An Incredible Day in America, Indeed—But, Will We Seize the Day, Or Let It Pass? Sean M. Madden (iNoodle.com) 18 Dec 2005 00:38 GMT In a fine Huffington Post article published yesterday, Martin Garbus, a leading American trial lawyer, unequivocally states that Bush has committed an impeachable crime in authorizing domestic surveillance without a court-issued warrant, and has, in conjunction with Congress, legitimized torture for the first time in US history. Yet [continues below ...] NOTE: This article is available with integrated web links via the iNoodle.com blog at the following URL: http://inoodle.com/2005/12/incredible-day-in-america-indeedbut.html [... continued from above] Yet, again, the corporate media has failed to inform the citizenry of the implications of these illegal acts. Indeed, the corporate media has failed to present these acts for what they are, forget the reporting of implications. Obfuscation seems the preferred practice. Mr. Garbus says that "most of the media missed it and got it wrong." Perhaps. But, given the complicity of the corporate media in the war crimes committed to date by the US (and UK), and their willingness to disseminate government propaganda, to keep dissenting opinion on the fringes, and to steadfastly remain uncritical of the war crimes committed thus far, why should we assume that the corporate media's failing in this instance is an honest mistake? The New York Times is apparently doing their best again today—by way of their top story, entitled Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives—to provide (pseudo-) intellectual cover to turn what is an impeachable crime into a debatable topic, this time concerning presidential prerogative. This, two days after the New York Times admitted that they sat for a year on this story of unlawful surveillance, after the Bush administration requested that they not report on this illegal practice. At what point will the New York Times' reading public dismiss the newspaper as a propagandist rag which is deep in the pockets of a war-criminal administration and an anti-democratic, and thereby anti-American, corporate-political elite, whether Republican or Democratic? At what point does creeping presidential prerogative become incipient dictatorial fascism? Will a majority of Americans know when such a point has been reached; and, if so, will they then have the will and the power to halt fascism's progress and regain freedoms lost? Or, will they continue to deny that fascism could possibly be visited upon their complacent, apolitical and corporatized version of democracy? Or, finally, will a majority of Americans wallow in their particular breed of fascism as they have long since wallowed in their particular breed of imperialism, undaunted by world opinion or international law? Regardless, willful ignorance will not suffice should an excuse be sought in retrospect. e-mail:: sean@inoodle.com homepage:: http://inoodle.com/blog.html

Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling

by Scott Ott

(2005-12-21) — Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local, and state-to-state, phone calls.

“Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty,” said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD. “We’re still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and, Allah be praised, good public schools.”

The al Qaeda source said Democrats in Congress recommended the move after the The New York Times revealed that the National Security Administration listens in on communications between international terrorists and some U.S. residents.

The source said no matter where al Qaeda plants its U.S. headquarters, it will incorporate in tax-free Nevada.

I feel so safe knowing the acne crippled robotic fuckwits in junior high school know what's what.

------------------------------------------

Can Democratic presidents order wiretaps on U.S. soil without a court order, but not Republicans? We ask because that's the standard critics appear to be using against President Bush over National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda operatives. Every president, Democrat or Republican, has exercised this authority since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act became law in October 1978. But it appears to be deemed problematical only for President Bush, whose wiretaps are said to have caught Iyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen who wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge.

The ink on FISA was barely dry when the first president to order extrajudicial surveillance -- a Democrat -- did so. Jimmy Carter exercised his authority on May 23, 1979 with Executive Order #12139, seven months after signing FISA into law, declaring that "the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order," subject to the section's requirements. The order cites a FISA section helpfully titled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

The precedent was even more firmly established by President Clinton. Top Clinton administration officials are on record defending the practice. As Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." She remarked that: "It's important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Of course he's frustrated.

He can't get his tensions relieved by press club call boys.

No one that he cares about, loves him anymore.

Even Condi can't help.