Yes, I'm listenin' to everyones fone calls and readin'
your PM's. America, be on alert.
I'm George W Bush and I approve the law I am breakin'
Hey gtown, texas
are ya gonna sign up to go fight our war?
I'm George W Bush and I approve that question.
I'll sign up for war when your ass gets laid. In that case i should put my money on el pimpo getting laid first. He's boyscout master so he has the advantage.
Now, I'm Republican, you know we don't get laid, boy.
Now by the way, quit avoidin' questions like I do.
Why don't you go sign up for the war?
I'm George W Bush and I approve that question although I wouldnt answer it myself
dubya/ head broke the law, and now they are having their little chihuahua Gonzales starting yipping after the leak of their breaking the law. s bags. DoJ is probably spending more resources going after the leak than they spending on terrorism.
Intimidate dissent so we can keep doing whatever the we want.
===============
February 12, 2006
Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the cir stances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.
The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.
The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the iden ies of those who provided them classified information.
Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less."
( more reporters going to jail )
The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course cons utional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting.
"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security.
"What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest."
( the Repugs don't have a "national interest" only a "Repug interest" )
Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of innocent Americans. These critics have noted that the program appears to have cir vented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on American citizens.
Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and at least one Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, has said the eavesdropping effort may amount to an impeachable offense.
At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and says, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."
The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information.
( another Starr-type of Repug-interested witch hunt. Repugs kick the lead prosecutor off the Abramoff investigation. dubya vows and reflexively refuses to get to the bottom of the Plame leak )
A Federal Bureau of Investigation team under the direction of the bureau's counterintelligence division at agency headquarters has questioned employees at the F.B.I., the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the officials said. Prosecutors have also taken steps to activate a grand jury.
The interviews have focused initially on identifying government officials who have had contact with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau. The interviews appeared to be initially intended to determine who in the government spoke with Times reporters about intelligence and counterterrorism matters.
In addition, investigators are trying to determine who in the government was authorized to know about the eavesdropping program. Several officials described the investigation as aggressive and fast-moving. The officials who described the interviews did so on condition of anonymity, citing the confidentiality of an ongoing criminal inquiry.
The administration's chief legal defender of the program is Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is also the senior official responsible for the leak investigation.
( "Aluminum s" Ashcroft, "Torture is great" Gonzales, two of the worst AGs in the history of the Repubic )
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb. 6, Mr. Gonzales said: "I'm not going to get into specific laws that are being looked at. But, obviously, our prosecutors are going to look to see all the laws that have been violated. And if the evidence is there, they're going to prosecute those violations."
Mr. Bush and other senior officials have said that the electronic surveillance operation was authorized by what they call the president's wartime powers and a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda passed in the days after the September 2001 terror attacks.
The government's increasing unwillingness to honor confidentiality pledges between journalists and their sources in national security cases has been evident in another case, involving the disclosure in 2003 of the iden y of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, demanded that several journalists disclose their conversations with their sources.
Judith Miller, at the time a reporter for The Times, went to jail for 85 days before agreeing to comply with a subpoena to testify about her conversations with I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Mr. Libby has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice and has pleaded not guilty.
"An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are off in leak cases," said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush. "New rules apply."
How aggressively prosecutors pursue the new case involving the N.S.A. may depend on their assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure, Mr. Terwilliger said. "If the program is as sensitive and critical as it has been described, and leaking its existence could put the lives of innocent American people in jeopardy," he said, "that surely would have an effect on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
Recently, federal authorities have used espionage statutes to move beyond prosecutions of government officials who disclose classified information to indict private citizens who receive it. In the case of a former Pentagon analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, who pleaded guilty to disclosing defense secrets, federal authorities have charged Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, formerly representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.
The two men have been indicted on charges of turning over information obtained from Mr. Franklin to a foreign government, which has been identified as Israel, and to journalists. At Mr. Franklin's sentencing hearing in Alexandria, Va., Judge T. S. Ellis III of Federal District Court said he believed that private citizens and government employees must obey laws against illegally disseminating classified information.
"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."
Some media lawyers believe that The Times has powerful legal arguments in defense of its reporting and in protecting its sources.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented publications like The Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, said: "There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information, and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly uncons utional public policy."
* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
I like the way gaytownspur avoids the question about signing up to fight the war he supports so much.
I guess fairy girls don't fight, they just .
Oh please make national security your major talking for the midterm elections.
Pretty, Pretty please.
If you did the Republicans would utterly destroy you.
I can tell you this...It might involve a Quail hunt...OUCH! THAT STILL HURTS!
WHAT A !
It's not about National Security, although Republicans will get their panties in a wad trying to spin it that way. It's about the expanding powers of the Executive branch and what this does to our Cons utional system of checks and balances and to established laws like FISA.
Right, and most voters will see it that way. How much bud you smoke?
We'll let the deteriorating situation in Iraq speak for the current administrations ability to fight the war on terror, but the illegal wiretaps are a impeachable offense and it would be a coup for the Demo's to point out to the 06 voters that the Republican controlled Senate and Congress sat on their hands while the President broke the law.
I like the way gaytownspur avoids the question about signing up to fight the war he supports so much.
I guess fairy girls don't fight, they just .
Go ahead , there you go again stalking me.
Are you a sado masochist , cuz it seems you just love me calling you a dirty got . And boy do you always show up for more..
OWNED!!!
Now, I'm Republican, you know we don't get laid, boy.
Now by the way, quit avoidin' questions like I do.
Why don't you go sign up for the war?
I'm George W Bush and I approve that question although I wouldnt answer it myself
Cuz i choose not to you silly got.
It's a free country you pacifist rim licking , and i can support whatever the i want too.
And this is pac man laughing>>>>
And this is your mom>>>>>><<<<< taking a pounding doggystyle from me, your daddy.
2 words: Executive Order
BTW, Nice job owning the thread Dan.
gaytownspur, Pac man is not gay like you boy, leave him alone and quit tryin to rape him,Cuz i choose not to you silly got.
It's a free country you pacifist rim licking , and i can support whatever the i want too.
And this is pac man laughing>>>>
And this is your mom>>>>>>
get off these internets and spread gayness elsewhere's and go sign up for our war fraidy cat.
God Bless America
Gaytown =
Gaytown is just everyone's all over this forum huh?
That is too damn funny.
Er, ah, Dan, are you sure he has broken the law. No one else is. As far
as expanding his powers, you need to read a little history on past
Presidents. Could it be that he is just reasserting the power of the
Presidency where others have relinquished it? Thank goodness we have
a President with some guts.
If by no one else you mean a ton of constiutional and FISA experts, then I agree with you!
I think the key point is that it has not been determined whether or not the program violates the Cons ution. There is plenty of speculation to that end, but this is a key point for the Bush = FDR, Lincoln & Washington combined as well as the Bu ler crowd.
I think another key point to consider is that no one, outside a very select few, will ever have all the necessary information that will allow a definitive judgement to be made by the public or the press unless it goes to a trial...which, I believe, most people now doubt will ever occur.
It all boils down to those who trust this administration believe they are telling the truth when they say the NSA Program was Cons utional and legal; those who don't trust this administration will believe they are cir venting the law.
My question to those who believe he is violating the law is this; to what end? It's not like he's been accused of spying on Americans for political, partisan, or personal reasons.
A violation of the law is ok when....?
You fill in the blank.
gaytownspur, Pac man is not gay like you boy, leave him alone and quit tryin to rape him,
get off these internets and spread gayness elsewhere's and go sign up for our war fraidy cat.
God Bless America
The only reason you call me a , is because my load ended up in your mouth, its not my fault your mom snowballed it into you.
This is pac man>>>>
What are you doin' lookin' at my package pansy boy?The only reason you call me a , is because my load ended up in your mouth, its not my fault your mom snowballed it into you.
This is pac man>>>>
Your small package was out in public, It's not my fault you butt stray dogs near the park benches.
gaytownspur, why would you think of dogs in that manner?
America, we got ourselves a sick one here.
God Bless America
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
