Things That Just Piss Me Off

What Pisses You Off?   

24 February 2008

Immigrants in the Military Ignored by Bush

posted in: War — namecritic @ 3:30 pm

Anyone who reads this blog can tell I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants. But immigrants who have served in the armed forces, whether they went to Iraq or not, should be given automatic citizenship. If they can risk their lives to defend this country, they can be citizens. It’s as simple as that. Bush promised but lacks the ethics to follow through on his promises.

After the War, a New Battle to Become Citizens
By FERNANDA SANTOS

Despite a 2002 promise from President Bush to put citizenship applications for immigrant members of the military on a fast track, some are finding themselves waiting months, or even years, because of bureaucratic backlogs.

About 7,200 service members or people who have been recently discharged have citizenship applications pending, but neither the Department of Defense nor Citizenship and Immigration Services keeps track of how long they have been waiting. Immigration lawyers and politicians say they have received a significant number of complaints about delays because of background checks, misplaced paperwork, confusion about deployments and other problems.

Officials have estimated that it will take an average of 18 months to process citizenship applications from legal immigrants through 2010, up from seven months last year. But service members and veterans are supposed to go to the head of the line. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush signed an executive order allowing noncitizens on active duty to file for citizenship right away, instead of having to first complete three years in the military.

Of course bush supporters will say it’s not his fault. He promised it and all, but of course he can’t be held accountable for his shoddy treatment of veterans. Maybe never having been one he just doesn’t get it.

25 January 2008

O’Reilly The Pinhead Strikes Again

posted in: News, War — namecritic @ 6:38 am

Cmon, who really listens to this idiot and believes anything he says. John Edwards says there are 200,000 homeless veterans. Bill O’Reilly said there are not 200,000 homeless veterans. He gets proven wrong and finds out there are after calling Edwards a liar and now says Edwards owes HIM the apology.

The following is a transcript of the show where Bill O’Reilly is proven to be a liar but refuses to admit he is wrong no matter what.

O’REILLY: To hype up this class warfare, Edwards is now bringing in homeless veterans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: Tonight, across this country, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform and can serve this country patriotically, veterans, will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Now I’ve said on this program that we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter. Of course, that’s an immature remark, I know that, but there’s a reason I’m saying it.

Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it’s not because of the economy. It’s mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about.

Some people, including veterans, do become homeless because of the economy. They lose their jobs and become homeless. It happens. It is not because of mental illness or addiction for everyone who becomes homeless nor is that the only way veterans become homeless.

Bill O’Reilly the pinhead will distort any fact to make his point and to get people to believe he actually knows something.

Then he says politicians can do nothing about homeless veterans. regardless of why these veterans are homeless, the government could and should be doing more to help them. To claim that politicians can do nothing to help them is ridiculous.

These veterans served our country and deserve better than what they are getting when they return home. If they are mentally ill or addicted to alcohol or drugs then we should pay for everything that needs to be done to help them overcome it. We should do whatever we have to do to be sure they are not sleeping on the streets, period.

Bush does nothing for the veterans and he has rush limbaugh and pinhead o’reilly covering it up and trying to convince people no problem exists. By convincing people there is no problem bsuh and other politicians won’t be held accountable for the poor treatment of our veterans.

But if Edwards admits the truth, it takes away the class warfare issue, which is his only issue. […]

Right there is no diversity that causes the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. This doesn’t even have anything to do with bush or republicans or democrats. This has to do with people rich enough to make sure everyone else remains their own private labor pool. It’s a fact.

O’REILLY: Yet according to the government census, poor households in America have lots of stuff. 97 percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.

Here is a great example of how pinhead o’reilly distorts the truth and distracts his listeners or viewers. The statistics he just mentioned show percentages of “households” that have stuff. The homeless are not included in those statisitics. They don’t have households.

If you added the number of people who are homeless to those statistics, people aho have no color tvs and dvd players, those percentages would be cut by at least 1/4. So about 75% of americans have the color tv and 55% a dvd player and so on.

But pinhead o’reilly uses statistics that have nothing to do with the homeless veterans he was mistaken about. He is using those to distract viewers.

So if the poor are not destitute in America, and they obviously are not, why are so many veterans sleeping under bridges, John Edwards? The answer again they’re mostly addicted or mentally ill. It has nothing to do with the economy.

Again, not all homeless veterans are addicts. Those who are should be getting treatment in a hospital, not sleeping under a bridge. All homeless veterans are not mentally ill. Of those who are, most of them have a mental illness due to their service to our country. They sho0uld be receiving the help they need but they don’t. There are actually homeless veterans who are not addicts or mentally ill and that is due to the economy. So pinhead is wrong and he is a liar.

Edwards is a charlatan, a man either too uninformed or too dishonest to be elected to anything. I am tired of hearing this nonsense from him and other callow politicians. We deal with facts here on The Factor, not fiction. John Edwards owes us an apology. […]

Facts, O’reilly, and fox news should never be used in the same sentence. O’reilly owes America and every veteran in America an apology.

JOSEPH CALIFANO: We have 200,000 veterans who are homeless.

O’REILLY: Right. […]

Oops. You mean there really are 200,000 homeless veterans and o’reilly was wrong? Will he admit it? Tune in and see.

O’REILLY: But this is wrong for a major presidential candidate to demagogue this issue and try to tell the people it’s America’s economic system that’s causing this problem, is a lie, it’s wrong, he should be called on it. […]

Hey! Pinhead O’Reilly. You just got called on your lie and you don’t admit it nor do you apologize to our veterans, so why do you still insist it’s edwards who lied?

CALIFANO: This is not the only issue that happens to, Bill. Let me just say there’s enormous denial about this.

O’REILLY: I’m not in denial. I don’t think any…[…]

CALIFANO: I - well, they don’t want - they don’t to - they don’t recognize that substance abuse…

O’REILLY: They recognize.

CALIFANO: Drives all our social ills.

O’REILLY: Edwards knows this. He’s lying. He’s lying. He knows it. Everybody knows it.

CALIFANO: I don’t believe that John Edwards is lying.

O’REILLY: Then he’s dumb.

CALIFANO: No, he’s not.

O’REILLY: One or the other. […]

O’REILLY: But I hope you understand my anger. It’s an anger that if you want to solve the problem for the veterans, let’s be honest about it. Let’s not demagogue it like Edwards is doing.

Why don’t you be honest about it Mr. Pinhead. You slammed the veterans and you do not apologize. You are trying to save face because you thought you knew everything and found out you didn’t know anything about the homeless veteran problem

Admit you made a mistake. Admit you lied. Admit you insulted a lot of homeless veterans by saying they are all mentally ill and addicts. Admit that our government, including the bush administration, treats our veterans poorly. I only added the bush administration because they are currently sending men and women over to fight in Iraq right now and I do not want them treated the same way when they return home.

But I guess pinhead o’reilly doesn’t care about them at all. His statements prove it.

The Rest of The Story And Video Here

17 January 2008

What Does The US Government, The Bush Family, and The Saudis Have In Common?

posted in: Politics, War — namecritic @ 1:53 am

A lot of people call any allegation of ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family is just lies and conspiracy theories. I decided to look up some information on the topic.

In 1920, under a League of Nations mandate, officials from France and Great Britain carved up vast tracts of warlord-dominated territories in Arabia into what they imagined would be nation states devoid of the complex historical, cultural, and tribal realities of the Mideast.

Instead of establishing European-style nation states, the strongest warlords quickly entrenched themselves with the aid of standing armies and spy networks. In much of the Mideast, fealty is often accorded to tribal overlords and the Islamic sects they favor rather than to the territory and people within the boundaries of the nation state.

Jonathan Rabin succinctly defines the reality, past and present, of the desert sheikdoms: “The systems of government that have evolved in Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are paranoid family dictatorships with ancestral roots in a single city or village.” –Jonathan Raban, “Western conceit of nation-building ignores culture and history of Arabia,”

– Seattle Times, November 24, 2002–

usama bin laden

Islamic fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden make their appeals to the nation or community of believers, not to any particular nation state, although the rich and powerful among the Muslims have founded Western-style businesses and formed corporations both inside and outside the boundaries of their native countries. Because Osama himself is a scion of a rich Saudi family with wide-ranging business interests throughout the world, the split Saudi personality is most evident in him and the bin Laden clan. Osama, who calls America “The Great Satan,” has done business with the infidel Americans whenever it suited him.

Throughout the eighties, when the United States assisted the Saudis in a giant military buildup of airfields, ports, and bases throughout the kingdom, many of the contracts were awarded to the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Binladen Group, founded by Osama bin Laden’s father.

At the same time, the United States trained and armed troops in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The United States and Saudi Arabia spent about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan, recruiting, supplying, and training nearly 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among the recruits were Osama bin Laden and his followers.

–Michael Parenti, 9-11 Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond (2000) City Lights Books, San Francisco–

With C.I.A. funding, Osama bin Laden imported engineers and equipment from his father’s Saudi construction company to build tunnels for guerrilla training centers and hospitals, and for arms dumps near the Pakistan border.

After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the C.I.A. and the Pakistani intelligence agency sponsored the Taliban organization, a government composed of the fanatic Wahhabi Islamic sect, the same sect that is the state religion in Saudi Arabia.

Although followers of the Wahhabi sect do not refer to themselves as Wahhabis, the label is useful because it applies to a single Muslim group with a set of beliefs peculiar to them alone: Wahhabis maintain that Shi’ites and Sufis are not Muslims, and that Muslims should not visit shrines or celebrate Mohammed’s birthday.

– Laura Secor, “Which Islam?,” Boston Daily Globe, December 15, 2002

The Saudi sheiks have been Wahhabis since they intermarried with the family of a puritanical Muslim scholar, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, in 1774. Supported first by Britain and later by the United States, the Saudis captured the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, easily gaining control of the entire Arabian peninsula.

Wherever they ruled, the Wahhabis imposed their medieval code on their hapless subjects, making public spectacles of stoning adulterers to death and maiming thieves, destroying decorated mosques and cemeteries, prohibiting music, sequestering women, and promoting war on infidels.

The Saudi sheiks have lavished funds on anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorists-in-training while indoctrinating other Muslims through its worldwide network of religious schools, mosques, newspapers, and presses.

The Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan had the blessings of the Saudi royal family and of The Big Three–the bin Laden family, the al Ahmoudi family, and the Mahfouz family–the richest clans in that medieval kingdom. (Khalid bin Mahfouz is bin Laden’s brother-in-law, according to the C.I.A.). The desert oligarchs profited from world-wide investments as well as sleazy banking schemes such as the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

bush saudi kiss

Salem bin Laden, Osama’s brother, has conducted all his American affairs through James Bath, a Houston crony of the Bush family. Bath’s former business partner Bill White testified in court that Bath had been a liaison for the C.I.A.

In 1979 Bath invested $50,000 in Arbusto, George W. Bush’s first business venture. Rumor had it that Bath was acting as Salem bin Laden’s representative.

“In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests.”

–Wayne Madsen, “Questionable Ties: Tracking bin Laden’s money flow leads back to Midland, Texas,”

In addition to doing aviation business with Saudi sheiks, Bath was part owner of a Houston bank whose chief stockholder was Ghaith Pharaon, who represented the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI), a criminal global bank with branches in 73 countries.

BCCI proceeded to defraud depositors of $10 billion during the ‘80s, while providing a money laundry conduit for the Medellin drug cartel, Asia’s major heroin cartel, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A., and Islamist terrorist organizations worldwide.

–”The Press on the BCCI-bin Mahfouz-bin Laden Intelligence Nexus, ” Boston Herald , December 11, 2001–

Big Three wheeler-dealer Khalid bin Mahfouz, one of the largest stockholders in the criminal bank, was indicted when the massive BCCI banking scandal blew apart in the early 1990s. The Saudi royal family placed him under house arrest after discovering that Mahfouz had used the royal bank to channel millions of dollars through fake charities into bin Laden’s organizations, but Mahfouz was not so much punished as inconvenienced.

–Jonathan Beaty & S. C. Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI, (1993) Random House, New York–

Just a little history. The Bush family has a pattern of doing business with unsavory people. GW Bush’s grandfather did business with Hitler before and during World War 2.

In 1989, bin Laden established al Qaeda (the Base) in Afghanistan to organize extremist Wahhabis and disperse their networks throughout the country. A year later, he returned to Saudi Arabia and founded a welfare agency for Arab-Afghan veterans.

Bin Laden hoped to mobilize the veterans as a kind of religious-military army, but King Faud discouraged the venture. When King Faud invited 540,000 American troops to the kingdom to fight in the Gulf War, bin Laden lambasted the royal family and urged religious authorities to issue fatwahs (religious rulings) condemning the American infidels.

In 1991, Osama bin Laden and a band of Afghan veterans agitated in Sudan for a holy war against the enemies of Islam. In 1992, he claimed responsibility for the attack on American soldiers in Yemen, and again for attacks in Somalia in 1993.

He was mum about the terrorist truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the explosion that killed six people and injured more than a thousand, but investigators knew bin Laden had donated heavily to the religious “charity” that financed the bombing operation.

In February 1995, when he was appointed chief of the F.B.I.’s counter-terrorism section in Washington, John O’Neill immediately assembled and coordinated a team to capture Ramzi Yousef, who was en route from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Yousef was strongly suspected of planning and directing the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

In three days, the kingpin of the World Trade Center bombing was in custody, and O’Neill went on to accumulate damning evidence against the 1993 World Trade bombers that led to their conviction in American courts.

For the next six years, John O’Neill tirelessly investigated terrorist strikes against Americans and American interests in Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and Yemen, often encountering American officials’ roadblocks on the way.

Even in 1996, after Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl turned himself in at the American Embassy in Eritrea and divulged details of bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s organization and operations, the State Department refused to list al Qaeda as a terrorist organization.

In February 1998, bin Laden assembled a number of terrorist groups, including Islamic Jihad, and issued a fierce fatwa calling for the deaths of all Americans.

On August 7, 1998, 226 people died in the simultaneous bombing of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Investigators blamed bin Laden for the attacks.

On August 20, 1998, President Clinton amended Executive Order 12947 to add Osama bin Laden and his key associates to the list of terrorists, thus blocking their US assets–including property and bank accounts–and prohibiting all U.S. financial transactions with them. The United States conducted a missile attack against bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan.

On October 12, 2000, two suicide bombers ignited their boatload of explosives next to the USS Cole, an American destroyer refueling in Aden, off the coast of Yemen. The blast killed seventeen sailors and wounded thirty-nine others.

O’Neill and his crack investigating team were dispatched to Yemen and hit a stone wall. He had hoped satellite intercepts of phone calls between an al Qaeda operative in Aden and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan would lead him to the mastermind of the Cole attack, but the American ambassador and the Yemeni officials blocked the investigation at every turn.

O’Neill resigned from the F.B.I. in July 2001 and signed on as security chief for the World Trade Center in September. He died in the WTC attack on September 11, 2001.

In Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden, two French intelligence analysts, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that the Clinton and Bush administrations impeded investigations of bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist group in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia and to maintain the stability of the oil market.

“As the late John O’Neill told one of the authors [Brisard] of this book, ‘All of the answers, all of the clues allowing us to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.’”

–Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden (2002) Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, New York–

In articles and interviews, Brisard has expanded on this statement, pronouncing the official story about bin Laden’s exile from his native Saudi Arabia in 1994 and his frozen assets to be a canard. Not only did O’Neill and the F.B.I. have extensive information concerning the finances of bin Laden and al Qaeda, but the business connections between the bin Ladens, the Mahfouzes, the al Ahmoudis, the Saudi royal family, and the Bush family kept turning up in their investigations.

Mahfouz, who owns Nimir Petroleum, has conducted joint ventures with the al Amoudi family, which owns Delta Oil. Delta Oil and Unocal planned to build a pipeline through Afghanistan before the Taliban backed away. These Saudi companies are still partnered with bigger oil companies (such as Texaco and Unocal) in developing Central Asian oil projects.

Although Brisard’s interpretation of events has been disputed, the documentation of Forbidden Truth is impeccable. Clearly, the finances and fortunes of the Saudi oligarchs and the Bush family have been intertwined for many years, and oil has been the lubricant of choice, even non-existent oil.

In The Conspirators, Al Martin describes an instance of the latter. He says that the Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, of New York, Miami, and Bahrain, was Jeb Bush’s favorite artifice for oil and gas frauds:

“The fraud was rather simple. Richard Secord arranged through then Vice President George Bush Sr.’s old friend, Ghaith Pharaon, the then retired head of Saudi intelligence, for Gulf Oil and Drilling to purchase from the Saudi government oil and gas leases in the Gulf which were effectively worthless.”

The leases would be embellished to appear extremely valuable and then used as loan collateral. Great American Bank and Trust of West Palm Beach subsequently failed under the weight of unpaid Iran-Contra loans.

“Also, in the case of Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, there was some moderately large international lending to that company. As you would suspect, it was principally out of the old George Bush friendly banks–Credit Lyonnais and Banque Paribas, which, combined lent $60 million dollars to Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, which, of course, was defaulted on later.”

–Al Martin, The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider (2002) National Liberty Press, LLC–

Michael Springmann, formerly chief of the visa section at the US Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, claims that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications, but the C.I.A. officer overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued. Springmann protested to the State Department, the Office of Diplomatic Security, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and congressional committees, but in vain.

Center for Cooperative Research,

Springmann observed that 15 of the 19 people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA-dominated consulate in Jeddah. As a special favor to residents of Saudi Arabia (including non-Saudi citizens), applicants for non-immigrant visas can apply at private travel agencies and receive their visa through the mail.

During the months following the 9-11 attack, 102 applicants received their visas by mail, 2 more were interviewed, and none were rejected.

durban wamy

The Saudis always got special treatment. In a November 6, 2001 BBC broadcast Greg Palast revealed just how special that treatment was.

Even after Pakistan expelled the World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and India claimed that the organization was linked to terrorist bombings in Kashmir and the Philippines military accused WAMY of funding Muslim insurgency, the F.B.I. got orders to leave the “charitable association” alone.

After 9/11, investigators of the Islamic charities discovered overwhelming evidence that Saudis at all levels worked in tandem with the terrorists.

David Kaplin reports, “At the Saudi High Commission in Bosnia, which coordinated local aid among Saudi charities, police found before-and-after photos of the World Trade Center, files on pesticides and crop dusters, and information on how to counterfeit State Department badges.

At Manila’s international airport, authorities stopped Agus Dwikarna, an al Haramain representative based in Indonesia. In his suitcase were C4 explosives.”

The interlocking charities make it difficult to follow the money trail. “Many share directors, office space, and cash flow. For two years, investigators have followed the money to offshore trusts and obscure charities which, according to court records, they believe are tied to Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.”

– (US News and World Report, December 15, 2003). –US News and World Report, December 15, 2003–

The White House official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion –apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That’s fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing.

But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th.”

–Greg Palast and David Pallister, “FBI and US Spy Agents Say Bush Spiked Bin Laden Probes Before 11 September,” The Guardian, November 7, 2001–

In the Boston Globe, March 11, 20004, Carl Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties, states that the 9/11 commission should ask who authorized the evacuation of 140 Saudi nationals on at least 8 aircraft making stops in 12 cities immediately following the attacks.

“Many of the passengers were high-ranking members of the royal House of Saud. About 24 of them were members of the bin Laden family, which owned the Saudi Binladin Group, a multibillion-dollar construction conglomerate.” Unger obtained passenger lists for 4 of the flights, which are posted on his website: www.houseofbush.com and includes the name of Prince Ahmed bin Salman.

“As reported last year by Gerald Posner in ‘Why America Slept,‘ Prince Ahmed not only had alleged ties to Al Qaeda, but may also have known in advance that there would be attacks on 9/11.

According to Posner, Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative who was part of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle and was captured in 2002, made these assertions when he was interrogated by the CIA. The commission should ask Mueller about Zubaydah’s interrogation. They should also ask whether the FBI interrogated Prince Ahmed before his departure.

“But Prince Ahmed will never be able to answer any questions because not long after the CIA interrogation, he died of a heart attack at the age of 43. Yet we do know that he was on one of the flights.”

Unger believes that this episode “raises particularly sensitive questions for the administration. Never before in history has a president of the United States had such a close relationship with another foreign power as President Bush and his father have had with the Saudi royal family, the House of Saud.

I have traced more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts that went from the House of Saud over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions — Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them.

Is it possible that President Bush himself played a role in authorizing the evacuation of the Saudis after 9/11? What did he know and when did he know it?”

Article on unasked questions for the 911 commission

In October 2001, the Treasury Department identified the Muwafaq Foundation, largely endowed by Khalid bin Mahfouz, as an al Qaeda front that had funneled millions of dollars to bin Laden. Some families of the 9/11 victims have named Mahfouz and dozens of prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family, in a lawsuit that accuses the Saudis of funding the 9/11 terrorists.

Bush administration officials stated that they would seek to have the suit dismissed or delayed. –Jeff Gerth and Judith Miller, “Saudis Called Slow to Help Stem Terror Finances,” New York Times, November 28, 2002 –

Senators Bob Graham and Richard C. Shelby, leaders of the congressional panel ending an investigation of the 9/11 attacks, said the administration should declassify information concerning Saudi funding of terrorists.

“Citing ‘their people and a lot of their leaders and probably even the royal family,’ Shelby said: ‘I believe [the Saudis] cannot support so-called charities that support terrorism on a big scale, and then pretend that they’re our friends or our allies.

“‘As we get into the money trail, it might be embarrassing, but the American people need to know; the victims and their families need to know,’ he added. Shelby and Graham said avoiding embarrassment and maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia are not legitimate reasons to withhold information from the public.

“‘The question is,’ Graham said after the news conference, ‘will we get [the information declassified] in 30 years when the archives are open, or will we get it in time, before the next attack?’” –Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt, “9/11 Panel Criticizes Secrecy on Saudi Links,” Washington Post, December 12 2002 –

Doubtless one of the connections the senators referred to was the Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the United States for the last twenty years, the longest serving ambassador in Washington.

Princess Haifa had been making monthly transfers, $130,000 in all, from her Washington bank account to a needy woman who relayed some of the checks to her husband and another man who assisted and funded the two hijackers who were based in San Diego. –Greg Miller, Greg Krikorian and H.G. Reza, “FBI Looks at Saudi’s Links to 9/11,” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2002 –

“The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources.

Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United States, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own.

Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it is possible that the hijackers later repaid the money.” –Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, November 22, 2002–

Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa professed their ignorance of the whole affair.

Mark Stein speculates about the recent visit Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa paid to George and Laura at the Crawford ranch, where they were received with the accolades usually reserved for heads of state. Bush must have known about the money transfers and Bandar must have known Bush knew, but apparently a good time was had by all.


I know. It’s all coincidence right?

“Meanwhile, Majeda Ibrahin, the woman the princess was sending all that money to, turns out to be married to Osama Basnan, another buddy of the al-Qa’eda duo, and one who subsequently celebrated 11 September as a ‘wonderful, glorious day’.

But here’s an odd little thing: Mr Basnan is known to have been in Texas in April when Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage flew in to the state to see Bush at the ranch. Just another coincidence?

Well, sorta: he’s supposed to have had a meeting in Houston with some big-time Saudi prince who deals with ‘intelligence matters.’ This seems an unusual degree of access for some schlub from San Diego who’s in the US illegally, as it transpires.

He is variously described as a Saudi government agent and al-Qa’eda sympathiser, as if these positions are mutually exclusive. The Saudi embassy say they’ve only received queries about this matter from the media, not from the FBI.

Odd that. The federal government claims it needs vast new powers to track every single credit-card transaction and every single email of every single American, yet a prima facie link between the terrorists and Prince Bandar’s wife isn’t worth going over to the embassy to have a little chat about.” –Mark Steyn, “Bush and the Saudi Princess” –

Apparently it is not only the Saudis’ oil riches that insulates them from criticism, but also their calculated distribution of largesse. The Saudis have contributed to every presidential library in recent decades.

Not surprisingly, former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia from the United States end up being apologists for the corrupt, despotic Saudi regime. The Saudis have arranged that American ambassadors to their country not speak Arabic. The American embassy in Saudi Arabia gets all its information about the reactionary regime from the rulers.

Some of the Washington politicians who found the Saudi connection lucrative include Spiro Agnew, Frank Carlucci, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John Connally, James Baker, George H. W. Bush, William Simon and Caspar Weinberger. –Daniel Golden, James Bandler and Marcus Walker, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2001 Posted at globalresearch.ca 5 October 2001 –

bush family

THE BUSH DYNASTY

The Bush dynasty has always been comfortable putting profits before patriotism. Prescott Bush, Bush Senior’s father, extended credit to Adolph Hitler and supplied him with raw materials during Word War II. The U. S. seized his assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act, but grandfather Bush found other ways to replenish the family coffers.

Bush Senior struck it rich in oil and in the defense industry. Mahfouz (yes, that Mahfouz), Prince Bandar and Prince Sultan (Bandar’s father) were also heavily invested in the defense industry through their holdings in the Carlyle Group, where Bush Senior served on the board of directors.

Founded in 1987 as a private investment group with strong connections to the Republican Party establishment, Carlyle increased its original investment of $130 million to $900 million when it went public in 2001.

“In recent years, Carlyle has been successful both at raising and making money. It has raised $14 billion in the last five years or so, and its annual rate of return has been 36 percent. Its 550 investors consist of institutions and wealthy individuals from around the world including, until shortly after September 2001, members of the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.

The family — which has publicly disavowed links with Osama bin Laden — had been an investor since 1995.” –James Hatfield, “Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?” Online Journal, July 13, 2001–

“As the eleventh largest US defence contractor, Carlyle is involved in nearly every aspect of military production, including making the big guns used on US naval destroyers, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle used by US forces during the Gulf War and parts used in most commercial and military aircraft.

United Defense has joint ventures in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the United States’ closest military allies in the Middle East.” –Steve Lohr, “Gerstner to Be Chairman of Carlyle Group,” New York Times, November 22, 2002–

It’s passing strange that even as the hijacked planes smashed into the World Trade Center, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference. Shafig Bin Laden, brother of Osama Bin Laden, attended.

Bush Junior once served as an executive with Caterair, one of hundreds of companies Carlyle has bought and sold over the past 15 years, but he removed the record of this period from his resume.

In 1986, Bush Junior, to date a flop as a businessman, joined Harken Energy Corporation as a director and was awarded 212,000 shares of stock and other plums.

In 1987, Khalid bin Mahfouz arranged for BCCI investor Abdullah Bakhsh to purchase 17% of Harken.

A Harken official acknowledged that Bush’s White House connections had everything to do with the appointment.

Somehow, the inexperienced, obscure firm was awarded a prime drilling contract by Bahrain, and Harken’s stock price soared.

In June 1990, Bush Junior sold his Harken stock for a juicy $848,000, enabling him to pay off the loan he had assumed on buying shares in the Texas Rangers. Never mind that the Harken stock promptly tanked when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for Abdullah Bakhsh, a major Harken shareholder and an investor in BCCI, who had purchased 17% of Harken Energy in 1987, got his money’s worth.

By 1990, Bakhsh’s representative on Harken’s board, Talet Othman, began attending Middle East policy discussions with President Bush Senior.

Now that Bush Junior occupies the White House, Bush Senior receives frequent CIA briefings (his prerogative as a former president). “In July 2001, Bush personally contacted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to ‘clarify’ his son’s Middle East policies.

Also during the summer of 2001, Bush forwarded his son a North Korea policy plan penned by ‘Asia expert’ and former ambassador to Korea, Donald Gregg. Gregg is a 31-year CIA veteran and the elder Bush’s former national security adviser whose expertise involved participation in the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program (death squads), Air America heroin smuggling, ‘pacification’ efforts in El Salvador and Guatemala, the ‘October Surprise,’ and the Iran-Contra operation (for which Gregg received a Bush pardon in 1992). –” Tim Shorrock uncovers the Bush connection to US defence giant the Carlyle Group, New Internationalist 347, July 2002–

Bush Junior has received more than advice from his father. He has taken on the team of hustlers and criminals that worked with George Herbert Walker Bush when he was Vice President and President of the United States of America.

Just as his father did, he invokes executive privilege to hide all evidence of collusion with the petroleum pashas who have enriched the Bushes and intimidated the rest of us.

Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, asserts that what the Bush administration really wants in Iraq is a remapping of the Mideast.

“The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran — either by force or internal rebellion.”

The Bushes are carriers of the deny-destroy-and-be-damned virus. Prescott Bush never apologized for trading with the Nazis. George Bush Senior professed to know nothing of the drug and arms dealing that funded the bloody, illegal Iran-Contra operations, although it was common knowledge that he directed them.

He and his sons enriched themselves through shady real estate deals and financial manipulations that brought down entire banking and savings and loan institutions. They are all consummate inside traders, looting and leaving ruin in their wake.

President-Select George Bush has no scruples about exploiting his office for personal and family gain. The Texas governor who could joke about frying prisoners in the electric chair will not, as president, agonize over the decision to send young men and women into battle–or over denying them medical care when they return home injured.

There is irrefutable evidence that highly-placed Saudis aided and supported the terrorists who murdered thousands of American citizens on September 11, 2001. Yet George Bush persists in protecting and colluding with those who sponsor terrorists. Is this not an an act of treason?

And some of you actually still believe that GW Bush is looking out after our best interests?

Are all of these sources lying?

They just invented a conspiracy?

How long can people believe these things aren’t true about our beloved president?

It’s not your right to question your government, it’s your duty to do so. –Thomas Jefferson–

Was he lying too?

16 January 2008

War, Foriegn Policy, and the Constitution

posted in: Consumer Protection, Main, Politics, Religion, War — namecritic @ 9:37 pm

15 January 2008

What Rights Are Guaranteed to us by the First Ammendment to the US Constitution?

posted in: Consumer Protection, Main, Politics, Religion, War — namecritic @ 9:29 pm

13 January 2008

How Does the US Bill of Rights Protect Us?

posted in: Consumer Protection, Main, Politics, Religion, War — namecritic @ 9:37 pm

Just Some Facts About The Bush Family, The Iraq War, Cheney, and more

posted in: War — namecritic @ 4:19 pm

Bush family has been in the oil and energy business since the 50s.

Cheney in the oil construction business.

Texaco named a tanker after Condeleeza Rice.

The bush family has the same oil business interests as the saudi royal family.

Gas prices are higher than ever before.

We are attacking an oil producing country that would not do business with the bush family interests or the saudi companies.

Cheney as secretary of defense under reagan gave billions of no-bid contracts to haliburton.

Cheney became ceo of haliburton receiving millions of dollars in compensation.

Cheney as VP under bush, haliburton gets billions in no-bid contracts.

15 of 19 hijackers were saudis.

The saudi royal family gave money to the 911 hijackers.

Bush refused to allow investigation of saudis in relation to 911.

Sept. 12th no americans allowed to fly, but saudi families including the bin laden family allowed to fly that day.

One of Bush’s former cabinet members reveals that Bush planned to invade Iraq in February of 2001, months before 911.

Bush refers to 911 when talking about the Iraq war as if it were not planned before then and as if the two were related even though he has admitted there is no direct link between 911 and Iraq.

Afganistan had the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. Bin Laden was directly tied to the attacks on 911.

Afganistan has a much larger population than Iraq.

We spend about 10% of the funds approved for the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and 90% of them in Iraq.

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

Can you really take all that together and tell me nothing is wrong here? Can you really believe that the war in Iraq is about Terrorism? Can you read this and tell me Bush is doing what is best for our country? Can you really beieve the Saudis had nothing to do with 911? Can you really believe that Bush’s primary goal is going after the terrorists that toppled the twin towers on 911?

This is not a conspiracy theory. The above are facts. I simply stated them all together in the same place to see if you can still convince yourself we should support bush and his war on Iraq. And if you can still support the war with Iraq, can you still convince yourself that it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with 911 and that it has NOTHING to do with oil company profits?

12 January 2008

Illegal Wiretapping by President Bush

posted in: Politics, War — namecritic @ 3:55 pm

I posted awhile back on >the use of torture by the bush administration and talked about what other laws he possibly broke. HopsoneBen, a regular commenter here took exception and states I am just anti-bush and thats the only reason to point out the flaws in this administration.

The subject turned to the constitution and what laws Bush may or may not have broken involving things like torture and wiretaps. This post is about the wiretaps and the source is the former head of the justice department’s computer crimes unit, Mark D. Rasch, J.D.

Let’s talk about the wiretaps.

These [intercepts] are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people, according to the White House.

The people targeted (even U.S. citizens) are very bad people. And they are calling them very bad people. Which, more than anything else raises the question - why not get a warrant?

Whenever a US Citizen is suspected of something, the government must get a warrant to search their home, car, property, or to wiretap their phones or intercept their email, unless their is sufficient probable cause and a danger of immediate threat such as a police officer making sure you are not carrying a gun or a knife and he is concerned for his own personal safety. That’s the law.

That law protects all of us from illegal search and siezure.

Can the President of the United States, during a time of war (albeit a war on terror, or terrorism, or fundamentalism without any end in sight whatsoever) assert plenary executive authority to intercept communications, including e-mails and other electronic communications originating from the United States and from U.S. citizens without any kind of judicial warrant?

The U.S. Constitution

The first place to start any analysis of privacy, search, seizure and surveillance is with the U.S. Constitution itself. The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That is how the law reads. It is pretty specific about searches on US Citizens and what is required in order to search them, their home, or their property.

Warrantless foreign intelligence collection has been an established practice of the Executive Branch for decades.

During the civil war, the government could lock up editors and publishers (that was, northern editors and publishers) for writing unfavorable articles, prevent newspapers from having mailing privileges, and even seize the property (slaves) of southerners (The Emancipation Proclamation) to cause hardship and economic suffering to the enemy.

You could punish as seditious libel that which would otherwise be free speech (the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under President John Adams), and lock up tens of thousands of U.S. citizens based upon nothing more than their ethnicity (the Japanese detention cases during World War II.)

Historically, the Courts have been reluctant to look beyond the declarations of the executive branch during time of war concerning the necessity of some acts to protect the American people.

Indeed, only when President Truman attempted to use the Korean War (a conflict?) as justification for seizing the steel mills did the courts deny his assertion of Presidential war power.

We are at war with Iraq. If these presidential or executive war powers were used against Iraqis who might be an enemy of the state, then nothing would be wrong with the use of such power.

In addition to the general war powers, the President and the Attorney General have relied on an act of Congress - the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed on September 18, 2001

Right after 911, when officially and legally, we had not declared war on any country as of yet.

This is important because the wiretapping laws make it a crime to engage in warrantless wiretaps unless otherwise authorized by statute.

The administration is reading the AUMF as the “statute” that authorizes the wiretapping, even while Members of Congress are emphasizing that they intended no such thing.

The AUMF empowered the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” that he determines “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

It did not say anyone who is a US citizen and makes an overseas phone call. It said clearly, “If they were involved in the 911 attacks.

Much of what the NSA and the intelligence community does is in violation of some law somewhere. Indeed, much of what the military does is as well. When the NSA intercepts a communication from France to Afghanistan, it probably violates the privacy and electronic surveillance laws in both countries. When it installs alligator clips on a phone in Turkmenistan, it probably violates some local burglary or trespass law.

We know this. It’s no surprise and it’s an acceptable practice, by me as well, when those in the spy game use these tactics in other countries.

Espionage - the staple of the CIA - is a felony in almost every nation, and a capitol offense in the U.S.

It is a capitol offense to spy on US Citizens and not within the scope of any other than the FBI to investigate US Citizens suspected of espionage.

What the so-called NSA domestic spying scandal addresses is whether the process violates U.S. law.

In the December 2000 criminal prosecution of Osama Bin Laden for the first World Trade Center attack, the Court found that the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not apply to searches conducted on foreign nationals overseas - indeed, there was no mechanism for a judge in Manhattan to order a search or interception in Nairobi.

But that is overseas. So if the wiretaps were done by the U.S. government against foreign targets overseas, everything would have been ok.

But the revelations were that the government was targeting U.S. persons for intercepts based upon some “connection” to some overseas person.

The first assumption under federal law is that all wiretapping done in this country or wiretapping directed against U.S. citizens or permanent residents is illegal.

Three separate laws make it a crime to engage in electronic surveillance unless specifically authorized by statute.

>50 USC 1809(a); >47 USC 605; and >18 USC 2511;

There are several exceptions to this presumption, including;

Consent of one or all of the parties to the communication

Interception by the provider of telecommunications services in the ordinary course of business for certain purposes.

These are interceptions that do not implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy, and finally,

interceptions done pursuant to court orders. That is, orders by the judicial branch.

If President Bush is trying to get a law passed that retroactively makes it legal for the telecommunications companies to do this, then it can only be assumed it was illegal at the time they did it.

Even if you have good intentions in doing something and it breaks a law, you can go to jail. To think otherwise is just naive. I’m betting that if you go out and break a law and you had a really good reason for doing so, the government is not likely to try to pass a law that makes what you did ok. I’m betting they will prosecute you anyway.

But with the wiretapping, Bush and the telecommunications companies broke the law and are now asking for a law that makes what they did legal. Call it the Bush time machine. He did the same thing with the CIA prisons overseas. He denied they existed, then admitted they existed and that it was illegal, then in his own words, “dared” congress to make what he did legal so he can continue to do it.

He also did not adhere to the third exception, getting a warrant before wiretapping US citizens.

For interception of the contents of communications within the United States (whether among citizens or not) the government (typically the FBI) can get a warrant under the federal wiretap statute (called Title III) or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Such warrants are difficult to obtain, must be supported by a finding of probable cause to believe that a crime has been or will be committed and that the tap will uncover evidence of that crime, and that reasonable steps have been taken to minimize the possibility that non-criminal conversations (or e-mails) will be intercepted and examined.

As part of the USA-PATRIOT Act, Congress authorized so-called “roving” wiretaps, which allow the FBI and not the Court to decide that a target was now using a different telephone, and to transfer the wiretap authority from one phone to another.

This resulted in reports of hundreds of erroneous wiretaps for the wrong telephone number, address, or email address.

But Title III wiretap orders apply only to findings of criminal activity. Now it is difficult for me to imagine a circumstance where someone could be part of a terrorist organization, planning or discussing terrorist activities and not be suspected of a crime. Terrorism is a crime. Murder is a crime. Destruction of property is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime. Money laundering, fraud, immigration fraud, false statements, counterfeiting - all of these are crimes.

In the recent Spielberg movie Munich, Mossad agents assigned to assassinate those responsible for planning the abduction and murder of Israeli Olympic athletes agonize over the legality of their actions, but ultimately focus on its necessity. Niceties of the law are rarely debated on the battlefield, and according to the current administration, the battlefield is everywhere and forever.

Declaring the war powers act something that can be used anywhere and anytime and even against US citizens is so dangerous everyone should be alarmed that our president wants to be all powerful in not only using it whenever or wherever he wants but to whomever he wants. All he has to do is jot their name down on a list and say they are a possible enemy combatant.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There has never been a law passed that someone did not misuse or use loopholes that were not inteneded to be there for their own personal gain or agenda. This law would be no different and even if you trust Bush with this power, do you trust every future president with the same power? Do you trust Hillary Clinton with absolute power? Obama? Edwards?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Nevertheless, the executive branch has another mechanism for obtaining court orders to intercept communications (including e-mail) if the government doesn’t believe that it has evidence of a crime.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to get an interception or seizure order (or a secret search warrant) by proving to a special super-secret court that the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence, including (as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act) intelligence about terrorism.

FISA orders are directed at interceptions of “U.S. Persons” meaning U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, or U.S. corporations. Thus, if a U.S. person is the target of the surveillance, FISA by its terms, applies. If the U.S. person is not the target, but is otherwise intercepted, the surveillance is okay as long as there are appropriate minimizations procedures in place.

There was a court in place that would have approved warrants for the wiretaps. George Bush CHOSE not to get a warrant.

Prior to the enactment of FISA, domestic wiretaps were routinely done for “national security purposes” under nothing more than Presidential authority. Presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon ordered domestic wiretaps to protect national security.

Indeed, prior to the enactment of the FISA statute, there used to be an exception in the wiretap criminal statute that provided, “[n]othing contained in this [statute] shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities…”

The Nixon administration used this exception to conduct surveillance and interception without warrants on a host of domestic “subversive” groups. When this was revealed, Congress stepped in to limit the abuses by giving the President a mechanism for conducting foreign intelligence (and now terrorism) investigations by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

But Bush chose to ignore that a new law had been passed to make sure that the ability to use wiretaps was not abused.

FISA and Presidential power

With the enactment of the FISA statute, this provision was changed to essentially read that FISA now “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”

That seems pretty clear doesn’t it?

Thirty three years ago the US government tried to rely on pure Presidential power to engage in domestic surveillance of domestic subversive groups without a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s contention that the courts were not prepared to deal with the sensitive classified information, could not make informed decisions about the threats to national security, and that the President had independent authority to order these wiretaps without the Courts.

Again, the courts decided that even the president needs to get a warrant. It’s pretty clear what the law says.

Even if the wiretaps were “reasonable” the Supreme court opined, they violated the Fourth Amendment.

So it doesn’t matter that you think what Bush did was reasonable in this dire time of terrorist threats. Your opinion and my opinion are not law. Even IF you think what Bush did was reasonable the supreme court says it is illegal according to our constitution.

Shortly thereafter, the same court found that even the Attorney General could be held liable for authorizing these “national security” wiretaps in that case against a group planning to bomb bridges and tunnels.

It was this precedent, establishing that a government official’s immunity for ordering such illegal wiretaps is only limited that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito sought to reverse when he was advising the Reagan Administration’s Justice Department.

Again, even IF you think this is a bad law, it is still the law. And no one, including elected officials is above the law.

Why not FISA for the NSA?

If these taps truly were aimed narrowly at “bad persons talking to bad persons” why couldn’t the NSA get a FISA warrant?

The President and Attorney General have both opined that it would be impossible to do so because of the “need for speed,” despite the fact that FISA allows warrants to be issued after the fact.

So Bush could have even gotten the warrant AFTER doing the wiretaps and still he CHOSE not to get a warrant. There is no excuse for this at all.

In addition, the President has stated that FISA was designed for “extended” surveillance - presumably implying that the wiretaps and email surveillances at issue were for a brief period of time. The administration has also asserted that they couldn’t ask Congress to amend FISA because that would have alerted our enemies to the fact that we were intercepting communications.

Yet Bush claimed he needed roving wiretaps because the enemy DID already know they were being intercepted and were using prepaid throwaway cellphones to communicate. So he wanted roving wiretaps because the enemy knew their communications were being intercepted and didn’t want to ask congress about revising FISA because he didn’t want the suspected terrorists to know we were intercepting communications? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Now anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy knows how hard it is to get anything done. Indeed, to get a FISA tap, the NSA agent monitoring traffic in the field (whether that is in Afghanistan, at an ISP, or in Fort Meade, Maryland) would likely have to get the approval of several levels of supervisors, and then lawyers for the NSA would get involved.

Then the NSA would have to involve the Department of Justice’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and the Office of the Attorney General to review and analyze the FISA order, establish appropriate minimization procedures, and present the case for review by the FISA court. Finally, the FISA court would be convened and review, modify or approve the request for a wiretap. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow.

However, it was legal to do all of that AFTER doing the wiretap. They were not required to go through all of that BEFORE doing the wiretap.

I can’t imagine however, that the non-FISA “presidential authority” wiretaps would be much faster. NSA agents and supervisors, NSA counsel and the Department of Justice would all have to be involved in approving the wiretaps, and they would then have to be reviewed by the White House, and ultimately approved by the President himself. This may turn out to be a case where the need for “speed” is really a euphemism for the need to assert Presidential authority over the courts.

Exactly the intention of President Bush judging by his actions in other areas using executive authority.

So what is likely to happen? Already one member of the FISA court has resigned in protest, and Congress is likely to hold hearings not only on the specifics of the NSA wiretaps but also on whether FISA needs to be reformed in light of the government’s needs. If the President’s authority is, as he asserts, plenary during a time of war, then laws like the USA-PATRIOT Act would be unnecessary, and would in fact limit the President’s plenary powers. One thing is certain. The “war on terrorism” is a fundamentally different kind of war than, say the Civil War or World War II, new threats, new laws and new technology make for interesting times.

However, this new kind of war does not mean we throw away all of the laws we have or even just throw away the laws that the president doesn’t happen to like or finds inconvenient.

The Rest of The Story on wiretapping and presidential executive powers here

2 January 2008

Torture - Does The End Justify The Means?

posted in: War — namecritic @ 3:00 am

That’s the real question here. Are we as Americans ok with anything as long as the end justifies the means? The subject of waterboarding has been in the news a lot lately. There is one case that the administration says that due to waterboarding they got information that saved millions of lives.

Even in 9-11, the worst terrorist attack in history, there were not “millions” of lives lost. But we are supposed to believe that they received information by waterboarding someone that saved “millions” of lives.

They aren’t going to give us actual information to back that statement up. They will say they cannot do that due to national security. So they can claim anything they want without having to provide any proof whatsoever.

But let’s say they really did get information by waterboarding that saved whatever number of lives. Should we then be ok with pulling out people’s fingernails? How about electric shock? How about poking out someone’s eyeballs? How about skinning a person alive? How about burning them with fire? How about using brands to scar them until they talk? How about cutting off their testicles?

How far are we willing to go? The administration wants us to believe that as long as they can claim to get results that whatever they do is ok? We talk about waterboarding, but what if that isn’t enough to make someone talk? Can we go ahead and take it a little further?

How about caning people, which the US condemns when other countries do it? How about using a whip on people like was done to the slaves in our own history? Would those be ok too?

Jesus was tortured. The republican administration and GW Bush say they are christian. Christians are supposed to strive to live like Christ lived. We are not perfect like Jesus was. But we are supposed to try.

So I have to ask the question;

Who would Jesus torture?

6 December 2007

Why Is Anyone Suprised Bush Lied?

posted in: Politics, War — namecritic @ 9:17 pm

The news media is covering the story about bush lying about Iran as if it is the first time bush lied about something.

White House Reveals Bush Lied: Was Told In August Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘May Be Suspended’

On Tuesday, President Bush said he was never forewarned by the intelligence community that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003:

In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was.

Now the White House is revealing that wasn’t true. In fact, Bush did know what the information was. CNN reports:

President Bush was told in August that Iran’s nuclear weapons program ‘may be suspended,’ the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.”

bush telling one thing to the right and another to the left

Bush lied about Iraq. He lied about WMDs. He lied about the medicare plan and the pharmaceutical companies. He lied about secret CIA prisons. He lied about torture. He lied about the wiretapping. He lied about warrantless searches. It’s what he does. It’s all he does. No surprise anymore.

The Rest of The Story here

comment »
 

Quote of the Day

As long as you eat in time
You will never go hungry

McMike - 1999



News and Media Blog  Who Let The Blog Out?

Powered by mijzelf !! en MainCore