Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD?....Terence Kindlon, the attorney for a man accused of trying to sell missile launchers to terrorists, filed an interesting motion last Friday:

An FBI sting case that targeted two members of an Albany mosque should be dismissed because the investigation originated from a national spying program that may be illegal, an attorney for one of the defendants said in a motion filed in U.S. District Court.

...."The government engaged in illegal electronic surveillance of thousands of U.S. persons, including Yassin Aref, then instigated a sting operation to attempt to entrap Mr. Aref into supporting a nonexistent terrorist plot, then dared to claim that the illegal NSA operation was justified because it was the only way to catch Mr. Aref," Kindlon's motion said.

....Now, with attorneys...confident secret surveillance was the catalyst for the FBI's Albany sting, the stage is set for the NSA program to be challenged on constitutional grounds as part of the local case. The question is whether the government will be compelled, even tacitly, to confirm that Aref was targeted because of information gleaned from the controversial spy program.

Kindlon may be fishing here, filing a motion just for the hell of it to see what happens. Then again, maybe not. This may end up being a case to keep our eyes on.

Kevin Drum 1:38 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (148)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

George W. Bush:

Fucking up the war on terror, one case at a time.

Posted by: Monstertron on January 25, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

When entrapment is the only way to catch someone doing something illegal you have to wonder whether your wasting your resources. If I remember right this guy didn't have any connections to anyone. Undercover FBI agents were the source and destination of the missile launchers. The same sting would work on thousands of mentally challenged and morally corrupt businessmen.

Posted by: irrationalbushhater on January 25, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

I thought President Bush said we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedom. So have the terrorists won?

Posted by: JC on January 25, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

I consider it a very credible possibility that this illegal spying program, or part of it, involved massive profiling of Arab and Muslim Americans, basically gobbling up all of their conversations, and then winnowing out the innocuous seeming people, which was likely 99.9% of them, which would partly explain Hayden's insistence that once the information is reviewed, and found innocuous, a U.S. Person's name will be blacked out ("suppressed").

The Israelis use profiling all the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if we adopted the same in the aftermath of 9-11. Of course this would be massively illegal and unconstitutional, tantamount legally and constitutionally (though obviously in a less restrictive and onerous way) to putting the Japanese in internment camps, since aside from the other constitutional issues it's a massive violation of equal protection under the law, since only one group is being targeted, and thus all the individuals in the group being arbitrarily, and not reasonably, singled out.

This really should come as no surprise since we're dealing with Dick Cheney too, who fantasizes about unchecked executive power, wishing to roll back to Nixon and even FDR, and who very likely has no personal beef with the decision to intern Japanese-American citizens, especially considering his mind-boggling and stubborn opposition to supporting the boycott of South Africa at the zenith of the apartheid and anti-apartheid era.

Posted by: Jimm on January 25, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

Do Democrats seriously believe the NSA wiretap issue will help them in the upcoming elections???

The more the Dems complain and whine about the NSA program, the better Bush and the GOP look.

(I almost wonder if Karl Rove is the one sending these NSA links to Kevin Drum!)

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 25, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

OK, I was wrong about the no connections thing for Aref. But it's not clear what the connections were (attended the same Iraqi mosque?). And the entrapment of the naturalized pizza shop owner? I'll bet he's been called by all sorts of hungry islamic activists. Maybe a 9/11 terrorist once called the local imam who in turn periodically called the pizza shop for take-out. No wonder he was being monitored.

Posted by: irrationalbushhater on January 25, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks GOPGregory, we were just about to walk into the unwitting trap! Your sportsmanship is refreshing and inspiring! Thanks for the heads up. Say hi to everyone at the DLC for me. We'll do lunch.

Posted by: Jimm on January 25, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

"I thought President Bush said we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedom. So have the terrorists won?"

By George, that's it: If we throw away our freedom, the terrorists will have to love us. Brilliant!

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

It's almost like James A. Baker, the Justice Department lawyer had dreams about the future or a time machine:

If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

Posted by: B on January 25, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Since it's been established as a liberal Known Fact(tm) that the NSA program was utterly useless and never caught anybody, it's impossible for anyone on trial for terrorist activities to blame the program for their situation. They'll have to come up with something else.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 25, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

How come any time an issue X which yet one more time proves that GWB and his fellow travelers are incompetent at best and utterly corrupt at worst, the apologists on this board say invariably the same thing:

Do Democrats seriously believe the issue Xwill help them in the upcoming elections???

The more the Dems complain and whine about X, the better Bush and the GOP look.

Also it must take a person with a really meaningless life to admire the morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt Karl Rove.

Posted by: lib on January 25, 2006 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

No tbrosz, the well known and well established fact is that the president violated the constitution with this NSA program.

Posted by: lib on January 25, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Do Democrats seriously believe the NSA wiretap issue will help them in the upcoming elections???

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 25, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Yup.

Besides, they need something to distract them until someone tells them how to talk about Canada.

Posted by: McA on January 25, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

tbroz--

You're really okay with this? You really think that the president need not follow the law?

Leaving aside the entrapment, which is clearly what happened here.

Oh, and one more thing--the two ideas--that warrantless taps are illegal under FISA and unconsitutional under the 4th amendment and they don't work are not inconsistent. This case is an illustration. They picked up two guys who hadn't done anything and talked them into a money laundering scheme. There was never any plot. And it looks like they've tainted their legal case by using illegal taps.

This all gets especially messy because of the secrecy of the tapping. They can just say no, they didn't tap, and what can be done about that? Orwell was right, just a little too early.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on January 25, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

As long as Big Brother is watching them and not me and thoughtcrimes are only punished after entrapment for conspiracy, I see nothing in conflict with my libertarian principles.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 25, 2006 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

Who gives a crap about Canada? It's just a lesson on the fruits of getting caught in corruption scandals anyway...

By George, that's it: If we throw away our freedom, the terrorists will have to love us. Brilliant!

This may indeed by our secret strategy to win the War on Terra. Since they hate us for our freedom, if we give that up, they won't hate us anymore! Win-win for everyone!

Since it's been established as a liberal Known Fact(tm) that the NSA program was utterly useless and never caught anybody, it's impossible for anyone on trial for terrorist activities to blame the program for their situation. They'll have to come up with something else.

Actually, no, it just reintroduces the crucial question of whether this NSA program was truly being used for terrorism, or whether is was being used as an end-around for general law enforcement. I still want an answer to my question from yesterday of what the NSA will do with information about a person that indicates criminal activity, but non-terrorist related criminal activity?

Posted by: Jimm on January 25, 2006 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, the news from Canada is rather hopeful. Once the citizenry realizes exactly how corrupt the Republicans in Congress and the White House are (Halliburton? Big Pharma?) they'll fall all over themselves throwing the rats out.

Back on topic: the tainting of government evidence by torture and illegal spying has already screwed up some criminal cases. If the spying is sufficiently widespread, the government may find it difficult to prosecute anyone for terrorist activities. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.

No worries, though; they'll just ship them to Guantnamo or abroad. Who needs the courts now that we've become a dictatorship?

Posted by: bad Jim on January 25, 2006 at 3:38 AM | PERMALINK

This motion by Kindlon is hardly "fishing". It is a standard way of attacking the evidence -- that it was "the fruit of the poisoned tree". This doctrine has been the law of the land for over 50 years, even under the Rehnquist Court.

Posted by: dan on January 25, 2006 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK

They should use the NSA wiretaps to figure out who all those folks in the DOJ are that keep leaking to the NYT. No one would know about the poison tree if Ashcroft had purged the rats out of his department like Goss, Wolfowitz, and Bolton are doing now. Not to mention the Fitzgerald problem. Hopefully Gonzales will send some folks home for early retirment in the next few weeks.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 25, 2006 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but that isn't even good fake Tbrosz. I mean, Fitzgerald? Good point about Wolfowitz, though; high-level World Bank folks are departing in droves.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 25, 2006 at 5:09 AM | PERMALINK

I seriously hope you weren't believing it before you got to the Fitzgerald part.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 25, 2006 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

Yup. Work real hard to free the guy who wanted to buy an anti-aircraft missile.

Your freedoms depend on it.

Posted by: McA on January 25, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin has repeatedly made the point that the facts in this case just don't 'add up', and I think that's still true. This post suggested a scenario to me that made more sense, even if I'm out in tin hat land. Every day I get several e-mails asking me to verify my personal or banking information. Some wealthy foreigner is always dying and leaving me millions, or someone violates my non-existant PayPal account. Could it be that the government was being proactive here, contacting large numbers of people who fit some profile, with a message like: "America is evil, and Israel is evil. We're going to do something about it--will you help? Anybody who nibbles gets a wiretap to track down whom they are calling. Any 'real' terrorist knows they're amateurs or bogus, but it might pick up on a bunch of people who dislike American actions and look suspicious.

Just a thought, trying to make sense of it all.

Posted by: Another Jim, basically good on January 25, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK

I'm still trying to think what I could do with a missile launcher. There was the Michael Douglas character in Falling Down, but I can't think of any road projects nearby I'd like to blast. Maybe next year.

Phishing for terrorists. That may well be exactly what happened. I had a friend who was entrapped into a prostitution bust, and her experience leads me to believe that a lot of us will do things we shouldn't if the price is high enough. (Charges were dismissed; it was too naked a case of entrapment. San Francisco, early 70's, was somewhat unruly.)

Posted by: bad Jim on January 25, 2006 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

We'll see what happens with the trolls here if Hillary is elected President. Suddenly domestic spying will be bad again.
Wingnuts are such cowards.

Posted by: merlallen on January 25, 2006 at 6:59 AM | PERMALINK

Yup, this may be the starting point for a judicial review of the legality of NSA wiretaps. But it would be desastrous for Dems to engage in a public discussion about a case where a guy was willing "to sell missile launchers to terrorists". In fact, this is just one of those few cases that right wingers use to justify the illegal tapings.

Posted by: Gray on January 25, 2006 at 7:05 AM | PERMALINK

Hello fellow bloglodites. This is slightly off topic but I just had to point out an article that I read this morning.
Remember I'm the one who believes that gov't is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. I also have said that repubes and dems are just two sides of the same coin.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html

Please just see this as food for thought.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 25, 2006 at 7:24 AM | PERMALINK

Jimm,

"The Israelis use profiling all the time, ...."

It is my understanding that the Isrealis profile for different categories than 'Mericans.

'Mericans use things like skin color, eyes too close together, etc.

Isrealis initially profile for persperation, nervousness and inconsistent behavior while interacting with an official.

Totally different ball game.

Americans generally lose because they consistently overstep their own Constitution doing their thing. They could do the Isreali thing and remain well within American laws but 'Mericans, for some inexplicable reason, do not.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on January 25, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

We can always count on our reliable liberal friends to side with our enemies yet again.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 25, 2006 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker you ignorant slut, what does that article have to do with corruption? You can be partisan and ignore facts without necessarily being corrupt.

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

There are times when the proximity of bedwetters makes one question the utility of a sense of smell.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 25, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Do Democrats seriously believe the NSA wiretap issue will help them in the upcoming elections???

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 25, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Not really, but standing up for the Constitution and for individual liberty is the duty of every patriot.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 25, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

"You can be partisan and ignore facts without necessarily being corrupt."
Posted by: cq

I will answer your question despite your lack of civility.
Now this is MY opinion mind you.
If a member of congress is ignoring any number of facts that may say that their agenda may be wrong for or harmful to individuals, states or country and continues to advance his/her agenda despite this/these facts then I consider that a form of corruption.
You don't have to feel that way. It's your right to disagree. I can handle it...with out calling you names.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 25, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Work real hard to free the guy who wanted to buy an anti-aircraft missile.

perhaps you can show us where the Constitution endorses the "ends justify the means" principle.

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

"We'll see what happens with the trolls here if Hillary is elected President. Suddenly domestic spying will be bad again."

Whereas it won't bother you a bit if FBI files of her opponents appear on her desk...

If I were you guys, I would steer clear of Hillary, she has no credibility on corruption, except among the converted here who believe a Democrat is incapable of corruption.

She has no credibility on the whole NSA thing. Those FBI files are just waiting there to blow up in her face.

The media can no longer ignore stuff like this, since, as Hillary has complained, "the problem with the internet is that it has no gatekeepers." Err, I wonder if that will haunt her?

I can't find a direct link to the comment, but if this is an urban myth, I would sure like to know.

I was hoping Kevin would post on warming today, since this note appeared.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-01-24T174509Z_01_N24233070_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-GORE.xml

I will buy it, but I hope he got a ghost writer who takes his meds, the last book was impossible to distinguish from the Unabomber's manefesto.

Click on the following if you are a Gore supporter with a strong stomach, or a detractor in need of a laugh:

http://www.bbhq.com/gorequiz.htm

Posted by: tool of some sort on January 25, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

as Hillary has complained, "the problem with the internet is that it has no gatekeepers."

Here ya go TOSS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/02/22/BUSINESS904.dtl

I don't know it's credibility but it's a story about it. I goggled "Hillary Clinton, Internet". Lots of stuff came up. Enjoy...or not.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 25, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

We can always count on our reliable liberal friends to side with our enemies yet again

yeah, sure

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Oops, Hillary is ignoring the facts about the internet, she must be corrupt!

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

"Do Democrats seriously believe the NSA wiretap issue will help them in the upcoming elections???"

I'll bite. It may not be enough on its own, but it will help when coupled with issues of corruption (ie, Canada!), discontent over the economy (real incomes slipping, lackluster job creation, layoffs and plant closings, the cost of health care and energy) and suspicion that the war in Iraq was not such a smart move, fiscal irresponsibility and general Bushco incompetence. The Republicans aren't looking so sharp these days. Bush's approval hovers below 50% and on most issues, Americans think Democrats would do a better job than Rebublicans. Americans aren't happy about the direction this country is headed.

Still, in 2006, the Dems have to support candidates that people can trust in local races.

An article in yesterday's NYTimes reported on a study that documented what those of us in the blogosphere know well, that political decision making is largely an unconscious emotional reaction:

Neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected."

And, to the dismay of wonky Democrats, "The "cold reasoning" regions of the cortex were relatively quiet." According the researcher, one can override these unconscious, automatic responses through "ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.'"

I think that is where the Democrats can win. We will never be able to persuade the true believers, but all we need is a majority of Americans to reflect that things aren't turning out the way the Republicans promised AND we need to be trustworthy AND we need to offer realistic and just alternatives. We can campaign on the general premise of "you know what you want to believe, but isn't it about time to be honest...? The Republicans said they would do X, this is what you got instead."

We can use the war on Terror and the war in Iraq as our primary evidence. Bush said invading Iraq would make America safer, but 2400 more Americans are dead AND terrorist incidents are on the increase. Bush claims to support democracy but Bush has broken the law and violated the Constitution.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals. Finally defending the right to bear arms.

But why missile launchers and not guns?

Posted by: McA on January 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

cleek, did you see the pictures of the still at large al Qaeda bigwigs? They were in either Newsweek or Time, I can't remember which mag. Most were either Saudi or Egyptian nationals. Two of our biggest 'allies' in the middle east.

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

This is precisely why the program is unacceptable, in addition to being simply illegal and a violation of the 4th Amendment. ANY terrorism case from now on starts with the valid suspicion by the defense that the targetting of his/her client was initiated by the illegal and unConstitutional NSA spying program. Thus, ANY evidence acquired subsequent to the illegal spying is inadmissible in court, or in the words of the law, "poison fruit".

This is a GREAT job by the BushCo regime. They have brought into question the ability to try any and all terrorist suspects arrested in the US. Unless the prosecutor could show beyond any reasonable doubt that no evidence was acquired by illegally spying on the suspect, myself on the jury would find it very hard if not impossible to convict just on the principal that EVERYONE'S Constitutional Rights were/are endangered by illegal spying. I would NOT convict unless I was certain that the terror suspect, being a citizen or legal alien, was NOT spied upon illegally as the first step in going after him/her. I think it would be hard for any honest judge on such a case to allow evidence or trial if there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendent was illegally spied upon - evidence of such being a refusal for the Feds to offer up evidence that the defendent was NOT.

Good job Bushie.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Most were either Saudi or Egyptian nationals. Two of our biggest 'allies' in the middle east.

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Their leaders are Egyptian (Zawahari) and Saudi (Osama) so thats where their people come from.

As to why they aren't there, that's because they are fugitives from their own government from calling down fatwas on their own governments for selling out to the USA.

That Olkahoma bombing guy was American. Invade America first!


Posted by: McA on January 25, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

And where is that Olkahoma (sic) bombing guy now McAnus?

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

that's because they are fugitives from their own government from calling down fatwas on their own governments

...while still being supported by people from inside those governments and from the population at-large in those countries.

just how far will conservatives go to defend the sponsors of the 9/11 hijackers ?

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Further proof of Republican incompetence on National Defense issues.
Pitiful.

Posted by: Nemesis on January 25, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

McA writes: "Yup. Work real hard to free the guy who wanted to buy an anti-aircraft missile."

Why blame us? If this legal tactic works, it will have been George Bush's lawbreaking which set them free. Worse, this would set a precedent in which EVERY case tainted by Bush's subversion of the Constitution will end in an acquittal. Impeachment would then be much too mild a punishment for a President who so grievously harmed our national security.

What's the penalty for treason?

Posted by: buddhistMonkey on January 25, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

We will never be able to persuade the true believers, but all we need is a majority of Americans to reflect that things aren't turning out the way the Republicans promised AND we need to be trustworthy AND we need to offer realistic and just alternatives.
Point one you're doing OK on. Point two you're caught up in the problem (politicians of all stripes rank with lawyers and used car salesmen) and you've been unable to separate yourselves. Point three, however, is the main failure; so far the only plan you've offered is "Oppose Bush on everything".

Remember that the Repubs in '94 not only had Dem corruption they had the Contract with America. What plan are you guys going to use to sweep into office: no-notification abortions for all teens, capitulate to terrorists (sorry, understand the pain and suffering of terrorists and change our ways to accomodate theirs), and Cuban-style health care? Good luck naming that one.

Democrats: We're not weak on national security, it's just that everything we do looks that way!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

mca, my liberal friends have been exercising their 2nd amendments rights for some time now. we just don't wear our "i'm a liberal and i shoot back" tshirts to the gun show.

Posted by: danelectro on January 25, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

" Unless the prosecutor could show beyond any reasonable doubt that no evidence was acquired by illegally spying on the suspect, myself on the jury would find it very hard if not impossible to convict just on the principal that EVERYONE'S Constitutional Rights were/are endangered by illegal spying."

Praedor: I hope that you'll be honest and forthcoming in any jury selection...cause then you'll be stricken for cause. There is no such legal burden on the prosecutor.

Posted by: Nathan on January 25, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

the gop didn't have the contract with america until 6 weeks before the midterms, conspiracy nut. so, your point about the dems not having something comparable is completely invalid.

Posted by: danelectro on January 25, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

so, your point about the dems not having something comparable is completely invalid
Nice try, but the components of the Contract with America were being discussed for quite a while, so the final form was just that, the final form.

Dems, on the other hand, have spent the last 6 years doing nothing but yelling that "Bush = Hitler!". If you come up a new plan 6 weeks before the midterms it's going to be quite a change in direction to get everyone used to in 6 weeks.

Democrats: We'll change our philosophy on a dime!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Democrats: We'll change our philosophy on a dime!

    "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." W

and, remember when conservatives believed in "fiscal responsibility" ?

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

The guys weren't selling a missile - they were laundering the money to buy a missile. The "terrorist" plot the feds came up with was that the missile would be used to attack the Pakistani governemnt. So these guys, who were Pakistanis, actually had no plan to attack the united states, no intention of harming the united states,but instead aid others in financing the attack on a brutal dictator who had usurped democratic rule in their country, and distributed nuclear technology to enemies of the united states.

Huh.

I promise you, you make that same deal to any Cuban businessman in Miami, promising to use a missile against Castro government targets, and they'd take that up in a heartbeat. The FBI could "sting" every cuban in miami.

And we'd not be one whit safer.

Posted by: Mysticdog on January 25, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

cleek
Conservatives still do, our reps seem to have lost their way. But that still doesn't make Dems the answer.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately because of the Senate and Clinton a lot of that great 'Contract with America' did not get passed as legislation. Now that Repubs control all branches of the gov't one has to wonder why the repubs have given up on their 'contract'.

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Praedor: I hope that you'll be honest and forthcoming in any jury selection...cause then you'll be stricken for cause. There is no such legal burden on the prosecutor.

I wasn't getting at the legal requirements of the prosecutor. What I was getting at was once a defense attorney made a reasonable claim (given the current "situation" vis a vis NSA illegal spying) then that would be it. I would have a very hard time disbelieving that the entire rap wasn't conjured up through illegal and unConstitutional means (warrantless spying). Thus, to clear my conscious about the very real possibility, the plausibility, that the defendant was swept up entirely due to initial illegal spying, I would NEED some form of strong assurance, trustworthy assurance that the defendant was NOT picked out of a haystack in a broad, illegal, NSA vacuum job. This only applies if the defendant is a US citizen or legal alien.

Sorry, this isn't a movie. This is the real world where the Constitution rules supreme. It MUST rule supreme, no exceptions, or the country itself, let alone the particular case before the court, is null and void. All bets are off.

I'm liberal and I DO shoot back...and I don't miss.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on January 25, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives still do, our reps seem to have lost their way

nonsense. you so-called "conservative" defend those reps till you're blue in the face. and when election time comes around, you vote for the guys who spend and borrow and spend and spend and spend.

party before principle: it's the Republican way.

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Republican Contract with America

Institutional Reform: Making Congress More Democratic - Helluva job! Congress couldn't get much democratic than it is now.

Controlling the Growth of Government: The Fiscal Responsibility Act - is that the same as tax cut and spend?

Unleashing the American Economy: The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act - I for one really appreciate my enhanced wages.

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Now that Repubs control all branches of the gov't one has to wonder why the repubs have given up on their 'contract'.

nah... one just has to realize that so-called conservatives are stone-cold hypocrites. they feverishly support the guys who openly betray the principles they claim they hold so dear, and then moan about how Dems are so much worse - ignoring the simple fact that government spending decreased and the surplus increased under a Decocratic president.

Party over Principle, it's the Republican way.

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Contract for America? Nah!

May be for Haliburton and Bechtel.

Posted by: lib on January 25, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

you so-called "conservative" defend those reps till you're blue in the face
Search away, fellow babe, find any example of me defending them. I think you will be successful on one item: I support pursuing terrorists. You won't find another thing where I shill for Bush.

I poke fun at the left because you're an even worse alternative than Bush and Republicans.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, please name the policy making dems shouting 'bush is hitler'. conflating what some internet user says with the leadership arm of the party is dishonest.

also, elements of the dem policy initiatives are being discussed now. it boils down to this soundbite - preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states.

Posted by: danelectro on January 25, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Praedor:

exclusion of evidence matters (i.e. "fruit of the poison tree") are matters ruled on by the court. you, as a jury member, will never hear such assertions by the defense attorney (without misconduct by that attorney anyway)...that's a question of law, not fact.

Posted by: Nathan on January 25, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

conflating what some internet user says with the leadership arm of the party is dishonest
Durbin. But thanks for asking.

Dean is worshipped by the moonbats, Kerry posts at Kos. Not much separation there, looks a lot like your "leadership arm" agrees with your "some internet users". Can you imagine the outcry if Bush posted at Free Republic?

Bush denounced Robertson's latest wingnuttery, Michael Moore gets seated next to Jimmy Carter. You're actually doing a pretty bad job at marginalizing your fringes.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

it boils down to this soundbite - preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states
By eliminating Christianity, outlawing guns, preventing conservative viewpoints from being heard, and expanding the government beyond the limits set in the Constitution (you have read the enumerated powers, no?).

Ya, I'm down with that.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

into a prostitution bust, and her experience leads me to believe that a lot of us will do things we shouldn't if the price is high enough. (Charges were dismissed; it was too naked a case of entrapment. San Francisco, early 70's, was somewhat unruly.) Posted by: bad Jim on January 25, 2006 at 6:30 AM

So this friend of yours, good looking? How much were the cops offering her?

Posted by: Worse Scott on January 25, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Could it possibly be true that the Bush administration has undermined every single terrorism prosecution sind 9/11 purely by accident?

Posted by: Boronx on January 25, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

except durbin didn't mention bush or hitler, you are correct. except for that part. and the part about screaming it for 6 years.

By eliminating Christianity, outlawing guns, preventing conservative viewpoints from being heard, and expanding the government beyond the limits set in the Constitution (you have read the enumerated powers, no?).

completely horsecrap. stop wasting my time.

Posted by: danelectro on January 25, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

By eliminating Christianity
Wow. I missed that. When did that happen?

outlawing guns
You obviously weren't in my neighborhood about 11:30 p.m. this past New Years Eve.

preventing conservative viewpoints from being heard
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

and expanding the government beyond the limits set in the Constitution

You mean by massive wiretapping and multi-trillion dollar deficits and large unwieldy new medical entitlement programs? Those expansions that liberals support? What's that -- we don't?

Posted by: Jim J on January 25, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush denounced Robertson's latest wingnuttery, Michael Moore gets seated next to Jimmy Carter. You're actually doing a pretty bad job at marginalizing your fringes."

The Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans are the fringes of the Dem party, and they do a good job of marginalizing them.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 25, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

completely horsecrap
A devastating rebuttal, I am impressed.

1) Judge Roy's Rock. Congress made no law respecting an establishment of religion. You want to extend that to the State of Alabama? Fine, they made no law respecting an establishment of religion. The objection was purely based on public display of a Christian artifact. The left objected to interior decorating.
2) 'Nuff said. All the gun laws you want? The criminals don't follow them anyway. Places with concealed carry do not see an increase in gun crimes. Makes me wonder what real objective the Dems have in gun control...
3) Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, as if liberal talk radio were a possibility. Strict attempt to eliminate conservative talk shows. I can also produce a fine list of examples of conservative viewpoints being squashed on university campuses.
4) I do not see education listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government, I do not see transfer payments, I do not see environmental protection, shall I go on? And don't rely on the "General welfare" stuff either, the Founders nixed that in the Federalist Papers.

Protect the Constitution my ass.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter on January 25, 2006 at 12:22 PM |

Zell Miller is a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). Actually, he's a DixieCrat who forgot to switch parties to the Republicans.

Lieberman is almost a DINO.

Posted by: raj on January 25, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Liebermans are the fringes of the Dem party
Joe Lieberman carries a 76 (out of 100) rating with the ADA. He's plenty left himself. The only Dem Senator rated moderate in 2004 (latest update) was Edwards, and that only because he missed so many votes campaigning (of the votes he attended, perfect 100).

Any leftie claiming Lieberman as a moderate is just indicating how far left the Dem leadership is.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Any leftie claiming Lieberman as a moderate is just indicating how far left the Dem leadership is."

It just goes to show that Michael Moore and DailyKos are the Dem mainstream.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 25, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK
Whereas it won't bother you a bit if FBI files of her opponents appear on her desk...She has no credibility on the whole NSA thing. Those FBI files are just waiting there to blow up in her face. The media can no longer ignore stuff like this, since, as Hillary has complained, "the problem with the internet is that it has no gatekeepers." Posted by: tool of some sort
First, the Gatekeepers story It was in reference to the fact that people can post anything on the net, specifically referring to Drudge, with needing to fact check the story.

Our president's latest scandal was broken by Internet columnist Matt Drudge, who reported that Newsweek had spiked a story about Monica Lewinsky.
Some people see that as a black eye for the print media and a victory for the Internet. Not First Lady Hillary Clinton, who was asked about the Net's role in dissemination of news at a press conference on February 11.
"As exciting as these new developments are.... there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says?"
"There used to be this old saying that the lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. Well, today, the lie can be twice around the world before the truth gets out of bed to find its boots. I mean, it is just beyond imagination what can be disseminated."
Clinton was asked whether she favored regulation of the Net. She said she didn't yet know, but commented:
"Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance [contemplated by the Founders] and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological -- out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression of people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that.

Normally, one would expect libel laws to protect the person slimed by the likes of Drudge and his ilk, but as we saw when Sid Blumenthal tried to sue regarding the false story that he was a wife-beater, Drudge was backed by Richard Schaife whose money was able to purchase enough legal power to overwhelm Blumenthal despite the justice of his claim.

The FBI filegate story is any tired lie that Republicans trot out whenever they get caught with their ear in someone's soup.

Filegate is a White House scandal in June of 1996. Craig Livingstone, head of White House Security in the White House improperly requested, and received from the FBI, personnel files without asking permission of the subject individuals. Estimates range from 350 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures. The incident caused a firestorm of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations.
Livingstone, who had the highest security clearances in the U.S. government, previously had been a bouncer at a Washington D.C. night club prior to receiving the position as head of White House security. DNC operative Anthony Marceca received access to the files and downloaded them onto his private laptop computer.
In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray's report further stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved" in seeking the files.

External links
* http://www.epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/

Posted by: Mike on January 25, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

For the millionith time, its not whether the NSA taps are effective or not, its the blatant illegality of the taps and the "we don't give a shit attitude" of the admin. And it ain't only Dems asking questions. The whole mess will wind up in the SCOTUS and, apparently, GOP machine memeber Alito has that covered. By then, Bush will be looking at library designs, Cheney in his grave, and Rove bounsing his grand nieces on his knee.

The illegal monitoring of all US citizne will continue until morality improves, bitch!

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on January 25, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I think irrationalbushhater may have been thinking of the similar sting operation against Hemant Lakhani.

Posted by: KCinDC on January 25, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

horsecrap is the only response your comments deserve. it's beyond absurd to suggest the dems are trying to outlaw christianity.

Posted by: danelectro on January 25, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK
Judge Roy's Rock. The left objected to interior decorating. Posted by: conspiracy nut
That was settled by Alabama law in Alabama courts. Your claim that Roy wasn't pandering to Republican religious supporters is incorrect. There were people praying to the rock. Imagine: Praying to a false idol one of whose lines contained the phrase: Thou Shall Not Worship False Idols.
2) All the gun laws you want? The criminals don't follow them anyway. Posted by: conspiracy nut
That would be up the Republican justice department to prosecute. Why aren't they prosecuting crimes?
3) Reinstating the Fairness DoctrineI can also produce a fine list of examples of conservative viewpoints being squashed on university campuses. Posted by: conspiracy nut
Please provide data to support this claim, we would love to see a "fine list of examples"

Liberal talk radio on Air American is profitable, however, the corporations of American fund and support and endless string of right wing forums, none of which give their listeners a balance of views. This began during the Reagan regime and continues today. Several billionaire, among them Rev Moon, Rupert Murdock, and Richard Schaife have poured billions into their media propaganda empires. Many have lost money, but helped the corporatist party gain support against working Americans.

4) I do not see education listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government, don't rely on the "General welfare" stuff either, the Founders nixed that in the Federalist Papers Posted by: conspiracy nut

You ought to talk to George W. Bush about that because his "No Child Left Behind" provided funding and calls for educational standards. I don't recall any RepubliConTarian condemning him for that. Nor do I recall the Federalist Papers being incorporated into Constitutional law. When did that occur?

Posted by: Mike on January 25, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Your claim that Roy wasn't pandering to Republican religious supporters is incorrect
Hey, if you're going to be reading different stuff into what I write, make me sound like Charles Dickens; always liked his writing. What I claimed was that Judge Roy's rock was not an instance of Congress (or the State of Alabama) making any laws respecting the establishment of a religion.

Why aren't they prosecuting crimes?
Because the Clinton administration left them with too many problems. Got anything else that isn't partisan bullshit?

we would love to see a "fine list of examples"
This one will take a few minutes, I'll be back.

Liberal talk radio on Air American is profitable
Ya, they're really taking off. How many markets do they even register on Arbitron now? A couple? As for their profitablity, why'd they need to bleed that non-profit for money? I suppose I have to look that shit up for you, too.

I don't recall any RepubliConTarian condemning him for that
Spending all your time on moonbat blogs, I see.

Nor do I recall the Federalist Papers being incorporated into Constitutional law.
Well in that case, you get to say goodbye to the phrase "separation of church and state". Anyway, given the reliance by the SCOTUS on the Federalist papers as indicating the intent of the Founders, I'll believe them over you.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

we would love to see a "fine list of examples"
I remembered the name of this organization, realized that this would keep you busy. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. And you'll find examples of them coming down on conservatives as well, but not as many. (Imagine that, an organization that wants actual free speech, instead of "free speech for me, but not for thee")

If you want some more examples from the world at large, head over to the hated Instapundit and search on "crushing of dissent". It's an ongoing thing of his, there will be many hits.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

GOPGregory wrote: Do Democrats seriously believe the NSA wiretap issue will help them in the upcoming elections???

Knight Ridder reports that "a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans."

Democrats have good reason to believe that the NSA wiretapping issue will help them in the upcoming elections.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Animist, what do those polls show when it is made clear that one end of that conversation is not in the US? Sorry about that.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Any leftie claiming Lieberman as a moderate is just indicating how far left the Dem leadership is."

It just goes to show that Michael Moore and DailyKos are the Dem mainstream.

wow. you two are really amazingly dumb.

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

you two are really amazingly dumb
Another devastating rebuttal, you guys really are good.

Got anything to say about the fact that your most conservative Senator rates 76 out of 100 on the liberal scale? What about the fact that he had to give all 24 of those points up to be Al Bore's running mate?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: what do those polls show when it is made clear that one end of that conversation is not in the US? Sorry about that.

Good of you to apologize for your ignorance and stupidity.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

cn: capitulate to terrorists

look.....its the strawiest straw man in the strawtosphere...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, I see you haven't seen those polls. Allow me to help.

30. Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?

Should: 58%
Should not: 36%
Not sure: 6%

31. In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls coming in and out of the United States without getting warrants?

Should: 60%
Should not: 34%
Not sure: 7%

As Dick Morris said: Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

CN, what exactly is your problem with getting warrants? Is it just a matter of executive power to you or what?

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

cn: capitulate to terrorists
look.....its the strawiest straw man in the strawtosphere

Hey, I reworded that; it was just a slip of the fingers...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, a fake, phony, bogus, pretentious pseudo-libertarian poseur, is nothing but a programmed, scripted, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave who cheers on every corrupt, secretive, authoritarian, profoundly anti-libertarian action of the Bush administration.

In other words, he's a goon, of the sort that has been the backbone of every dictatorship that has ever existed.

And his shtick is to post the most abjectly stupid, ignorant, dumbass comments imaginable, and then sneer with superiority when someone points out that he posted an abjectly stupid, ignorant, dumbass comment.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

That's Canadian libertarianism off its meds, cq.

Posted by: shortstop on January 25, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK


cn: Any leftie claiming Lieberman as a moderate is just indicating how far left the Dem leadership is.

is joe still ok?


"There has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation (KATRINA) that we have a responsibility to do," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said at Tuesday's hearing of the Senate committee investigating the response. His spokeswoman said he would ask for a subpoena for documents and testimony if the White House did not comply.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

CN, what exactly is your problem with getting warrants? Is it just a matter of executive power to you or what?
First, I like warrants. Second, I like limiting executive power (of course I want to concurrently limit Congressional and court power).

Any more questions?

Possibly you have overlooked something: finding terrorists is a good thing. You can help me out though, you can expand your views on this taking into account FDR locking up Japanese-Americans and the Echelon program.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

is joe still ok?
Joe has never been OK. I'd have still voted for him if you Dems would have gotten him through the primary. Even after selling out what little moderation he had to run with Wooden Al, and even having that little moderation to sell out, he'd have still been better than Bush.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

cq: CN, what exactly is your problem with getting warrants? Is it just a matter of executive power to you or what?

In the case of conspiracy nut, it's a matter of being a brain-dead Bush-bootlicking mental slave, who is incapable of doing anything but robotically regurgitating whatever programmed, scripted, fake, phony, bogus talking points the right-wing Republican propaganda machine cranks out on any given day. That's all he ever does. No discussion, no thought, never anything of substance to say -- just "Moonbats lefties Al Bore Michael Moore Dan Rather moonbats lefties". A constant stream of mechanically regurgitated crap.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Are we suffering a national case of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

The constitution protects Muslims from profiling. Each time someone complains that neocon jews have disproportionate power in this adminstration [and in media] we are scolded that it is BIGOTED to hold views that tar everyone of the same ethnicity with a broad brush.

Yet Muslims are vilified everyday in American media. Is this cognitive dissonance or something more sinister?

Just take any hit piece on Muslims - say Nora Ephron reminding us that "Muslims Hate Americans"

and switch the words to Jews Hate Muslims or Jews [do ANYTHING collectively] --

the response to ethnic generalizations is swift and merciless.

So - it appears that Muslims can be profiled. Germans are profiled all the time. Blacks are profiled. Even Gays are profiled.... but JEWS?

Jews are profiled as a 'group think' only in impolite company - and anyone who suggests such 'heresy' is vilified, marginalized and issued a scarlet A on their resume.

Michael Ledeen said if you want to know who is in charge - find out who is innoculated from criticism. Find out which opinions are routinely censored. find out who it is that no one dare speak of.

In America - just to identify Jews as Jews is anti semitic. Isn't this a bit strange?

Posted by: Ashley on January 25, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK


"Even the most noble ends do not justify any means" - G.W. Bush 8/9/01


bush rule #1: rules are for suckers....

and by suckers he means everyone not a bush

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Got anything to say about the fact that your most conservative Senator rates 76 out of 100 on the liberal scale? What about the fact that he had to give all 24 of those points up to be Al Bore's running mate?

who cares?

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

I for one do not care

Posted by: cq on January 25, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I, for another, do not care. Democrats used to have a solid lock on the Federal gov't, you might have noticed that they no longer do.

And the farther the Dem leadership gets from moderate, the more solid the Republican hold on the gov't gets. More Repubs hired in the State Dept and others, more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. So it's no problem at all for me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Please provide data to support this claim, we would love to see a "fine list of examples"

Let's pass on this. Last thing we need is cn to start posting his chain emails in these threads (CAPITAL LETTERS AND ALL).

Posted by: Jimm on January 25, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

And the farther the Dem leadership gets from moderate, the more solid the Republican hold on the gov't gets

yeah, you tell 'em! Princess Leia!

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy, your idea of moderate is absurd. instead, let's talk about independents. could care less about "moderate" defenders of the status quo and corporate slush control over our democracy.

Posted by: Jimm on January 25, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm wrote: conspiracy, your idea of moderate is absurd.

conspiracy nut doesn't have any "ideas". What he has are programmed, scripted talking points that he gets from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other right-wing Republican propaganda outlets, which he slavishly, mindlessly, robotically regurgitates. That's all that Bush-bootlicking morons like conspiracy nut are capable of.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy, your idea of moderate is absurd
That's not my idea of moderate. Newt is my idea of moderate. That is the ADA's idea of moderate

ADA is America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

he gets from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other right-wing Republican propaganda outlets
Not that this will disturb your descent into personal abuse or anything, but I don't listen to Rush, or watch FOX. I get my news from CNN's website. Then I come out here to see what has the moonbats up in arms, do a little Googling, and realize that, as usual, you are engaged in knee-jerk reactionary Bush opposition.

And really, even the abuse the weak. You couldn't step it up a notch, could you? I would ike to get a little more entertainment out of it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, I forgive you for the abuse, I realize you're still pissed over the brocolli thing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, you tell 'em! Princess Leia!
She was right, too.

But I must admit, that was a good catch.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Of course, I forgive you for the abuse, I realize you're still pissed over the brocolli thing.

When I point out that your comments are stupid, you respond by posting something even more stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well, after looking over your comments, I figured this was race to the bottom.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

ADA rating...Teddy...Tradesports...moonbats...lefties...Red China...Cuba...Dan Rather...spork! grerp! flop!!!

Posted by: Randon Conspiracy Nut Word Generator on January 25, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!

Posted by: Random Ashley/Karen/TJ/Arsenia/wenn/Mike/King of Yellow Word Generator on January 25, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: ... as usual, you are engaged in knee-jerk reactionary Bush opposition ...

Given that all you ever post is verbatim regurgitation of brain-dead, scripted, programmed right-wing Bush-bootlicking boilerplate talking points, that comment might seem to indicate that you have a sense of irony.

But no, it just indicates that you are really, really stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

I recently started listening to a liberal talk show in TX. I heard about a "forum"(they couldn't call it a hearing) that had been held in the basement of Capitol Hill regarding tapping the phone lines of various peaceful informative or peaceful protest groups(i.e. the quakers). I haven't seen anything however on the news or the web. Has anyone seen, read or heard any media attention about this issue?

Posted by: RACHEL on January 25, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ya, I heard about that, I think it was the Illumanti that ordered the tapping.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone seen, read or heard any media attention about this issue?

minority parties have to hold conferences in the basement - the majority party won't give up the good rooms.

Posted by: cleek on January 25, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Lurker4. Hillary's comments were much milder and more defensible than the commonly repeated paraphrase that "the problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers." I still think the answer to speech is more speech, not "gatekeepers".

However; I will leave using partial, out of context, quotes to Maureen Dowd and the NYT and their sympathizers.

Posted by: tool of some sort on January 25, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

cn: the more solid the Republican hold on the gov't gets


the more americans that die...


just coincidence?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

just coincidence?
Hardly, when something needs done (like say, terrorists) you elect Republicans to get the job done. Don't worry, one of these days nothing will need done, and we'll put the Democrats back in power while we're in coast mode.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: when something needs done (like say, terrorists) you elect Republicans to get the job done.

Yes, when the job that needs to be done is to ignore numerous urgent and specific warnings of an impending major Al Qaeda attack involving hijacked aircraft, thereby allowing an attack that could easily have been prevented to kill nearly 3000 Americans, you definitely need Republicans for that job. And not just any Republicans, either. You need Cheney and Bush for a tough job like that.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yo Animist, considering your guy spent 8 years watching al Qaeda grow while he boned the help, you might want to be a little careful.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK


just coincidence?
Hardly, when something needs done (like say, terrorists) you elect Republicans to get the job done.

proof through assertion again?

biggest killer of americans ...

during clinton.....timothy mcveigh......he's dead

during bush.....osama bin laden.....he's not...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

cn: considering your guy spent 8 years watching al Qaeda grow while he boned the help, you might want to be a little careful.

shame when bush came on board on 1/20/2001 and until 9-11....

he didn't change one thing....

go figure....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 25, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

CN ya think your boy is gonna get osama or whoever else after 8 years, what are we like a half a trillon in the hole and the best we can come up with is some guy we set up. A shoe bomber and another nutjob that was gonna saw through the Brooklyn bridge. I think we would have been better off if Georgie was boning the help.

Posted by: morg on January 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: considering your guy spent 8 years watching al Qaeda grow while he boned the help, you might want to be a little careful.

Considering that that comment is just one more example of your brain-dead, slavish, idiotic regurgitation of the scripted, programmed right-wing drivel-points that you get from constantly listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News (which embarrasses even you so much that you have to lie about it), there's little reason to respond to it.

Having said that, outgoing members of the Clinton administration from Clinton himself on down, told their incoming counterparts in the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat facing America in 2001 and that urgent action was needed to deal with it.

For the sake of argument, let's call that an admission of failure on the part of the Clinton administration. The Bush administration had nine months to do something to rectify this failure. Nine months during which the received numerous, increasingly urgent, and quite specific warnings that a major Al Qaeda attack was in preparation. Nine months during which several of the 9/11 attackers were identified by the FBI, including at least one of them whose activities prompted an FBI agent to write to his superiors that "this is a guy who might fly a plane into the World Trade Center". Nine months during which such warnings and reports from FBI field agents went ignored as a direct result of the Bush administration's complete indifference, at the highest levels of the administration, to the threat from Al Qaeda. Nine months during which the 9/11 plot could easily have been discovered and thwarted by an administration that gave a shit about terrorism. Nine months during which the Bush administration did absolutely nothing except ignore all the warnings.

Yes, you definitely need Republicans for a job like that.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

morg
See, thoughts like yours are why we elect Republicans for times like these.

Here's your first misconception: bin Laden is not the only terrorist in the world. Say it a few times, let it soak in slowly.

Your second misconception is toward our successes. You listed 2 things that don't even count as successes, and apparently completely missed the things that do.

See the reason that the country doesn't trust Dems to do this work is: you're fairly clueless.

Posted by: conpsiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

and that urgent action was needed to deal with it
Huh, not according to Berger. But what would he know? Of course, after spending 8 years not doing anything about it himself, he probably would know.

and quite specific warnings that a major Al Qaeda attack was in preparation
I'm aware this is a moonbat canard, but I've never seen the evidence for this. Got any?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Here Cn I'll try this one George can't catch Osama. George can't catch osama. While were at it are you wingnuts on the web gonna have a little box you can check on your tax return. "Shill For Bush" and get a dollar off.

Posted by: morg on January 25, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

thisspaceavailable
go figure
Sorry for doing this one last, but there is actually a serious point here; and pleasure before business on this blog.

There is a reason. There is a reason that Clinton did nothing, and there is a reason that Bush did nothing pre-9/11. And it's the same reason: the US public.

The US public (and I'm not just picking on the anti-war loonies here, it would have been much wider in scope) would never have supported actual action. The threat of terrorism is a low-level thing, a few embassies here, a few barracks there, long way from home kind of thing. Not enough to motivate the US public to the kind of response necessary.

I've often pondered if Gore had been elected what our response to 9/11 would have been. As in the case of Bush, he would have been freed up by the US public to actually do something.

I will now return to your regularly scheduled program and point out that Al would probably have sat down to milk and cookies with them (sorry, soy based milk substitute) and lectured them on the evils of global warming and population explosion.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Well I'm going get my kids from school. If I'm lucky I will be able to avoid the herds of raging Homosexuals trying to force their gay agenda on us. Dodge the mad mullahs hanging from the trees. Hope I don't drive over an IED or get kibnapped and beheaded. Wish me luck. Or yeah I feel safer in a red state

Posted by: morg on January 25, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Animist
Had to do a little Google for this

According to Clinton's account, he tried to convince Bush to abandon his other national-security priorities to focus on al Qaeda during an "exit interview" with the newly elected president...A Bush official familiar with the meeting and its content says it focused on other foreign and domestic matters. According to the official, if al Qaeda came up at all, it was in passing as President Clinton lobbied Bush on other matters, most importantly North Korea.
...a Time magazine cover story in August 2002 that reported that there was a Clinton "plan" to fight al Qaeda that was passed along to the Bush team.
This too proved false. A former Clinton official told NR's Byron York after the Time report: "It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan." In testimony before Congress, former Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger said the same thing: "There was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect."
[source]
Dang, who to believe, Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, or George "We know where the WMDs are" Bush? Can we at least agree that Berger knew what he was talking about before Congress, and there was definitely no plan turned over to the Bush administration?

Of course, if you agree to that, then we already have one instance of a false claim along these lines which tends to make the Clinton side look a little weaker on the claim of the exit interview. So you'd better blast Berger on his remarks to Congress.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut --

you ask what response Gore would have had to 9/11.

I would hope he would have kept his response to the men who actually committed the crimes.

"Al would probably sat down to cookies with "THEM"

who is them?

Iraqis? why not milk and cookies - these people did nothing to us.

Which brings me to the islamophobic bedrock that supports these kinds of theories.

Who's THEM?

Are Blacks a THEM? Are Gays a THEM? [shared characteristics - group think - identical philosophies, motives or worldviews?]

We know JEWS are not a THEM.... polite company resists saying even that "Jews celebrate Hannukah"... such are the prohibitions on groupthink for that particular "groupthink"

So -- the author sez Gore would have had milk and cookies with THEM ... who does he mean?

Certainly not AG or BL -- but George Bush declared war on a completely separate nation... the only thread that binds Iraqis and Al Quiada is religion....

now - using conspiracy nuts reasoning...

Bin Laden didn't sit down and have milk and cookies with the Israelis that murder innocent Palestinian children....

he knocked down buildings and killed 6000 Americans -- THEM -- you know --- the people who support Israel... Christians and Jews.

Same flawed logic as Bushbot -- both men are murderous knaves who should be tried in their respective countries for war crimes against innocents.

BUSH = BIN LADEN = SHARON -- hang em all

Posted by: Ashley on January 25, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Terrorists 0, Competents 0

Posted by: parrot on January 25, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

you ask what response Gore would have had to 9/11
What I said was that I pondered what Gore would have done. It's fun to play-spelunk the moonbat mind.

Who's THEM?
Them would be the terrorists in my sentence. It's all in the pronoun reference linky for your convenience

That appears to be all the corrections and questions. But that is a fine example of an unhinged, barking moonbat rant (It's all about the JEWS!). My hat's off.

You from Evergreen College or Berkeley?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ashley:

How much power do you think the Jews have in this country, exactly?

As opposed to, say, the Episcopalians?

Me, I'm a little more worried about the Protocols of the Elders of Kennebunkport, myself.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 25, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

And so the idiotic utterances of conspiracy nut gradually turn to strangled gurgling noises as he drowns in his own drivel.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Me, I'm a little more worried about the Protocols of the Elders of Kennebunkport, myself.
Now that was funny.

Why can't you do clever shit like that, Animist?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: Why can't you do clever shit like that, Animist?

You really are a rock-stupid moron.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 25, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush denounced Robertson's latest wingnuttery, Michael Moore gets seated next to Jimmy Carter."
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 25, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK


Isn't it ironic that it was Robertson who advised Bush to NOT invade Iraq? Bush is the more radical of the two and yet it was Robertson who was shouted down for a few words, while Bush kills tens of thousands of people and his party still supports him.

I don't remember Michael Moore killing anyone or calling for anyone to be killed. So, why shouldn't he have a seat?

Posted by: MarkH on January 25, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

"Michael Ledeen said if you want to know who is in charge - find out who is innoculated from criticism. Find out which opinions are routinely censored. find out who it is that no one dare speak of.

In America - just to identify Jews as Jews is anti semitic. Isn't this a bit strange?"

Posted by: Ashley on January 25, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK


This is good logic, but I think the people even more inoculated are those whose identities (as group or individually) are not even known or recognized. Except for about a dozen or so Rich people there are many we don't know. THEY are inoculated by separation and insulation from the rest of society.

Posted by: MarkH on January 25, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

"I recently started listening to a liberal talk show in TX. I heard about a "forum"(they couldn't call it a hearing) that had been held in the basement of Capitol Hill regarding tapping the phone lines of various peaceful informative or peaceful protest groups(i.e. the quakers). I haven't seen anything however on the news or the web. Has anyone seen, read or heard any media attention about this issue?"

Posted by: RACHEL on January 25, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK


Rep. John Conyers hosted it. You might go to his website to find out more.

Posted by: MarkH on January 25, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

So, why shouldn't he have a seat?
I think it's great that he got a seat; the Repubs have been, and will continue to, get some wonderful mileage out of that.

On the Iraq war, are you aware that a large number of Democrats voted for that too? It was in all the papers.

It was, in fact, the fringes of both parties that opposed it. Hence my comment about our fringe being marginalized and your fringe being glorified. But there's no doubt in my mind that this is way over your head.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 26, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

prosolution penis pill

Posted by: prosolution penis pill on January 28, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

proenhance

Posted by: proenhance on January 28, 2006 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

fastsize extender

Posted by: fastsize extender on January 28, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

relagen

Posted by: relagen on January 28, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly