The CRUCIAL question - - Why did chimp-fucker break the law?!

[jefferson_dem]

We know he broke the law. He was specifically denied power by Congress but wielded it anyway, unbridled. Now the crucial question is -- why?! Why violate the law and bypass the FISA court?

More on the point from John at americablog, who challenges the media to step up --->

The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants.

They have yet to answer this question, and this is the ONLY QUESTION you need to be immediately focusing on. There is no answer, short of the administration simply wanting to defy the law. It wasn't for expediency, because they could do the search immediately. And if they say it was because they were afraid the court would deny the warrant, that's absurd since the court has refused only 5 to 15 of 19,000 warrants that have been requested.

The only reason the court would refuse a warrant in post-9/11 America is if the warrant were for something outrageous, such as, oh I don't know, spying on an American elected official or an American journalist. It would have to be a pretty outrageous request if the administration were afraid the Potemkin court would turn it down. So aren't you the least bit curious what that request was, and whether it involved YOU?

Come on guys, make us proud, ask an obvious question and stick with it until you get a satisfactory answer. You have your Watergate staring you in the eyes, grab it.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/to-my-friends-in-media-here-is-only.html

[snot]

1. nom'd and kick -- nt

[bpilgrim]

46. I think it is because they were spying on EVERYONE!

i think they were using computer programs to troll EVERYONES communications for key words and phrases.

of course that would be hard to pass under existing law and they also get the added benefit (and cover) of reading their political opponents communications as well.

:scared:

peace

[bpilgrim]

52. seattlepi: All overseas phone calls may have been tapped...

Spy net may pull in all U.S. calls overseas
Many Americans' privacy is at risk, some say

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
THE BOSTON GLOBE

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to al-Qaida, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA.

The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday, saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

--This means my conversations with my girlfriend when she was in Tokyo on business were probably listened too. They must have loved those.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253223_spying23.html?dpfrom=thead

discuss here with LeftNYC...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2330302#2330314

peace

[rpannier]

2. Two things:

Number One: Why? I don't care. I avoid getting into those discussions with my friends who are scrub apologists. He broke the law that's all that matters.

Number Two: As to why? Because he feels he's entitled, that he's special. The rules do not apply to him. No one has held him responsible for all the stupid and illegal things he's done so far. Why should he think this would be any different?

[jefferson_dem]

7. I agree. We stipulate that he broke the law. Now we MUST find out why.

If it's simply because he's "merely" an arrogant, out-of-control, power-hungry tyrant, so be it. It may that PLUS some things even more diabolical, as John alludes to. We must demand answers. Then we hold the bastard accountable.

[snot]

3. See, e.g., --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5673549

[berni_mccoy]

16. That's it... that's the motive... JUST LIKE NIXON...WHAT A F*#$%@R

[Pachamama]

34. I think it is sooo much more than another Watergate... think that its much

bigger and much uglier than the motives behind Watergate....I think it was to not only spy, it was to blackmail people and to control them and destroy them. I defy the Bush Administration to prove that each of these requests were on people with Al Qaida links (known in fact).

I think that the motives were more than just ego...it was for absolute power and control of everything, everyone.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Because the arrogance of this misadministration is so extreme

that they now think that they are above the law - they are completely shit faced with power. And why? Because the media and the left and the public have, for 5 years, enabled this behavior. After a feast of scandals, there has been nothing to pay. And it will only continue and get worse unless the shit hits the fan this time.

[ThomWV]

5. There Is Only 1 Answer

The answer is they would have had to disclose WHO they are spying on.

[Imalittleteapot]

8. This so smells of Watergate.

There are probably a lot of nervous politicians in Washington right now.

[electropop]

20. The list of targets must be truly juicy.

All of us are certainly on it.

[northofdenali]

31. Gosh, I HOPE so!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, we're falling down on the job!! (I got on "the list" back in the late '60's, early '70's...)

Why did he lie? Because he could. We need a "fuck Bush" smilie - uh. frownie.

[librechik]

50. don't get excited--remember the 18 minute gap?

We'll never ever see those names, IMO. The perps have control of the evidence trail. Today they know they might get a subpoena. They all went to the Oliver North School of Shredding Arts.

I'll let you finish my paragraph.

[Lerkfish]

42. Actually, as I see it, there are at least three possible answers...

1. WRONG TARGETS (as you state) the identities of who they were spying on would blow the request out of the water. This implies they were persons NOT considered targets of suspicion of terrorism: quakers, antiwar protestors, political opponents, etc.

2. BLANKET TARGETS -- wherein ALL communications of EVERY citizen is monitored, a big brother in the electronic age.

3. INTENTIONALLY BAD TARGETS -- people that were innocent, but were to be targeted as scapegoats and locked away, or disappeared, or executed. If the intention was to disappear them or execute them, or spirit them away in extraordinary renditions to other torture cells in other countries, then they wouldn't want a legal paper trail of who they targeted or why.

there may be more possibilities, but those are the three I see right now.

[Just Me]

48. Maybe, they simply wanted absolute power, absolute control over,...

,...this country. Maybe, they just wanted their very own dictatorship. Maybe.

[Lerkfish]

49. well, sure that's their overarching goal, but I was referring to the taps

specifically.

[shenmue]

6. There are certain people...

he hates, and wants to get rid of, and now that he can get his hands on the power, he'll do it.

It's obvious because he's only going after people who have political opposition to him, and not anyone who has anything to do with actual terrorism.

This is persecution, pure and simple.

:grr:

[babylonsister]

9. He was rabidly interested in his political competitors and

liabilities, and thought his power wouldn't be usurped.

[CoffeeCat]

10. It's because of WHO they are spying on...

If they go through the courts, they have to lay out who they are spying on.

By doing things their way--usurping laws and being secretive--they can do whatever the hell they please.

They do not want a record of who they are spying on.

It's totally obvious that they are using provisions of the Patriot Act for their own, personal political jollies. They say the Patriot Act--and their ability for wiretapping--is for the safety and security of the country. Bullf***ingshit!

These thugs are maniacal, manipulative lying fascist freaks. They sit in rooms and laugh at the lower 99 percent. They have managed to pull off so many crimes against this nation, its people and this Constitution--it's just unbelievable.

They've undoubtedly spied on average citizens, political enemies or other people they need dirt on. I don't know how we would ever know who they spied on. It's doubtful that there are written records, correct?

It's beyond me--how any conservative or libertarian could have one ounce of respect or support for these anti-American, big-government, freedom-hating pigs.

This makes me sick.

[walldude]

30. Exactly..

It's not real freaking hard to get a warrant, and another DU'er pointed out to me that they can get a retroactive warrant 72 hours after the fact. Which leaves only one conclusion, and you stated it eloquently. :toast:

[Doctor_J]

44. But with the courts now stacked with cronies and RW idealogues,

they could probably get warrants to spy on Kerry, the ACLU, DU, and so on.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. He has no respect for the law. Never has.

Has always been socialized my Mommy and Daddy to believe that his sort is completely above the law, that the law doesn't apply to him. He's just doing what comes naturally to him, doing whatever is most expedient to him, while brazenly ignoring the law and expecting to get away with it, even when caught.

I think in some ways he really does believe he's dictator, or at least should be, and has the right to act like he is.

[regnaD kciN]

15. If that's the case...

...I worry what may happen should Democrats take back Congress next year and threaten impeachment. If Bush has "no respect for the law," and has his back up against the wall, might not all leading Democrats (and some of us who are not so "leading") suddenly be declared "enemy combatants" and rounded up?

:scared:

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I guess that depends

on whether the normal institutions of our society, like the police forces and the military still do have respect for the law and the Constitution.

Remember even Erich Honecker, the last dictator of East Germany, wanted to unleash the full fury of the military on peaceful protestors, and was summarily removed from office by people who had no history of respect for law. If that could happen even in a longstanding communist dictatorship, I doubt that our own coutries institutions can have degraded to such an extent that Bush could get away with it. It's more likely that he'll get carted away in a straitjacket.

I'm at least preferring to go with the more optimistic scenario on this, which is unusual for me. It's just that he's one man backed up by a small cabal. He's not the major institutions of this country.

[Pachamama]

35. Ever read Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here?" Within a short period

of time after taking office, the main character who is the evil President, puts the Congress, Judges and other "opponents" into "protective custody" for their own good. Then he declares martial law and well, it goes from there...That I think was just chapter 2....

Excellent read by the way....what was particularly fascinating about this book is that Sinclair Lewis wrote it prior to WWII and before we knew the extent of the Nazi destructiveness....

[kentuck]

12. Why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can.

[jefferson_dem]

14. LOL! Good one! n/t

[babylonsister]

13. Howell Raines' perspective says it all:

By Howell Raines
December 19, 2005
The Bush generations have enriched themselves
while impoverishing the presidency.


AT THIS point, the policy legacy of George Bush seems pretty well defined by three disparate disasters: Iraq in foreign affairs, Katrina in social welfare, corporate influence over tax, budget and regulatory decisions. As a short-term political consequence, we may avoid another dim-witted Bush in the White House. But what the Bush dynasty has done to presidential campaign science — the protocols by which Americans elect presidents in the modern era — amounts to a political legacy that can haunt the Republic for years to come.

We are now enduring the third generation of Bushes who have taken the playbook of the "ruthless" Kennedys and amplified it into a consistent code of amorality in both campaign tactics and governance. In their campaigns, the Kennedys used money, image-manipulation, old-boy networks and, when necessary, personal attacks on worthy adversaries such as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. But there was also a solid foundation of knowledge and purpose undergirding John Kennedy's sophisticated internationalism, his Medicare initiative, his late-blooming devotion to racial justice, and Robert Kennedy's opposition to corporate and union gangsterism. Like Truman, Roosevelt and, yes, even Lincoln, two generations of Kennedys believed that a certain amount of political chicanery was tolerable in the service of altruism.

Behind George W, there are four generations of Bushes and Walkers devoted first to using political networks to pile up and protect personal fortunes and, latterly, to using absolutely any means to gain office, not because they want to do good, but because they are what passes in American for hereditary aristocrats. In sum, George Bush stands at the apex of a pyramid of privilege whose history and social significance that, given his animosity to scholarly thought, he almost certainly does not understand.

Here's the big picture, as drawn most effectively by the Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty. Starting in 1850, the Bushes through alliance with the smarter Walker clan, built up a fortune based on classic robber-baron foundations: railways, steel, oil, investment banking, armaments and materiel in the world wars. They had ties to the richest families of the industrial age: Rockefeller, Harriman, Brookings. Yet they never adopted the charitable, public-service ethic that developed in those families

More... Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5672029

[electropop]

21. Like robber-barons, only meaner and dumber.

That sounds about right.

[babylonsister]

25. Meaner, dumber, and absolutely no compassion or

conscience. That is what is running this country. It's mind-boggling that more people don't 'get it'.

[sandnsea]

18. To spy on Joe Wilson, that's why

Whaddya wanna bet.

[babylonsister]

26. But it was done so many times. Joe wasn't the only reason.

How about this from Larissa?

I spy a Democrat? RE: DeLay and the spy ring.


Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons for the Bush/Cheney NSA spy ring can be found in the extra-legal activities of their favorite Texas son.

In 2003, Tom Delay, the ex-exterminator turned money launderer, began using the Department of Homeland Security as his personal surveillance team. And who was the Ham spying on using our tax dollars and without any oversight whatsoever?

Turns out Hammy was tracking Texas Democrats who had left Texas to break quorum on the yet another questionable piece of legislation.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/i-spy...

[LunaC]

32. Corrected link to Alexandrovna article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/i-spy-a-democrat_b_12730.html

[donheld]

19. Which time? nt

[DURHAM D]

22. Take note of the fact that Senator Rockefeller wrote his protest

letter to Cheney. I think Cheney was responsible for this action. Also, when Bush said in April of 2004 that wiretaps require permission from a Judge he actually thought that was how his administration was handling things and he had no knowledge of the illegal wiretaps at that time.

My guess would be that he found out about the illegal taps in late November or early December. He had no option but to own it - he is not in a position to punish Cheney by asking for his resignation. Bush has said "I did this" and "I did that" too many times in the past week (in an effort to appear to be in charge)when he actually is not on the top of the pile.

Once again Cheney has f'ed him over and Bush has to take the hit because he is backed in a corner. The amazing thing is that no one is asking "Who is really in charge" - The Rockefeller letter is a red flag that no member of the media is waving.

[nicknameless]

23. Information gathering to blackmail Congressional Dems and the media?

... Plus information to use against dissenters or anyone who might get in the way of their nefarious schemes.

[cry baby]

24. Believe it or not, I heard James Carville bring up spying on

political enemies as an answer to that question. The repub lady next to him tried to shame him for even suggesting that. He just shrugged like it was the only obvious answer. That was 2 days ago on Wolf's show.

[leftstreet]

27. Spying on Corporations?

(I posted this in another thread and just saw yours.)

Bush-Cheney-Rummy have no interest in terrorism. They never have. They just used it as a means to gain power. And they don't give a shit about Democratic campaign strategies. They don't have to worry about what the other guys are doing, they use election fraud and laundered money to get in office. And what's the point of spying on journalists? Their bosses are in bed with the administration, and if they want a story killed, it gets killed.

So what's truly worthy of risking impeachment? The only thing these fuckers are interested in is M.O.N.E.Y. Global corporations have money. Buying and selling information would have to be a lucrative business. Plus, The Bush Crime Syndicate's corporate sponsors would hold them accountable to get the insider information they need. Surely multinational corporations make "offshore" communications. And just as surely no FISA court would sign a warrant to monitor communications just because the target is a Halliburton competitor.

Why else would BushCo risk so much?

If I were the CEO of any corp that's lost major contracts, failed to secure patent protection, or had any serious setbacks which I felt were due to inside information, I'd be seriously interested in just who's been spying on whom.

[elehhhhna]

57. That's what keep coming back to--corporate espionage.

On behalf of Carlysle, Halliburton, etc. Why? LOL. WHY NOT? It's all about enriching themselves, and as long as our country is managed by WAR PROFITEERS, it will remain so.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

28. It's about the method.

FISA is not about to grant warrants for "Carnivore" or "Able Danger" or "Echelon" - type keyword searches - the "giant vacuum-cleaner" approach to intelligence-gathering. Besides, it is as ineffective an intelligence-gathering tool as torture, because the analysts end up swamped with non-germane information.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. not ineffective

echelon uses a massive computerized back end to do the heavy lifting. The analysts end up with a database of interesting stuff with all sorts of connections in it. It is what they did with all this data - assume for example that they basically snarfed all domestic communications and that 'interesting' went far beyond bombs and planes. Analysts might be able to query this database for all sorts of items - for example 'who was John Kerry talking to on this or that date and what were they talking about'. The point is that once you start a vacuum cleaner type monitoring process, you end up with a mountain of information all sorted into a huge database with the NSA's world class database engine sitting there ready and waiting for the data miners to get to work.

There are lots of good questions that need to be asked. How broad was the monitoring? Who had access to the database? What controls were in place with respect to access?

[mmonk]

29. Obvious

they broke the law to circumvent FISA due to reasons they knew would be denied and secrecy as to whom they were spying on in certain cases. I'm sure we'd be frightened in knowing.

[babylonsister]

33. Precisely why we have to find out. nt

[lala_rawraw]

36. I suspect I know why, but it frightens me to say it

... If you were involved in the biggest crime in US history, would you not want to make sure you knew who was snooping around and about what? Or I could be having holiday paranoia.

[Binka]

39. I'll Say It lala They Are Spying On Folks So They Can KILL Them

Wanna bet if the list of spying victims comes out MANY of those same people will also have died under let's say WEIRD circumstances. I'm convinced they spied on Wellstone, Ray Lemme, James Hatfield (just to name a very few) and then they killed them.

The Mob uses this same tactic. Very prevalent here in Sicily.

[lala_rawraw]

61. No, I don't think that is it

I think it is even worse... not to kill them, but to keep them in line. Blackmail.

[flordehinojos]

37. does it have something to do with POWER AND CONTROL and THE SLOW ESTABLISH

MENT OF A DICTATORSHIP? it smells like it to me! Plain and clear!

[Skittles]

38. because they aren't spying on suspected terrorists

they are spying on Americans who do not goose-step to bush inc

[jbnow]

40. One reporter at press conference did ask

why they couldn't get the warrant within the 72 hours afterward. He asked it at the end of another question. Bush vaguely said things about speed and new technology, in other words, no answer.

No one else followed up on it and as you said it is a key question.

But some spinners on the right have made more sense in their answer. One was that Victoria whatshername. She said something like he couldn't have gotten the approval to do the wide surveillance they needed to do on larger groups where there is no probable cause the court would accept. Then she went on with the usual these are new times, protect America, doing his duty.

She is certainly right in saying it was things he couldn't have gotten a warrant approved here. bush and official spokespeople have not said that because that would be adding to their knowledge it was illegal. How would it sound to say "We didn't get warrants before or afterward because there is no way the court would approve them. We had no cause"

I feel it goes further to any American they wanted to spy on, opponents and trouble makers (in their view). I feel sure Bolton's intercepts fit right in. Those are guesses but I'd be surprised if it was otherwise.

[Doctor_J]

43. Because his goal all along has been to be a dictator

He hasn't even hidden this fact.

[DistressedAmerican]

45. To Be Clear, His Wife Is The Chimp-Fucker. He's The Horse Milker!

[godai]

47. How about because it involved eg Kerry

I believe that there is more to this. It's possible that they wanted to spy on people whom they couldn't identify to the courts. They setup the 'international calls only' ruse but then use it beyond that, under cover of national security.

There's also the whole spying on protesters aspect and possibly spying on emails, accessing PCs etc. Maybe just the tip of the iceberg so far.

[Lyle]

51. ok - but why ADMIT to it? n/t

[Slit Skirt]

53. because he thought he could get away with it

he has always broken the law and gotten away with it...look he asked NYTimes to hold back story...he knew he was in deep do do....
but decided to get in front of the story first

plus his arrogance...you know him and Cheney...I'm the fucking president...the commander and chief...I'll do what i want...

[greiner3]

54. Power! n/t

[Gregorian]

55. Could this be why? Fake terrorist attacks.

Forgive me. I have not read all of the posts here. I'm busy trying to catch up with things.


I'm talking about the desire to amend the resolution for war, with the statement inside the US.

By doing so, they would have legitimately been able to create their own "terrorist attacks". They could have perpetuated a terror state in which noone would have been able to refute the need to be at war in the Middle East.

Tack on the spying, and they would have had a free pass to accomplish any mission they desired.

[shance]

56. Miltary/Total control over Americans and our government

n/t

[bvar22]

58. Don't go quietly!

[ismnotwasm]

59. Not sure

I have friends of the MIHOP or LIHOP persuasion that think it has to do with 911. I think it has something to do with dick cheney wanted to expand executive powers--something he has wanted to do since he was licking Nixon's boots. It could be because bush is an arrogant, ignorant asshole who has no idea what he's doing, so stumbles into one horror after another, even when he's kept on a short leash.

Scary speculation no matter which way you turn.

[area51]

60. "Why did chimp-fucker break the law?!"

B/c he thinks he's god. It's that simple. He believes that "rules are for little people".