I've been learning so much reading all of this.

I am also thankful that it has been handled respectfully among all of you. It has been without all the nasty comments that were posted in the one topic I started on Hillary Clinton. One person actually suggested she was going to "water on this thread." I can only guess what that meant so I am really pleased to see that none of that nonsense is going on here. Everyone has spoken freely without that other noise pollution.

I don't feel that our country is safer since 9/11. A terrorist expert from Israel said he was so surprised at the lack of security in major public venues in this country. He also felt our government is spending too much time and surveillance on people who pose no threat and ignoring those who do. He said racial profiling is used extensively in his country and we should do the same.

Searcher, there is no need to beat yourself up for noninvolvement in political matters during the years of your daughter's illness. Both then and now you've been under tremendous stress. A person only has so much energy and time. You did what you needed to do. The fact that you are attending this topic at all is amazing, given how depressing all this can be. Take care of yourself, take time to heal. I will post the relevant research that I come across. You have a good head and a good heart, and you use them wisely. You are not failing - the opposite is true.

As indicated in other threads there was a time when I faced things alone - over a periods of years, and my life was more difficult. I grew a lot. I think that was the purpose. Now, I have a dear husband who loves me no matter what. He provides emotional, intellectual, creative and spiritual support. So it is easier for me to find the strength to do the things I believe in.

DJ, I appreciate your comments about free speech, listening and that no one has a monopoly on the truth. Excellent observations.

Casey, your statement: "If the demand that we look into Mr. Clinton's behavior was right, then the demand that we look into Mr. Bush's behavior is also right. I don't think we know the answers, and won't until there is an investigation." is so true.

Norma, all of your questions are good ones, questions that concerned citizens of this country, citizens of the world, really need to ask, need to have answered truthfully, not by those dancing around their lies.

Pattyann, yes, it is good that "concerned, intelligent women" are willing to talk about this. It is my belief that talking about it is key to getting to the root of things and making sure the appropriate investigations take place.

Now to todays news stories.

A past legal precedent:


Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_go_su_co/alito

It appears, in this story, that, based on a memo he wrote in 1984 to the Solicitor General under President Reagan, Alito is definitely a partisan of the republican party. To me, it raises questions as to whether or not, as a Supreme Court judge, he would be able to separate his political views from his judiciary capacity.

quote:

---

The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot. The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser.

---

The case actually went to the Supreme Court:

quote:

---

That case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people's rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps.

"The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity," the court held.

However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1972 that it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct wiretaps without court approval despite the Nixon administration's argument that domestic anti-war groups and other radicals were a threat to national security.

---

However, it's nice to see that the democrats are leary of Alito:

quote:

---

... the president's authority on eavesdropping will be central issues when the Senate Judiciary Committee opens confirmation hearings on Alito's nomination Jan. 9.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the top Democrat on the committee, said the latest documents "fill in more blanks and deepen the impression of activism that colors Judge Alito's career" and raise issues critical to the panel.

"One of the most important, and one of the most timely, is the issue of unchecked presidential authority and the particular issue of warrantless eavesdropping on the American people," Leahy said.

Another committee Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, released a letter to Alito in which he questioned whether the nominee believes in absolute immunity for the attorney general and other government officials "from suits based on even willful unconstitutional acts."

Schumer vowed to question Alito on the issue and warned that if he refused to answer questions, it would make it harder for members of the panel to support his confirmation.

---

MSNBC presented the same AP story.

Alito defended government wiretap rights
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10586849/


This one, by Eleanor Clift of NewsWeek, is a "MUST READ" - about half is in regards to the NSA stuff:

Big Lies
Who told the worst political untruth of 2005? It’s a shame the list of contenders is so long.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/

I found the following within the article to be of particular interest:

quote:

---

Bush’s explanation is riddled with lies. He says our enemies are watching and threatens The New York Times, which broke the spying story, with legal action. It takes a vivid imagination to believe that Osama bin Laden and his buddies are keeping up with the niceties of FISA courts and would otherwise have no idea their phones might be tapped. Bush says he talks to Congress all the time and that there was plenty of congressional oversight. Not true. The Gang of Eight (leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, plus the chair and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees) were forbidden to take notes or discuss what they were told with colleagues or staff. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s hand-written letter to Cheney expressed uneasiness about the program. Rockefeller couldn’t have its legality evaluated by staff. He couldn’t even have the letter typed because of the secrecy. That hardly qualifies as congressional oversight.

---

An additional story about government spying and the reasoning behind it - this time the Pentagon claiming a Quaker organization may somehow be a threat to national security.

Senator demands investigation of spy database
Pentagon defends domestic intelligence collection, vows to cooperate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10481600/from/RS.1/

The gist of it:

quote:

---

Wednesday, some members of a Florida anti-war group called "The Truth Project" demanded that the Pentagon turn over all information collected about their group.

And Florida Senator Bill Nelson wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking how this peaceful group could be listed a "threat" in a previously secret Pentagon database.

"When the Pentagon starts going into a Quaker meeting house in Florida, then it's a question of invasion of privacy," says Nelson, R-Fl

---

A telling statement from the article:

quote:

---

"This document, it's a clue that shows the level of surveillance, the level of domestic surveillance that the U.S. military is now involved in," says Bill Arkin, an NBC News military analyst.

---

Even the conservative Christian Science Monitor has a concern over what Bush has done:

Bush's use of executive power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051223/cm_csm/yschorr23

quote:

---

Mr. Bush chose not to avail himself of the tool that Congress has provided for the purpose of eavesdropping - The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978 as a reaction to President Nixon's domestic spying. That Act permits the president to apply in secret to a special court for a warrant. The administration is authorized to begin surveillance for 72 hours while waiting for the warrant, which is almost always granted.

In his defiance, there may be peril for the president, as President Nixon discovered when the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against him, one of them for abusing the power of three agencies - the FBI, CIA, and IRS. Nixon took the position that he was using inherent presidential powers granted by the Constitution.

The Constitution says that the president shall exercise the "executive power" and shall be commander in chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't spell out what those powers are. Some presidents have come up with what they call the "inherent power" of the presidency, which tends to be what they make it.

Historians have said that President Lincoln freed the slaves, blockaded Southern ports, and instituted a draft all without constitutional authority. President Reagan invoked "inherent powers" to justify the illegal sale of missiles to Iran and the illegal financing of the civil war in Nicaragua. Short of impeachment, the Congress has no way of stopping a willful president except to deny him funds. That, of course, is unlikely, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress.

---

This is a sidebar article, but quite interesting - not all arabs (or bin ladens) are terrorists.

Bin Laden's niece appears in racy photos
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/23/bin.laden.niece.ap/index.html

Back to the main topic:

Administration defends NSA eavesdropping to Congress

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/23/justice.nsa/index.html

A five-page letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, was sent late Thursday to House and Senate Intelligence committee chairmen and their Democratic counterparts. What was reported in the article was simply a reiteration of Bush's reasoning for bypassing the FISA court. The reaction, by congress, to the letter reiterated that FISA was all Bush needed, no matter the speed necessary to carry out an eavesdrop (FISA allows for the instant eavesdrop, provided a warrent is requested within 72 hours), and they are concerned that Bush might have broken the law.


Thanks again for all your participation in this thread.

ladybug, yes it nice that this is a civilized thread. Maybe if you restarted your Hillary thread it would be handled in a more respectful manner now. To respect each other is so important. You brought up an interesting concept from that Israeli terrorist expert. I wonder though, if racial profiling would be an acceptable concept for us. Too many innocent people could be sucked into it. That happened here in my home state of Oregon to an innocent Muslim attorney. Guilt association by ethnic origin ruined his career and his life. What do you think?

Ladybug ,
I was the one who said that! I also said you know what they do with cats when they fight threw water on them . Get you story staight and you were the one started the trouble in there . So ....

[ December 24, 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Nancy50 ]

No, we cannot have racial profiling here, at least not openly. I'm not even sure it would accomplish anything other than irritating innocent people.

The terrorist expert himself was strip-searched randomly at one of our airports. It's understandable that they do racial profiling in his country when you consider all the suicide bombers they are plagued with.

[ December 24, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: ladybug ]

Norma, you wrote: "May i ask,
what about laws that are very specific, but seems to be important only when it involves one's own people? When it is against the law in a nation to imprison someone without charge after a certain period of time, when it is illegal to use violence to get information from suspected individuals, why is it all right for the same nation to have certain government agencies do those things beyond their borders ? Why is it acceptable for those government agencies to take suspects, or assist in the taking of them and then transporting them to foreign soils where torture is used for whatever purpose, or where they will be held without any recourse to legal representation and fair trial?"

Just so I understand the values and beliefs behind what you are asking, do you mind if I probe a little deeper? (Feel free to ignore me! LOL!)

Is your concern with the inconsistency due to a value of being connected with every other human being on earth? That we are all one and related? I can see that the people who practice the inconsistency which you highlight as those who value winning (usually at any cost) as opposed to relating.

Or is it more that you believe that we can win more effectively if we practice peace (nonviolence) in all areas of government, both in or out of the country?

Or is it something I totally don't get yet? :--)))

Vi, Interesting information -- as always! Thanks! It is the problem with leaders -- good and bad. Someone does need to keep them in check and remind them that their worldview is not necessarily consistent with the people whom they govern. I think we do tend to let our leaders (from presidents of nations to presidents of corporations) get away with things if we believe they are following an intrinsic good or believe that we are undeserving, afraid or unable to criticize a leader.
The other thing that has changed from the time of Lincoln is the speed with which things happen.

President Bush's actions have made other countries regard us as bullies who rule the playground.

And what would you rather see? What is it you want your president to do for us as a nation?

When I think of how other nations hate us, it reminds me of the story of Joseph, in the old testament. He had dreams and visions and he was favored by his father, Jacob. All of his brothers hated him because they were JEALOUS of him.
Jacob represents God, Joseph is the US, and the brothers, other nations. God has blessed our country because of the principles it was founded on. We give people freedom and opportunity and the ability to worship as they please. God rewards us for that, yet other nations, insteaad of following our lead, hate us.
I never see our country as a bully...I see it as a land of loving, giving and protective people, who look out for others all over the world. I would never want to live anywhere else.
Now, we are not perfect and many of our laws have pulled away from Godly principles, so we have our consequences. God is calling us back to repentance and I believe this president is trying, in his way, to lead us there. I truly believe he is a humble leader with a sincere and deep faith in his Creator. I trust him and support him. When Clinton was president, I didn't feel the same way but I always said we should pray for him and support him as our elected president...and I did.
Just my view.

Bluebird, trust me, I would not want to live anywhere else either. Several members of my family have fought to give me the freedom to speak.

However, our actions toward other countries we perceive to view as our enemies have placed us in a precarious situation.

We speak peace on one hand and unecessary, unproductive torture on the other.