What's "established legal process" mean?

I like how they made no mention of a warrant or other judicial review here. Since Bush now says that he don't need no stinkin' badges, that's probably what they mean by "established legal process." Anything they do is legal, because they are the ones doing it. So the FBI could be telling the truth here and so could ABC.

I'll admit the whole set of ABC News stories was sloppy reporting. We don't know if the Feds are looking at the leakers or looking at the press. But the first story clearly said it was the press.

Anybody here watch Law and Order? Especially the original series (as opposed to the D'Onofrio Overacting Seminar :-) ).

How many times have you heard Lenny or one of his colleagues say "We pulled his LUDs and it shows a call to blah at blah woof...".

Had you assumed he'd gotten a warrant for that? Considering how they usually make a big deal about getting a search warrant under other circumstances, or at least conspicuously mentioning that they'd gotten one, I hadn't.

But in this case, I'll bet USC Title 18 Chapter 121 § 2709 (or something like it) applies. I guess we'll be finding out.

The tighter the control, and the secrecy, the more rampant the leaks- good ones and bad ones, big ones and little ones, ones to aid the good guys and the bad guys.

I'll settle for a return to the illusion of some degree of governmental transparency, even during wartime, even a little, with constitutional checks on executive power.

Get a warrant. work with FISA.

Then don't try to put some blanket "we're in favor of leakers this week" statement on it.

Why would anyone leak anything to the press that was not in the interest of America (and against extremist interests of Democrat, Republican and Communist party loyalists)?

Oh. Valerie Plame. Clearly we must access all phone records so that the President and Vice President will be prosecuted for outing a CIA agent.

Oh. Maybe all this J Edgar Hoover security without judicial review would not stop such criminal activity. So why does the President and Vice President want all this power without judicial review?

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Nixon had an 'Enemies List'. George Jr has '1984 Big Brother'. Both required no judicial review. Both to provide the president with more power. America be damned.

Because evidently Neil Young is still the same whiney moron he was thirty years ago. :-)
It's not just the military who is always "perfectly trained and equipped to win the last war".

It's possible to take nostalgia too far. Anybody see South Park last night? :-)

Whiney? Probably. Moron? He was correctly on the money back then as he is about a mental midget leader today.

But that is all secondary to a large problem: a president who needs powers that even J Edgar Hoover did not have - and have those powers without Congressional or Judicial oversight. Hoover, with less power, could blackmail anyone in the US - any president, any congressman, or any citizen. Apparently Hoover did so often. And yet this president - like Nixon - declares he needs "more power"? Presidential mouth pieces even justify it by saying "You have no expectation of privacy."

Why complain about a whiney Neil Young when a current president is and is surrounded by those who pervert America (and science, and religious freedoms, and wealth distribution, and education, and social welfare) for their self serving agenda.

God, these governmental perverts even have you blaming illegal immigrants - using emotion - for a problem directly traceable to those leaders. At what point do you stand up for America rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh propaganda?

BTW, in Law and Order, those LUDs get pulled after a court order is issued. But then those who respect American principles would be very angry if that were not true. Those who hate America - Rush Limbaugh disciples - agree that "We have no expectation of privacy".

Want a benchmark to measure enemies of everyone in America - legal, tourist, and illegal? Those enemies of all people say "You have no expectation of privacy". Rush Limbaugh - drug addict and money launder - says "You have no expectation of privacy". Being enemies of all people is profitable? He got all prosecution dropped and his record expunged because so many perverted American (such as a president) also believe "You have no expectation of privacy".

If it violates the rights of Americans it is against the interest of America, period.

Attorney General Gonzales weighed in on this yesterday, saying that the rights under the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the press, are not as strong as the "right" of the federal government to prosecute who it wants to.

His exact words: "I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.

Ooh, now that is a foul statement.

GodDAMMIT!!

Let's just get the teensy generous part of my rant out of the way first, shall we?

AG AG is a prosecutor. I understand that. His freakin job is to take people to court, to presume guilt, to focus on wrongdoing and wrongdoers. He's a lawman. No bad guys--his kids go hungry. Fine. His motivations are clear. When you are a hammer, the whole world looks like nails

However.

The ends do not justify the means.

There are so many things wrong indicated in his statement, it makes my head spin. First off, it is not his place to pretend that one "right" has precedence over another right. Note the quotes. "right" == "[Alberto gonzales]...the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity." Contrasted with the right == ""[Framers of the Constitution]...the protection under the First Amendment..."

WTF?!

You, Gonzales, you are responsible for trying to create a distracting smokescreen by falsely suggesting that in order for the government "go after criminal activity" it is permissible or necessary to disregard the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is lying by implication. It is *neither* necessary nor permissible.

You are a lawman. Why would you consider breaking one part of the law to uphold another part of the law? That didn't come out exactly right...I mean to disregard the protection written in the law covering the behavior you claim is criminal. The cynic in me can think of several reasons. It's easier, it suits your boss's agenda, it's habitual, you *truly, truly, cross your heart* believe what you said...

Tough. Because it makes things easier is no excuse. You weren't elected (appointed) because it's an easy job. It's not ok to cut corners. Stop it. Because your boss told you so is also insufficient. You've no obligation to obey illegal orders, capisce? I won't derail my own rant to examine the long list of his problems, but you should use your own judgement here and decide if *our country* is better served in the long run by this kind of attitude. I say emphatically no. Because that's the way it's always been done. Well, when you're doing the wrong thing, doing more of it is no way to make things better. Just stop digging. Lastly, you *may* have drunk the kool aid. I suspect you have. And that makes me sorry for you and sad for our country.

I am no anarchist. I believe in the law. It is that very belief that is the fount of my tears and the fire of my anger when I see the display of attitudes and actions of intelligent people in postitions of responsibility like this that tear our country down from within. You don't preserve, uphold and defend the Constitution by ignoring the parts you don't wipe your feet on. When you weaken it this way, by not respecting it and working within its constraints, you help win it for the bad guys by making it less, less valid, less important, less alive.

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
Dr. Who (The Face of Evil)

We have met the enemy and he is us - Walt Kelly (Pogo)

C.I.A. Choice Says He's Independent of the Pentagon

By MARK MAZZETTI
In a hearing that put him on track to win swift confirmation, Gen. Michael V. Hayden also defended an eavesdropping program.

Now that would be an interesting case. Of course we would not hear any of it. The journalists would disappear, maybe get hauled before a FISA court, and shipped to Guantanamo.

Again, the scum rising to the top. It's way past time to skim the scum. :mad: