Ruled Unconstitutional

I love the administrations, "but it was only directed at suspected terrorists" argument, as if that has anything at all to do with if the program is legal. The glaring hole in that position is one that supposes that police can do anything they please as long as they are correct in a suspect being actually guilty. It is a bad argument and frames the changing times that we live in perfectly. The very fabric of our nation could fall to pieces under the mantra of fighting the never ending war on terror.

So can we impeach Bush yet?

from cnn.com:

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed.

"We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington.

The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.

Comments

[Zen]

Check out this story... http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/40431/

[Friar_Tuck]

Ok...here is the crazy thing about that.
Isn't conservatism supposed to be about smaller government not bigger government? About keeping Big Brother under control?

In Bush's first term I was a Bush supporter. I thought he was a straight shooter, and trustworthy, even if there were some issues I strongly disagreed with him on.

But between the Valerie Plame thing and this and the bankruptsy reform stuff to help credit card companies make even more money...I am pretty pissed at the man.

Though I dont think impeachment is justified quite yet.

[Non-Prophet]

I think that Bush is a social conservative but beyond that he is almost psychotically liberal in just about every other area such as foreign policy and fiscal matters. He has done more to centralize power in the executive than any president before him and that is as far from conservative as you can get.

All these new powers to fight the "war" and proposed marriage amendments and things like the patriot act are sooooo very not conservative.

The dude is ultra progressive.

[es]

All the above comments assume that the man is actually able to make a decision. Having seen his responses to questions on Friday afternoon, I begin to wonder if this is true. And by this I do not mean "unable to make a decision because he has so much contradictory information" but "unable to make a decision becasue he does not understand - anything." The man is less articulate than the thriteen year old boys I teach. This either means that he does not care to form a complete thought- frequently a cause of adolescent inarticulateness - or that he is not capable of an articulate thought, period. Watching those rich old men in their matching outfits, I actually caught myself thinking - well, since Cheney's really the one in charge, maybe things aren't so bad.
Why - how - have we as a country elected a man so stupid and so obviously out of his depth? I do not believe we are stupid as a nation. What were we thinking? Did we conclude that because the Nascar Dad down the street seems to have so few problems, if we made one president, he would solve our problems too?
OK. I know the president cannot be impeached for being stupid. But somebody made this guy the standard bearer. And now it's making us all look bad.

[Zen]

I still say that Bush is the eye candy front man. The Neocons needed a good ol' down home on the ranch evangelical christian "everyman" that would appeal to the 42% of Americans who believe evolution is an outright lie. Someone who speaks the average lingo of the average man. Someone not smart enough to figure out what's really going on.

The Neocons had an agenda to push, and they needed a figurehead to get them the White House and Rove found them what they were looking for. In that sense, Bush has been a great success. But I don't think there is much doubt that the real work is handled by Cheney, Rumsfeld (which is why he was never fired), Rice and Wolfowitz (who has since left the administration but now - not surprisingly - heads the World Bank).

[Non-Prophet]

It all started during the Clinton years. Notice the undersigned. Why we attacked Iraq is not being kept a secret.

[Zen]

Yea. Project For The New American Century scares the bejeezus out of me. It's all about protecting wealth and power. Not your wealth and power, mind you. Theirs. They don't give a shit about other people's human rights. As long as nothing threatens cocktail hour on Martha's Vineyard.

[Zen]

Project For The New American Century goes well back in time. Back at least to the Johnson Administration. PNACs two areas of primary strategic interest are SE Asia (manufacturing base) and the Middle East. Vietnam and Iraq. Different wars, same puppetmasters. But the media won't touch this with a 1000 mile pole.

Wait... there are 2 men in black suits at my door...

[c]

Zen:

I love ya but, the whole "Neocon" conspiracy cliches you spew are quite a disappointment. I thought you more insightful than to buy into those party lines.

[Grinth]

@ C: While I agree in the sense that Zen has posted some things that qualify for 'conspiracy theorist' territory, I'm curious to know what party line you are talking about. I for one knew nothing about what Zen has posted. Maybe that is simply a testament to my ignorance and fair enough.......but really in all the time I have frequented these boards the only love you have exhibited is a love for yourself and what you have to say.

[Zen]

There's no liberal minded conspiracy theory here, C. The genesis and rise of neoconservatism (with PNAC being its current public face), the evolution of it's principles and influences, the political histories of it's founding members/minds and current adherants are all well documented. There are few secrets here.

And it is a very serious threat.

If you don't want to believe me, perhaps you will appreciate the words of Pat Buchanan (yes, that Pat Buchanan), writing as Co-Editor of "The American Conservative" magazine in an effort to DISTANCE true conservatism from neoconservatism and it's endless drumbeat for war...

"No one else in this city says what we say: that neoconservatism is a counterfeit. It is not conservatism at all but a hybrid of Wilsonian-FDR globalism and Rockefeller Republicanism. Free trade, interventionism, empire, eternal alliances, foreign aid, moral imperialism--these are not conservative traditions but the antithesis of those traditions. As for neocons who bray that we "won the culture war," they deceive themselves and the rest of us. And because neoconservatism has no deep roots in our history or in America's heart, the American people will repudiate it when they learn that the price is permanent war, lengthening casualty lists, ever-expanding government, and endless bailouts of bankrupt regimes in the name of Global Democracy. Do you seriously believe that conservatism is now wholly encompassed by Norman Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, our virtuous Teletubby William Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, and the Kristols, père et fils?

If President George W. Bush and his War Cabinet decide to go warlord-hunting and nation-building in Afghanistan and send 250,000 U.S. troops up the bloody road to Baghdad--while subcontracting Mideast policy out to Ariel Sharon--they will put the United States on the wrong side of tribalism, nationalism, and faith in a vast region of one billion people and end up in the history books alongside Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and Dean Rusk. We intend to say so, and, if we're the only ones, fine. We believe we are right, but, then, we're all going to find out fairly soon." -- source

If you question what influence neoconservatism (PNAC)has had in the Bush Administration, check out the list of PNAC appointees to the Bush Administration here.

And check out this article posted on 8-19-06 examining who it is that is supplying current "intelligence" on Iran to Dick Cheney. I'll give you a hint. It ain't the CIA or the NSA. And once again it involves yellow cake uranium -- this time from the Congo...

http://www.alternet.org/story/40539/

[Nate]

Why not just read the PNAC stuff posted on their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org

I particularly liked this article (archived on the PNAC site):
How to Attack Iraq - Weekly Standard Editorial, November 16, 1998

[pete]

Zen, you already covered it in the first sentence of your second post. Labels. "Conspiracy" in this case is just another label used by idiots to combat the competing voices in their heads.
@Grinth: I'm guessing you're not Christian enough to comprehend that type of love.