Obama Continues Bush's Illegal Drone Surveillance

[ice grillin you]

no why would the land of the free and the home of the brave oppose a ban on "disappearing" people?


how could they validate their secret cia torture camps they have all over europe if they signed onto this ban

[Eagaholic]

I like Bush/Cheney declaring that more troops will be sent regardless what Congress or the American people want.  Yay fake democracy.

It's hard work installing a fake democracy in Iraq when you're busy trying to destroy a legitimate one at home, Dio.

Isn't "installing a democracy" an oxymoron anyway? A democracy is supposed to by created by and for the people of that counry. Having an outside country come in and impose it's own agenda can't create a deomcracy.

[Diomedes]

Now that's just crazy talk.  CRAZY TALK!  What are you, some kind of terrorist lover?

[Diomedes]

from yesterday's NYT:

Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation's governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

worst President ever.

[rjs246]

farging ridiculous.

[Rome]

1/20/09.

Maybe.

[Eagaholic]

don't think for a moment that all of your key strokes aren't being recorded

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Bold prediction:

The next President will be an uninspiring, watered-down politician and will not effect much serious change.

[Geowhizzer]

Bold prediction:

The next President will be an uninspiring, watered-down politician and will not effect much serious change.

That's about as bold as Hunts ketchup.

[Diomedes]

Well, considering how much power has been re-allocated (to put it charitably) to the executive by Bush, that prediction assumes that whoever is President will either hand the power back or not use it, both of which are somewhat dubious assumptions.  Since when does a president/politician not use power to gain more power to use more power to gain more power?

[MadMarchHare]

Ho-lee shtein.  Yeah, abdication's a given.  Absolutely.

[SD_Eagle5]

Shocker:FBI Underreported use of the Patriot Act.

[Cerevant]

PATRIOT Act redefines Domestic Terrorism

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism. 

Basically, according to the terms of this law, civil disobedience is domestic terrorism.

*shudder*

[ice grillin you]

Librarian Who Resisted FBI Says Patriot Act Invades Privacy

By Andrew Miga
Washington Post
Thursday, April 12, 2007; A12

A librarian who fended off an FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday that secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.

"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.

In prepared testimony for a Senate panel, Christian said his experience "should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution" about the strain that the government's pursuit of would-be terrorists puts on civil liberties.

He said the government uses the USA Patriot Act and other laws to learn, without proper judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review, what citizens are researching in libraries.

A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general found 48 violations of law or rules in the FBI's use of national security letters from 2003 through 2005. Some congressional critics want to tighten legal safeguards on the letters.

" 'Trust us' doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can use the letters to acquire telephone, e-mail, travel and financial records without a judge's approval. Letter recipients are not allowed to disclose their involvement in a request.

Prosecutors have said secrecy is needed to avoid alerting suspects.

In July 2005, the FBI issued a national security letter to Christian and three other Connecticut librarians. The letter sought computer subscriber data for a 45-minute period on Feb. 15, 2005, during which a terrorist threat was thought to have been transmitted. A gag order prevented the librarians from talking about the letter.

The librarians refused to comply with the FBI's request.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a legal challenge on behalf of the librarians but did not name them.

A judge ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarians from participating in debate over how the Patriot Act should be rewritten. Prosecutors appealed, but in April 2006 they said they would no longer seek to enforce a gag order.

Last year, authorities dropped their demand for the records, saying they had discounted the potential threat that led to the request.

[Diomedes]

oh, the hits keep coming.

the U.S. is nothing like Nazi germany at all, nothing I say!  anyone who points out similiarities is a traitor...throw 'em in the fires!!