Spy on The Enemy, NOT The Innocent
Starmail - 21. Dez, 11:03
Vote USA 2004
21
Dez
2005
California 'Hack' Test Stalled As Diebold Certification Derails
Starmail - 21. Dez, 11:02
Lawmakers raise prospect of impeaching Bush
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3821/
Informant: jensenmk
From ufpj-news
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo
Informant: jensenmk
From ufpj-news
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo
Starmail - 21. Dez, 10:57
20
Dez
2005
The Truth About Bush's Warrantless Spying
On Saturday, President Bush acknowledged that he had personally authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program more than three dozen times since October 2001. Bush's actions run contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids "unreasonable searches" and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including "probable cause." They demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the basic liberties that serve as our nation's guiding values. They are also in violation of federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Moreover, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted." The President's actions were not necessary; if he had legitimate concerns about FISA, "the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law." Below, we debunk the administration's attempts to justify Bush's actions.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, "It's the kind of capability, if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new "capability." The government "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed "to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations." This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, "government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat." More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to
72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration "did not seek to do that under the special program."
FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn't "comment about the veracity of the story...because it would compromise our ability to protect the people." Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration's initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA -- which has long been public -- is the same under President Bush's secretive program.
FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified "authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country," then explained she was "not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions." Indeed, Rice said several times that she is "not a lawyer." That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bushs decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders -- specifically "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" -- had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: "There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to...begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens." Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been "advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities."
FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president "at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief?" After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: "Senator, this president is not ?I ?it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to "commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it." Gonzales replied, "I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."
Informant: Scott Munson
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, "It's the kind of capability, if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new "capability." The government "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed "to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations." This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, "government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat." More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to
72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration "did not seek to do that under the special program."
FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn't "comment about the veracity of the story...because it would compromise our ability to protect the people." Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration's initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA -- which has long been public -- is the same under President Bush's secretive program.
FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified "authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country," then explained she was "not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions." Indeed, Rice said several times that she is "not a lawyer." That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bushs decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders -- specifically "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" -- had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: "There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to...begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens." Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been "advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities."
FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president "at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief?" After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: "Senator, this president is not ?I ?it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to "commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it." Gonzales replied, "I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."
Informant: Scott Munson
Starmail - 20. Dez, 23:24
Donors Underwrite DeLay's Luxury Lifestyle
As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1425390
Informant: Bigraccoon
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1425390
Informant: Bigraccoon
Starmail - 20. Dez, 23:19
SAVE our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Please SAVE our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is information to contact Senator Bill Nelson, he will do what is right!!!
His Washington D.C. office telephone is JAMMED!!!, but you can call his Coral Gables office it is open. I did!!
Alan Dicey
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D) Local Address
2925 Salzedo Street Miami, Florida 33134
(305) 536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991
Washington Address
716 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Telephone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
E-mail: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
E-Mail: senator@billnelson.senate.gov
His Washington D.C. office telephone is JAMMED!!!, but you can call his Coral Gables office it is open. I did!!
Alan Dicey
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D) Local Address
2925 Salzedo Street Miami, Florida 33134
(305) 536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991
Washington Address
716 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Telephone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
E-mail: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
E-Mail: senator@billnelson.senate.gov
Starmail - 20. Dez, 22:35
Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz soll in CIA-Affaire verwickelt sein
München: Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz soll angeblich in CIA-Affaire verwickelt sein (20.12.05)
In den Fall des von der CIA entführten Deutsch-Libanesen Khaled el Masri soll einem "Focus"-Bericht zufolge auch das bayerische Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz (LfV) verwickelt gewesen sein. Demnach soll ein LfV-Mitarbeiter ein Dossier über El Masri einem Verbindungsbeamten des US-Geheimdienstes CIA übergeben haben. Das Landesamt wies die Behauptung als falsch zurück. Die FDP verlangte Aufklärung vom bayerischen Innenminister Günther Beckstein.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12561
In den Fall des von der CIA entführten Deutsch-Libanesen Khaled el Masri soll einem "Focus"-Bericht zufolge auch das bayerische Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz (LfV) verwickelt gewesen sein. Demnach soll ein LfV-Mitarbeiter ein Dossier über El Masri einem Verbindungsbeamten des US-Geheimdienstes CIA übergeben haben. Das Landesamt wies die Behauptung als falsch zurück. Die FDP verlangte Aufklärung vom bayerischen Innenminister Günther Beckstein.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12561
Starmail - 20. Dez, 22:26
Tell U.S. Senate to Reject Indefensible Defense Bill
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
The last bill of the year for the Congress is the massive Department of Defense (DoD) spending bill, which funds the military and, in this case, other crucial national security issues such as disaster assistance and avian flu preparedness. Unfortunately, the Congress passed up a tremendous opportunity to pass a provision to limit the global trade in cockfighting birds--a well-established threat to transmit bird flu and a pathway to spread the deadly disease across the globe--and instead used the Defense spending bill to attach a controversial provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Senate will vote on this bill as soon as Wednesday, please tell your Senators to reject it.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
Animal protection advocates were more than hopeful that the House would attach the relatively uncontroversial "Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act" (S. 382 and H.R. 817) to the DoD spending bill given that there were a raft of provisions attached to combat avian influenza and to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic. But not only was the anti-cockfighting bill not included, the committee reviewing the DoD appropriations bill went out of its way to explicitly state in a press release that it never intended to include any language related to anti-animal fighting efforts. Tell Congress to reject the DoD bill.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
To add insult to injury, the committee then tacked on a controversial rider that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of species of wildlife including polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife species. The HSUS has long opposed drilling in the Arctic, and a measure that stirs such controversy and that has divided the country and the Congress should not be handled in this manner. Congress should be doing all it can to combat bird flu, not slipping in a controversial energy production plan in a wildlife refuge.
Do we have to wait for an outbreak of avian flu to occur in this country before we put an end to the barbaric cockfighting industry? Please act now! Call your U.S. Senators today. You can reach your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Not sure what to say? Click here to look up your Senators, see a sample phone call, and to send an email to your Senators.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
The DoD appropriations bill will be up for a vote as soon as Wednesday. Tell your Senators to reject the final DoD appropriations bill because it includes Arctic drilling but does not include common-sense measures to help stop the spread of bird flu by cracking down on cruel cockfights. Urge your friends to take action, too.
Thank you for your action in these last critical hours. I know many of you are busy with holiday preparations, and I appreciate you taking time out for this important matter.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Copyright © 2005 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). All Rights Reserved.
The Humane Society of the United States | 2100 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037, humanelines@hsus.org | 202-452-1100 | http://www.hsus.org
The last bill of the year for the Congress is the massive Department of Defense (DoD) spending bill, which funds the military and, in this case, other crucial national security issues such as disaster assistance and avian flu preparedness. Unfortunately, the Congress passed up a tremendous opportunity to pass a provision to limit the global trade in cockfighting birds--a well-established threat to transmit bird flu and a pathway to spread the deadly disease across the globe--and instead used the Defense spending bill to attach a controversial provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Senate will vote on this bill as soon as Wednesday, please tell your Senators to reject it.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
Animal protection advocates were more than hopeful that the House would attach the relatively uncontroversial "Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act" (S. 382 and H.R. 817) to the DoD spending bill given that there were a raft of provisions attached to combat avian influenza and to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic. But not only was the anti-cockfighting bill not included, the committee reviewing the DoD appropriations bill went out of its way to explicitly state in a press release that it never intended to include any language related to anti-animal fighting efforts. Tell Congress to reject the DoD bill.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
To add insult to injury, the committee then tacked on a controversial rider that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of species of wildlife including polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife species. The HSUS has long opposed drilling in the Arctic, and a measure that stirs such controversy and that has divided the country and the Congress should not be handled in this manner. Congress should be doing all it can to combat bird flu, not slipping in a controversial energy production plan in a wildlife refuge.
Do we have to wait for an outbreak of avian flu to occur in this country before we put an end to the barbaric cockfighting industry? Please act now! Call your U.S. Senators today. You can reach your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Not sure what to say? Click here to look up your Senators, see a sample phone call, and to send an email to your Senators.
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR
The DoD appropriations bill will be up for a vote as soon as Wednesday. Tell your Senators to reject the final DoD appropriations bill because it includes Arctic drilling but does not include common-sense measures to help stop the spread of bird flu by cracking down on cruel cockfights. Urge your friends to take action, too.
Thank you for your action in these last critical hours. I know many of you are busy with holiday preparations, and I appreciate you taking time out for this important matter.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Copyright © 2005 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). All Rights Reserved.
The Humane Society of the United States | 2100 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037, humanelines@hsus.org | 202-452-1100 | http://www.hsus.org
Starmail - 20. Dez, 22:06
Bush cannot alter the law
Starmail - 20. Dez, 22:00
The Constitution in Crisis
In brief, we have found there is substantial evidence that the president, vice president, and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for said war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml
Starmail - 20. Dez, 21:55
