www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Crimes Against Humanity

Daniel,

I was taught well never to waste words. With that thought Wolfgang and I agree.

CDL

Please link to this piece. Until now all relevant material that I've seen that claimed "Clinton did it too", were equivocal on the meaning of "it". The relevant "it": Bush acted against explicit law in spying on US citizens.

But I think this leak is being investigated. Bear in mind, however, that, thankfully, there are provisions in law, to protect whistleblowers - those that report unlawful activity.

What is the meaning of "him"? Abramoff gave money to Republicans only. The records are public. Some clients of Abramoff gave money both to Republicans and Democrats.

True. But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Not surrendering rights because "everyone does 'it'".

Sorry, but I don�t see it online in a quick search. I'll look again later. I did come across a quote in Charles Krauthammer�s column which states:

But Schmidt was not the one who wrote the article and this does not go far enough. I do remember that the article included a reference to Clinton okaying it for wiretapping to get information on the sale of secrets by Aldrich Ames of the CIA. [See Schmidt\'s artilce: President had legal authority to OK taps [chicagotribune.com] , which I did find on the net.]

Unlawful activity should be reported. If it involves classified information it should be reported through the proper channels. Those who reported it via the press should be tried for treason for exposing national secrets to the enemy during a time of war.

From everything I have read Abramoff gave some money directly and some was directed from clients to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle at his direct request. Since he has already pleaded guilty and has promised to cooperate I hope that everything is made public. But you might be right that the Dems were smart to make sure their money was laundered in a way that it might not have been obtained illegally. Shame on them all.

And, yes, we probably should have separate threads going for each of these topics. This is where the definition of "complex and vibrant" for "byzantine" applies!

There is a difference between claiming the right and actually breaking the law. As I thought, "it" doesn't mean "it".

What was the secret? That Bush was not going to court to get the warrants as required by law? How is that a National Secret. You might call to mind Fitzgerald comment: we don't have an official secrets act.

Regardless, you are wrong. Look at the public records: Abramoff gave directly to Republicans only. You might like to consider, moreover, that the Native Americans in this country have a life outside of Abramoff, they are not merely agents of his. And the money they gave to all parties was theirs, not his. He was bilking them, remember, not the other way around.

These quotes are from the late, great Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, one time Speaker of the Assembly and former Treasurer for the State Of California. [/QUOTE]

In my Classical Five-Element Acupuncture Class, one of the patients was related to him. That's all I'll say to protect his confidentiality.

This is not about the meaning of �it�. Time will tell, of course, but it seems to me that the courts have previously held that the Constitution does not allow Congress to legislate certain actions of the president that he might take in the interests of national security (and, therefore, the actions of the president were not illegal). This may be an issue where those wishing to restrict the president need to amend the Constitution.

The secret was that we were actually listening to specific terrorists based upon intelligence we had obtained from other terrorists. The terrorists may have guessed this but now they know it for sure. The violation is in releasing classified information that is damaging to the security of the United States. If the person who obtained knowledge of this information was bothered by this he should have brought it to the attention of the appropriate individuals for redress. If he had not known who to take this information to he should have contacted one of his congressional representatives (or anyone in Congress). I am confident that had he given it to such an individual (and, if a member of Congress, one on either side of the aisle) this issue could have investigated without leaking classified information and, if deemed necessary, adjustments to the program be made (although I doubt it would have been necessary).

It is true that Native Americans have a life outside of Abramoff. It seems very likely, however, that these Native Americans who hired Abramoff to help them give money where it would be influential would have followed his advice. He was about the horrible business of buying votes wherever he could find them, be they within the Democratic or Republican members of Congress.

Well you still haven't posted the original source for the claim that Clinton did "it", too. In the meantime Clinton denies it, and the NSA said they only began warrantless eavesdropping on Bush's orders. Nightline [abcnews.go.com] (Repoted also here [sltrib.com] .)

Crimes against humanity? Judge for yourself: War Crimes Watch [warcrimeswatch.org]
-Daniel

I can�t find the original. The debate will rage on and it will surely be in the news again. When I see it next time I will remember it and post it. The main example of a wireless wiretap given in the article was CIA spy Aldrich Ames, probably because it was so public. I am not expecting a complete listing of examples from the Clinton administration since it is probably classified. I am curious to know if Clinton denied the warrantless wiretapping because he forgot about Aldrich Ames, if he believes it falls into a different class, or if he was being intentionally misleading.

There are a few articles that discuss this topic that you might be interested in:
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls [rds.yahoo.com]

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches Does anyone remember that? [nationalreview.com]

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court.

Clinton Executive Order 12949 - Foreign Intelligence PHYSICAL Searches [fas.org] MORE [fas.org]


But most of these are not liberal sources so I will expect you will reject them. That's OK. Be patient and all will be told. In the meantime you might consider the logic that that Clinton issues executive orders for warrantless surveillance for a reason.

Daniel,

Thanks for the link. Since 95% of your posts are anti-Bush and you praise highly the ability of Iraqis to live a quiet, normal life under Hussein we know which side you are on. Are you also among those who consider the Islamic terrorists to be freedom fighters?

Admin

First, the NRO article again gets squishy on "it". One may advance a claim of authority over a law but are not in legal jeopardy unless the law is actually broken. Not the same "it"s.

Newsmax, of course, is not a news source at all; Their information is countered by the NSA itself.

EO 12949 is real documentation. But your point has been debunked all over the net. You should have a look at the requirements of 301 (a) (1), 302 (b), and 303 (a) (7). If you do, you will again discover that "it" is not "it".

ps From my reading of Daniel's posts, I regard your criticism of them as being is in gross error on the facts.

.
Thanks, djs. You understand that Americanism is a religion and the Admin is an acolyte who considers me a heretic.
More heresy from correspondent Georgie Anne Geyer: How the neoconservative plan imploded [uexpress.com]
And another link on depleted uranium and its horrible effects on Iraqis and American personnel [warning: graphic images; not for the fainthearted]: more war crimes [bushflash.com]
Also, you may want to turn your volume way down, as the musical accompaniment is some sort of rap music, which I find unlistenable...
-Daniel

Dear Daniel (Iconophile), You reeaaally sound like the Left Coasters. If anything happens that the USA looks good, well, let's get Public Broadcasting, and the far left media on it to find out what's wrong with this. It seems that the mentality of anything Christian, of western, or such can not possibly have some scandal, evil, conspiracy, or other malicious hidden agenda. Do you know that in this world lives Evil and Good. Do you not say the Creed (filioque or not), Otce Nash, or such,...? Do we ask, "deliver us from the Evil One" for NO reason. Does that translate to you, "deliver us from Bush"...? And were you even more profoundly offended by Clinton, who purposefully bombed Orthodox Christains, and that on Easter..? OH, you forgot the atrocity of the Clinton's woosie Serbian campaigne. And, look at the continuing destruction of their ancient Churches and Monasteries. Hmmm, selective vision here. The point is, ALL, societies DO evil, and All, men are required of GOD to do what we can , according to their ability, to right wrong. As was said, "It only takes good men doing nothing for evil to prevail" (paraphrsed). Wish you well, and stop trying to solve the worlds ills, heck, I can't even get my own solved. Love, and peace, Mik(remember to pray for Whirled Peas,humor here)

Mike,

This Forum is made up of people of many different political opinions and religious persuasions. Why do you find it necessary to pigeonhole some people who might be more "left" then you??
I might as well say that all those from PA are narrow-minded right-wingers but that would be just as false!

No, Brian, this is not pidgeon holeing, unless you should say the same to Bush Bashing and the whole of the left-progressive-proabortion-progay agenda that maintains all things american are bad or suspect at least. We Americans donate and give more than most other countries of the world to humanitarian causes, relief, and Christian benevolency than we are given credit for. How about all the schools, hospitals, etc, etc that are in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc as a result of the US intervention...??? You know, those who complain about the farmer, should not eat his food...those who will not work..as St Paul says, should not eat...those who bite the hand that feeds them..well, you get the gist. By the way , the humor at the end was a modifier for all of the above previous post. Peace, mik