale we currently see. My version doesn't make a value judgement.

But at least you have a point with the semantic argument. It's not one I agree with or think Israel genuinely believes, but it's a reasonable argument on its surface.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Are you taking lessons from PAD in being obtuse?[/QUOTE]

No, I'm just of the opinion that some on the far left, and by far left on this board that means quite a good portion of it, either consciously or subconsciously seem to revel in mistakes made by this administration, much like the Right reveled in Clinton's perjury and abuse of power.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, I'm just of the opinion that some on the far left, and by far left on this board that means quite a good portion of it, either consciously or subconsciously seem to revel in mistakes made by this administration, much like the Right reveled in Clinton's perjury and abuse of power.[/QUOTE]

Somewhat. I thought about Falwell's attribution of blame for 9/11 on liberals, the ACLU, lesbians and the like to be of the same sort of thing you're pointing out. It's not so much glee, in the sense that I'd be truly gleeful if I didn't have to point it out so frequently.

OTOH, it's more the idea of pointing out repeated evidence of what we on the left believe to be the truth: the Bush administration's incapacity in the very fundamental areas (military strategies, homeland security, to only speak of a few) renders them not only irresponsible, but complicit in the state of affairs that we deal with on a day to day basis. It's not truly glee, but rather, I'd argue, a constant and clamoring "DO YOU fuckING GET IT YET GODDAMMIT!?!?!?!?!?!" that we try to bring to the table instead.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Somewhat. I thought about Falwell's attribution of blame for 9/11 on liberals, the ACLU, lesbians and the like to be of the same sort of thing you're pointing out. It's not so much glee, in the sense that I'd be truly gleeful if I didn't have to point it out so frequently.[/QUOTE]

People like Falwell and Pat Robertson are fundamentalist nutjobs who hate America due to the fact that we're free enough to allow people to sin. So I guess I agree with you there.

[quote name='mykevermin']OTOH, it's more the idea of pointing out repeated evidence of what we on the left believe to be the truth: the Bush administration's incapacity in the very fundamental areas (military strategies, homeland security, to only speak of a few) renders them not only irresponsible, but complicit in the state of affairs that we deal with on a day to day basis. It's not truly glee, but rather, I'd argue, a constant and clamoring "DO YOU fuckING GET IT YET GODDAMMIT!?!?!?!?!?!" that we try to bring to the table instead.[/QUOTE]

Well, "gleeful" was the word used specifically, but I understand what you're saying. I think it's more boiling over frustration, that the Left is very upset that more people haven't "gotten it" yet.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, "gleeful" was the word used specifically, but I understand what you're saying. I think it's more boiling over frustration, that the Left is very upset that more people haven't "gotten it" yet.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you keep refering to as simply "the left". Last I checked, Bush's approval ratings were in the 40s in many, and less than 40 in many others. Considering this country is, essentially, split in half, you'd think that it's more than just "the left" that is acting this way.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm not sure why you keep refering to as simply "the left". Last I checked, Bush's approval ratings were in the 40s in many, and less than 40 in many others. Considering this country is, essentially, split in half, you'd think that it's more than just "the left" that is acting this way.[/QUOTE]

I never said everyone who opposed Bush is happy about his failures. I think most people are upset over his failures and aren't examining their own political opportunities when critiquing administration blunders. In other words, most people want us to succeed in Iraq, stop terrorism, have a balanced budget, secure our borders, etc etc and aren't exactly "gleeful" when our country fails or has setbacks in such endeavors.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, "gleeful" was the word used specifically, but I understand what you're saying. I think it's more boiling over frustration, that the Left is very upset that more people haven't "gotten it" yet.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, there are people who are so dead set against the Bush administration that they do see military failure as a potential political benefit for their side. There are those who point to bin Laden's existence on this mortal plane, not championing his viewpoints at all, but, rather, happy that he's still making waves across the globe. I'd be a fool to argue that there aren't people who have come to loathe everything the administration says and does that the polar opposite perspective becomes preferrable, even without a modicum of thought put into it. That's not truly the exclusive domain of either political party, of course.

It bothers me that people do take the logical leap from disagreeing with the Bush administration to secretly cheering when soldiers are killed, to take one example, knowing the deleterious effects it has on Bush's approval ratings. In the end, I think there is a very fine line between outrage and glee, and some people just don't know when to stop. Consider Rush Limbaugh's glee at the capture of those peacemaking hippie people from a month or so ago. He said it himself: "I'm kind of liking this," I believe was the precise quote. Of course, I have had a few (and went to see a fucking outright dreadful so-called rockabilly band in the process, so perhaps my anger at that band's brutalization of "Ring of Fire," or the poor decision to have several "Pabst Blue Ribbons" have clouded my mind. But I believe that's what he said.

And, I must repeat: that band was the drizzling shits. I've seen more charisma in Greta van Susteren.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, there are people who are so dead set against the Bush administration that they do see military failure as a potential political benefit for their side. There are those who point to bin Laden's existence on this mortal plane, not championing his viewpoints at all, but, rather, happy that he's still making waves across the globe. I'd be a fool to argue that there aren't people who have come to loathe everything the administration says and does that the polar opposite perspective becomes preferrable, even without a modicum of thought put into it. That's not truly the exclusive domain of either political party, of course.

It bothers me that people do take the logical leap from disagreeing with the Bush administration to secretly cheering when soldiers are killed, to take one example, knowing the deleterious effects it has on Bush's approval ratings. In the end, I think there is a very fine line between outrage and glee, and some people just don't know when to stop. Consider Rush Limbaugh's glee at the capture of those peacemaking hippie people from a month or so ago. He said it himself: "I'm kind of liking this," I believe was the precise quote.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree with you. If you consider what Bill O'Reilly said about San Francisco as serious that is another good example from the right.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Totally agree with you. If you consider what Bill O'Reilly said about San Francisco as serious that is another good example from the right.[/QUOTE]

I thought I brought that up, but perhaps that was a different thread.

Oh, it was the one regarding the planned attack on LA. Nevermind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top