Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bob Kerrey on the Daily Show

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TSIAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:01 PM
Original message
Bob Kerrey on the Daily Show
Comedy Central- 11:00 ET
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. I heard he had an "accident" on the set
is that true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TSIAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Haven't heard anything
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's on right now.
Jon was a little off today about the women's march. Sort of pissed me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. what did he say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Kind of made fun of us. Actually got boo'd.
Sorry I can't remember the exact sentence or even what it was about. (senior moments). Then he segued into "important things that were happening"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-04 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. He was talking about Whoopi Goldberg
Apparently she held up a coat hanger and said we were one vote away from "this". Stewart mocked her with "That was the funniest thing she has said in seven years."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kathy in Cambridge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I was kind of disappointed in his tone
and the audience wasn't happy either!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I sometimes think that ideological commitment makes
Stewart uncomfortable....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. At least for his moment of Zen,
he repeated the asshole pro-life guy with the bullhorn yelling: "Submit back to the kitchen!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Jon asked Kerrey to ask Bush & Cheney this question.........
What the F**k is wrong with you people????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjornsdotter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. LOL
Hi,

I thought the Kerrey segment was great...seemed as if the audience thought so also.

Cheer,
Kim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. Repeating the BS about the gorelick memo
Stewart seems to be clueless about the Gorelick memo, repeating the "wall" lie that Ashcroft thew at the committee without qualification or clarification. Kerrey didn't correct him either.

How hard is it for a Dem to state in public that the memo allowed the use of FISA warrants for the new domestic and international investigations stemming from the WTC bombing investigation but made clear that the info gathered with them be kept out of judicial prosecutions because the evidence required to get a FISA warrant would not meet the burden of proof for a judicial warrant and so evidence or info via FISA warrant could be tossed in court or get a scumbag freed? What, too many words?

My first post. Thank you for this wonderful forum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. welcome to DU!!
:hi: Thanks for explaining all that. Not that I understood it . but I'm sure our "defenders of public interest" do. Wherever they are.
(I'll figure it out eventually.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-04 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, welcome to DU.
Nice post. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Thanks! More info on the memo....
From a spanking I laid on a freeper "moran".
Download a copy of the memo and check it out.

Freeper bellowed:
>The real problem was the law that forbade the CIA and FBI and
>other intelligence agencies from sharing information with one >another. Guess who instituted this law?

The wall.

In testimony to the Sept. 11 Commission on April 13th Attorney General John Ashcroft stated:

"Government erected this wall, government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall."

What wall? He was refering to this memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" written by then- Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick. Here is the memo:

http://www.justice.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

This memo sought to prevent intelligence gathered abroad, sometimes in ways extra-constitutional, from contaminating evidence in domestic criminal prosecutions, which might cause a mistrial or a reversal on a technicality. It did not effect intelligence from moving the other way. In effect a legal safety valve, one that had been understood for many years. The memo was written as a reminder and specifically mentioned the case "United States v. Rahman, et al" The memo states:

During the course of those investigations significant counterintelligence
information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and
overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups. Although information and evidence
relevant to possible future criminal prosecutions is still being sought, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that there is a compelling need to further develop and expand that foreign counterintelligence information. Consequently, the FBI has
initiated a separate full field counterintelligence investigation. Although the counterintelligence investigation may result in the incidental collection of information relevant to possible
future criminal prosecutions, the primary purpose of the counter-intelligence investigation will be to collect foreign
counterintelligence information. Because the counterintelligence investigation will involve the use of surveillance techniques
authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) against targets that, in some instances, had been subject to
surveillance under Title III, and because it will involve some of the same sources and targets as the criminal investigation, we
believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation
from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations.

So, during the investigation of the World Trade Center bombing, investigators began to unravel a world-wide terrorist conspiracy. They began to see the need for increased intelligence-seeking and the need for an expansion of the investigation beyond that required for the criminal prosecution. This widened investigation would develop intelligence for the identification of other terrorist operatives and cells, help identify "home bases' and perhaps prevent future plots and attacks. Investigators were to use Fisa warrants for surveillance of possible terrorist suspects. Clinton later expanded FISA to include wiretapping and physical searches.

The memo then does not hinder the investigations of terrorist or their plots, but rather moves the counter-terrorism investigations from the realm of judicial warrants, which must meet criminal standards, to the FISA - which must meet a different, and lower, set of standards. Under the law as it was then applied, this meant that FISA rulings could be classified, and thus immune from Freedom of Information requests. Thus, intelligence gathered with FISA warrants could be kept secret. Damn smart.

By moving intelligence gathering to FISA, the effect of the "wall" was to increase, not decrease the ability of the FBI to secure warrants for wiretaps and searches.

Naturally, intelligence that is gathered with a method that does not meet the judicial standards should not be used in criminal prosecutions. If it were to be directly injected in a domestic criminal proceeding, the result could be a mistrial. An oversight step was established to handle the dissemination of intelligence to criminal prosecution personnel. The memo made sure that the World Trade Center bombers didn't get let off because the FBI or the CIA cut corners.

Now, a Deputy Attorney General wrote this memo. If, when assuming office Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the memo, he could have changed it. He had that authority. He did not change it. He did propose in his Sept. 10 2001 budget request to reduce supplemental funding of counter-terrorism. He did ignore the FBI's request for $58 million for 149 additional field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 translators to deal with the huge backlog of intelligence data. He did fail to list counter-terrorism in his May 10, 2001 memo of top priorities for the Department of Justice. He did curtail the support for the issuing of FISA warrants (perhaps most notably in the Moussaoui case). He did purchase a whole lot of blue curtain material.

It's no wonder why Attorney General Ashcroft might now, after Sept. 11th, lie to cover his ass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Do you mean...
FISA warrants can be used for terrorist investigations but not prosecutions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. The requirements to obtain...
...a FISA warrant are less stringent than the requirements for a judicial search warrant. That is a problem, and the reason for an informational one-way valve. However, folks had ways of dealing with that. That part of the dance I am unclear on. But, hey, tomorrow's another day for research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC