Demand a Complete and Impartial NSA Investigation

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=395

I know, I know, but read the Republican endorsements.

That's one interpretation.

Jimmy Carter thinks so, and he was the one who signed the FISA legislation into law.

Jimmy Carter has a Posse

I heard Chuck Norris was in the posse. That's where Jimmy learned all his moves.

As long as it doesn't damage national security and waste heaps of money it's probably a good idea. It won't really make the ACLU and the die-hards happy (but then, nothing really will if it's not coming from the "right people", but I don't see why congress shouldn't be allowed to hear the classified information that shouldn't be released to the general public. I think previous comments from Gonzales showed there isn't a smoking gun on this (yet) but it's tough to argue that it shouldn't be looked into further...

Gonzalez wasn't put under oath making statements to the judiciary commitee. Remember, republicans make the rules as they control the rules committee so he didn't have to. He didn't ask to be put under oath either. He then wouldn't answer some questions and just flat out lied on others. How many of these people do we have to try for obstruction of justice before we finally nail some of them? Just put them under oath ffs.

Bill Clinton reminded us that being under oath doesn't mean you're going to get the truth.

I would support an investigation with the same qualifications Garoud mentioned.

Honestly, what the hell does Bill Clinton lying about a sex act have to do with Gonzalez lying about what the purpose of warrentless surveillance is (or anything)? One is lying about your private life (Guess what! It's private! And getting a blowjob in the oval office is LEGAL! People LIE when they cheat on their wife. DUH?!). The other is lying about violating constitutional amendments(but hey that crap must be hella outta date if FISA is, right?). If we don't get them under oath, we can't call them out for lying. If we can't even acknowledge they are saying things that are in direct contradiction to the facts, then any investigation is pointless.

I was just pointing out that being under oath is no guarantee that someone is going to tell the truth.

I should add: Conversely, not being under oath does not mean that someone is lying.

Well since the President is the Commander in Chief of the military he should be held to th same standards as the military, so unless military loaw has changed recently, adultry is punishable. Lying under oath is illegal. Monica could have been a spy, and was probably a plant (Bill is just a dumb skirt chaser) and he endangered the county to get a BJ which must not have been that great since some ended up on her dress.



I'm am still unsure why we need an investigation.

Which does not, incidently, make his interperation valid. A lot of dumb laws have probably been signed into law because the president didn't fully understand the exact remifications, IMO. Nothing against the president(s) in question... Have you actually ever READ a congressional or judicial ruling? They read like word-puzzles thought up by a demented monkey on crack.

You conservatives are truly boggling my mind. The Bush administration and the NSA are clearly doing something that violates US law, yet the conversation becomes about Carter and Clinton? *head explodes* When discussing issues of privacy with conservatives the argument I often hear is "well if I'm not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide why should I care?" Fine. How about applying that same argument to a thorough investigation into Bush's NSA program. If they're not breaking the law why should they care? hmmm? The problem is that they are clearly breaking the law and doing exactly the type of shit the FISA law was created to prevent (a law that congress offered to ammend for the Bush administration if it was too restrictive). The only coneivable reason why they're doing an end around the court and don't want an investigation is because what they're doing is outside the law.

Bravo, Chip. I couldn't have said it any better.

Reitsuki - I have _tried_ to read through legislative documents, and I agree that they're often composed of highly technical language. But, the president who signed the bill into law asserts that he had a thorough understanding of the spirit and intent of the FISA bill (Carter said it was one of the most important pieces of legislation to ever cross his desk), and therefore, his opinion does weigh heavily on the matter. I'd say that the Supreme court will eventually settle the matter, but now that it's stacked with Bush cronies (like Gonzales in the AG's office), I'm less inclined to believe that the matter will be adjudicated with the pure intent of ensuring constitutional clarity.

So do you think an investigation will stop wire tapping that has been going on since wire have existed? I am just curious because I think the answer is no. The NSA basically exists just to spy.


I have a generally apathy to life and government overall, nothing really matters. The ability to create change is limited and even when people think there is change, there really isn't. *shrug*


When is PS3 coming out?

Problem is, it does not clearly violate U.S. law, that s why we are having the investigations.

I, too, am cynical about government. However, sins of omission still stain. If we sit back and just let GovCo do as it will, we'll eventually wake up to discover that we've become mindless peasants in a techno-serfdom.

Dude, this country started like that and will end like that.


Also, stop all the republican stereotyping, it is getting really old and is begining to boarder on hate speech (since hate speech has no meaning anymore, just like terrorist or racist).

Monitoring the communications of any US resident without a warrant is a clear violation of the law. It doesn't matter if one party to the communication is outside of the US. It's a no brainer. The administration is arguing that the resolution authorizing the president to use any and all means at his disposal in waging the war on terrorism gives him an excuse to do anything he wants. It does not. It means he can use any and all means within the law.

The US started as a techno-serfdom? As I recall, it started first as the migratory homeland of ancient Siberian/Mongolese immigrants. It was later explored by the Spanish and French in search of colonial provinces. The English weren't far behind, seeking also to exploit the continent's natural resources. About that same time, a waves of religious refugees began to arrive. Although the 13 original colonies were the "possessions" of King George, the colonies were hardly serfdoms. They were largely prosperous (in the historical context), and other than taxation, the people were largely autonomous.

And, are you channeling Rush or what? I said nothing hateful against Republicans. What, we've reached a point where it's not PC to speak out against alleged government malfeasance? I was actually far more outspoken about the Clinton-era scandals and abuses than I have been with the present administration. I am a moderate Libertarian/Independent who spent many years as a registered Republican. I am not a "liberal." In the past, the Republican party had largely represented my personal values. Since taking control of both houses and the White House, though, I believe the GOP has gone on an unprecedented and massive power grab that needs to be reined in. For the same reasons that I supported the White Water investigation, I strongly believe that independent investigation of the NSA wiretapping controversy is warranted.

This is exactly what I am talking I am talking about. You have no respect for me as a person if you keep insinuating anything I said are the thoughts of another person. Are you really that small minded? I don't say “OMG! You noob fucking pinko liberals are just quoting ever quack liberal on the planet!!!”. I argue your opinions one on one and I don't disrespect you as a person. I don’t imply you can’t think for yourself or that you are part of some monolith mindless group of people that can’t have their own personal opinions or beliefs. You know nothing about me, my personal beliefs or politics. Voting one way doesn’t mean you agree with everything on an agenda or are in capable of thinking for yourself.

Does tolerance of others only apply to people that think like you?

Wow, you're really projecting some vile crap on me that has no relevance, whatsoever. You previously accused me of hate speech against the Republican party. I threw it back atcha, because it was patently false. Don't throw the poor-me tolerance card at me when you're the one casting stones. Did you read anything else I wrote, or just the tongue-in-cheek Rush comment? And, where was your rebuttal (e.g., "arguing my opinions one on one"? All you originally said was that you're ambivalent about the whole process, and that you believe that there little that can be done to stop the titanic from sinking. I didn't disagree, but suggested that we are equally culpable if we don't speak out. Then, you accused me of borderline hate speech against the GOP. So, who's the intolerant one, here?

Honestly, my past experience with you leads me to believe that you're just spoiling for a fight just for the sport of it. If you wanna talk about this rationally, I'm all for it. I'm just not gonna get wound up in another emotional forum slugfest with you.

This country was founded by people trying to limit the power of the executive - King George III, not mindless peasants. In some ways, this is the exact same struggle - to limit the power of the executive under George II.

This country was founded by a bunch of rich guys who were sick of paying taxes and were exploiting peasants (African slaves, Native Americans, Irish indentured servants) to stay rich and in power. Just like America today. Even PBS doesn't paint it that rosey anymore.

Taxation without representation, you bet. SL had a tea party not too long ago too. Sometimes the reason for doing the right thing doesn't matter. Sure some of the folks looking to toss George III were doing it for their own enrichment. Doesn't mean that the rest of the society didn't benefit from having guaranteed rights.

As someone whose family came over as transportees and indentured servants, I don't have a rosy idea of American history. But I also recognize just how much better the system of government we established was for most people.

Sure, there were lots of injustice, right up to this day. And lots of things we should be ashamed of as a people. Welcome to reality. But does make the Constitution and Bill of Rights any less important? No! Does it make those hard-won rights any less something to protect. Absolutely not. Erosion of civil rights doesn't stop unless you make it stop. Giving away right for imagined security doesn't work either... history abounds in examples.