Senselessbrenner walks out of Patriot Act Hearings

[FORD]

GOP Chairman Walks Out of Meeting


Friday June 10, 2005 10:16 PM

By JIM ABRAMS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.

``We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it,'' he said.

Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.

Nadler said Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, was ``rather rude, cutting everybody off in mid-sentence with an attitude of total hostility.''

Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a ``gulag.'' Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a ``point of decency.''

Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the hearing had lasted two hours and ``the chairman was very accommodating, giving members extra time.''

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, speaking immediately after Sensenbrenner left, voiced dismay over the proceedings. ``I'm troubled about what kind of lesson this gives'' to the rest of the world, he told the Democrats remaining in the room.

House "Democratic" leader Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, said the hearing was an example of Republican abuse of power and she would ask House Speaker Dennis Hastert to order an apology from Sensenbrenner.

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5066115,00.html)

[LoungeMachine]

They [republicants] really won't be satisfied until they have absolute power and authority.

They want a single party system.

Where, oh where have I read about this before.................

[FORD]

The story actually goes a lot further than what was in the AP report. Randi Rhodes had Sheila Jackson Lee on Air America earlier, and she said that Senselessbrenner was basically being a tyrannical disruptive asshole (my words, not hers) and ignoring all the usual protocol of a hearing that he, as the chairman was there to enforce. He was basically screaming his head off, out of turn and kept doing so, when several members of the committee politely reminded him that he was out of order. Then he simply grabbed his gavel, walked away from the meeting, ordered the microphones shut off (while Gerald Nadler was speaking, no less) and decided that the hearing was over, with no proper motion to adjourn.

BTW, Senselessbrenner is one of the authors of the Patriot Act. He's the last one who should be chairing this hearing in the first place, let alone making the call on what witnesses can't be heard.

Everybody should make an effort to watch this shit on C-Span tonight. This is blatant abuse of power, and the fact that it's being done to hide the truth about the "Patriot act" BY one of the bastards who wrote it, is completely unconscionable.

We MUST get congress out of the hands of these bastards.

[Warham]

'Power! Unlimited POWER!' ~ Emperor Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
'Power! Unlimited POWER!' ~ Emperor Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith



Wooooooop Woooooooooop

*** GEEK ALERT***
*** GEEK ALERT***


:rolleyes:

[Warham]

I'm just making fun of you guys having fits and spasms over this.

Maybe when you're all six feet under, you'll relax a bit. :D

[LoungeMachine]

That damn commie America-bashing Amnesty International.

Kill'em all, I say

We'll treat our "prisoners" any god damn way we feel like it.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm just making fun of you guys having fits and spasms over this.

Maybe when you're all six feet under, you'll relax a bit. :D

Yeah,

trashing the CONSTITUTION is a fucking RIOT !!!!!!! :rolleyes:


jeezus, if this shit was happening under a Democratic led Congress / Administration you'd be FOAMING AT THE MOUTH

ADMIT IT.

[Warham]

I don't think the Patriot Act is a bad thing.

That's where we disagree.

[superdave]

People need to think beyond the lines of Democrat and Republican--I vote for who I like and trust--in fact I think they should abolish the current system, go more toward the Independents

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think the Patriot Act is a bad thing.

That's where we disagree.

Certain aspects of it are a very bad thing. Even the ACLU doesn't want it repealed...They want it amended to prevent unprecedented levels of gov't secrecy.

And is it really a "Patriot" act? I thought is was an Antiterrorist act.

[FORD]

Just saw this entire hearing on C-Span tonight. Sensenbrenner should resign immediately for his performance. He was a fascist control freak through the entire proceeding.

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by FORD
Randi Rhodes

i sleep with news radio on quietly.

i now know why i've been playing ozzy all day.

[Stallion]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Certain aspects of it are a very bad thing. Even the ACLU doesn't want it repealed...They want it amended to prevent unprecedented levels of gov't secrecy.

And is it really a "Patriot" act? I thought is was an Antiterrorist act.


Gotta go with Nick on this one...

The secrecy of the Patriot Act is bullshit, and needs to be looked at by BOTH sides of the isle….
In fact the secrecy of the entire Administration is something I’m not fond of.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Stallion
Gotta go with Nick on this one...

The secrecy of the Patriot Act is bullshit, and needs to be looked at by BOTH sides of the isle….
In fact the secrecy of the entire Administration is something I’m not fond of.

It is, it's biggest critics are (real) Conservative Libertarians, not just Liberals.

I have no problem with facilitating (and enforcing!) communication between Federal agencies, but there is no way the Fed's should be able to collect and retain records on people with impunity!

[zeronumber]

I still don't know what the big deal of the Patriot act is all about.
Frankly, we bitch and moan about how acts of terrorism goes about without prevention, yet we try methods of prevention, and others are still not happy.

You know, a lot of people give the republican party a lot of flack, but this is the modern world were talking about.

Where in the mist of possible cold wars between the united states and the European union, and The united states against an Russian/china alligence.

Not only as a measure of terrorism, but we need to keep sharp eyes out for possible spies these days.

One, could argue that what the patriot act is really doing is replicating the "mistry of love" from 1984, but still, the key difference here is that we're trying to prevent any future harm coming to this country.

Do you hear of terrorist attacks or activities? no. why? because deterence is a great thing.

Granted, we lose a few civil liberties, but at the same time, we work towards the greater good.

Besides, there is nothing in the constitution assuring privacy, nor for that matter any rights given are absolute.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by zeronumber
...Granted, we lose a few civil liberties, but at the same time, we work towards the greater good.

Besides, there is nothing in the constitution assuring privacy, nor for that matter any rights given are absolute.

Sounds like something a GERMAN might have said circa 1932...

[zeronumber]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sounds like something a GERMAN might have said circa 1932...

Well, the thing is though, if history tought us anything, is that our rights can easily be mis screwed, taken away, and used against us.

I.e., The 8th ammendment, regarding cruel/unusual punishment, and excessive bail not being required.

Which actually led to the Bail Reform act of 1984, which made it harder to obtain bail due to this new interpretation, and was upheld due to the interpretation when it was challanged nearly 3 years later.

Besides, this is mostly in regards of the Federal constitution of rights...
Some state constitutions don't grant the same rights, or same amount of personal liberties to be protected.

It's not that I agree with every aspect of the patriot act, since it clearly goes agains the 4th and 6th ammendments of the constitution, but at the same time...I feel in the times we're living in, it's need to help prevent and deter any and all activities that might be harmful to the public.

[Satan]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Satan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Yes! We must give all in the name of "security."
http://www.kinofans.com/mat/news/star_wars/epi-3-sidious.jpg http://img129.exs.cx/img129/57/evilani.png

[bobgnote]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think the Patriot Act is a bad thing.

That's where we disagree.

Government at FRAUD does not deserve more power. Ozzy Warpigs remedial recommended.

Your concerts will fail by cost cancer, whether or not anybody gets pissed enough to do another big attack and get labeled. Kiss the security guard, hambone. His health care is getting ballooned with all costs, until you anti-rational, badly lapsed, unassimilated conservatives all step too hard on each other or in some WRONG direction. The Patriot Act is the beginning of the end or a new beginning, evident by the time 'conservatives' bust everybody, having eroded the tax base.

Do the tardy have trouble understanding what is 'infrastructure' or 'tax base' or FUND SOURCES?' Nobody understands me, OwOwOw, I got that rhythm, you and your folks should have had. Ralph look at the mess! Young Republican logic is formulated in deformed fetuses in anti-think tanks. Too bad the Democrats take payoffs to let 'em be.

And on the front, Mr. Karsai is likely to get kinda dead all of a sudden, since Mr. Peepers thinks he needs to get an econmomy based on desert fruit and a DRUG WAR, in Afghanistan. Peepers bred the trouble, with Clinton, allowing Sharoinists to pop Rabin ON TV 11/3/95, then send a flood into Gaza and West Bank, dissing Arafat the whole time. The Patriot Act will just allow the same killer-kleptos more reach.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by bobgnote
Government at FRAUD does not deserve more power. Ozzy Warpigs remedial recommended.

Your concerts will fail by cost cancer, whether or not anybody gets pissed enough to do another big attack and get labeled. Kiss the security guard, hambone. His health care is getting ballooned with all costs, until you anti-rational, badly lapsed, unassimilated conservatives all step too hard on each other or in some WRONG direction. The Patriot Act is the beginning of the end or a new beginning, evident by the time 'conservatives' bust everybody, having eroded the tax base.

Do the tardy have trouble understanding what is 'infrastructure' or 'tax base' or FUND SOURCES?' Nobody understands me, OwOwOw, I got that rhythm, you and your folks should have had. Ralph!

Fuck-off moron. Time to check in with a new aliass motherfucker!

[zeronumber]

Originally posted by Satan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Thing is though, Benjamin Franklin made that statement during the Intolerable acts made by brittian in which brittish soilders were stationing themselfs at the houses of the people, in order to protect the colonies from potential indian attacks.

What he said during those times, weren't even at a times of war, rather when the mere idea of indepence from Brittian was still new.

I doubt if Franklin lived today, he'd feel the same way about acts of terrorism.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by zeronumber
Thing is though, Benjamin Franklin made that statement during the Intolerable acts made by brittian in which brittish soilders were stationing themselfs at the houses of the people, in order to protect the colonies from potential indian attacks.

What he said during those times, weren't even at a times of war, rather when the mere idea of indepence from Brittian was still new.

I doubt if Franklin lived today, he'd feel the same way about acts of terrorism.

Actually, the British Soldiers were protecting Crown Tax collectors, not Colonist settlers.

And how many acts of terrorism have we had in the Continental US since 9/11?

[Warham]

None, because Bush's security measures have worked so far.

[zeronumber]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, the British Soldiers were protecting Crown Tax collectors, not Colonist settlers.

And how many acts of terrorism have we had in the Continental US since 9/11?

None, and that's the great thing about prevention and deterence...
Things get stopped, before they happen. And nowadays, some are too frighten to even plan such a thing, knowing that if some even so much as plan an attack, the fbi will be waiting for them outside their door.

You know, there is a criminal Justice Policy that goes "The certainty of punishment, is greater than the severity of punishment"....

It's better to go out, and make sure that nothing happens, and punish people, than to idoly sit back, say that terrorism is wrong, and do nothing about it.(Say for instance Clinton, on three instances of terrorist attacks)

A few liberties are given up...big deal. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

It's like GB said "We're no longer protected by out Oceans", nowadays, you can't even trust the person sitting next to you...So wouldn't you want to make sure that person isn't a future threat to you?

If somebody bought things such as an alarm clock, and things known to make napalm, wouldn't you be happy that the fbi would investigate this, and stop this individual at once? I would.

Granted, like I said before, I don't like the patriot act, but it's sort of those things I really can't see ourselfs without, because the truth is, we need it.(sort of like social security).

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by zeronumber
Well, the thing is though, if history tought us anything, is that our rights can easily be mis screwed, taken away, and used against us.

I.e., The 8th ammendment, regarding cruel/unusual punishment, and excessive bail not being required.

Which actually led to the Bail Reform act of 1984, which made it harder to obtain bail due to this new interpretation, and was upheld due to the interpretation when it was challanged nearly 3 years later.

Besides, this is mostly in regards of the Federal constitution of rights...
Some state constitutions don't grant the same rights, or same amount of personal liberties to be protected.

It's not that I agree with every aspect of the patriot act, since it clearly goes agains the 4th and 6th ammendments of the constitution, but at the same time...I feel in the times we're living in, it's need to help prevent and deter any and all activities that might be harmful to the public.

my god again...I think if GWB was to gather up muslims and just start having them shot you would stand here and say "we'll in these uncertain times we cannot be to careful"
pathetic

[zeronumber]

Yeah, it's pathetic that others listen to reasons, while others respond to a rethoric. I rather be safe than sorry, and you rather die or others be in danger because you don't like the government stepping in for saftey measures.

[scorpioboy33]

so what if you found out the bush and his crew...took certain liberties with this law you know maybe used it for spy on it's citizens...would that still be tolerable for you?

[zeronumber]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
so what if you found out the bush and his crew...took certain liberties with this law you know maybe used it for spy on it's citizens...would that still be tolerable for you?

That's the whole point of the patriot act, is to monitor suspicious activities...:rolleyes:

I guess the clue train comes slow these days...

[scorpioboy33]

who decides what is suspicious.....and is it jus suspicion of terrorism...or any old thing....and please don't be an idiot with your pathetic attempt at wit...

[Jesus Christ]

There is none so blind as he who refuseth to see.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by zeronumber
That's the whole point of the patriot act, is to monitor suspicious activities...:rolleyes:

I guess the clue train comes slow these days...

The point of the misnamed "Patriot" Act was originally to allow law enforcement the powers to share information necessary to investigating terrorist suspects. But it goes beyond the scope of this, the gov't can effectively abuse peoples civil liberties and they would never know!

It violates the basic constitutional theme that a person has the right to face their accuser! Not be subject to a what could turn into continual smear campaign behind their back!

Just in case some on this board are ignorant of what a government abusing it powers, and effectively breaking the law, then using BLANKET SECRECY to cover it up can amount too, it's happened before in this country...When those in charge of enforcing the law begin to wantenly break it, you have a lawless state, which is the beginning of fascism/communism...


From: COINTELPRO.org (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm)

(The CHURCH COMMITTEE Report:)

Subsection: Violating the law. (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIca.htm)

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE

RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

_______

BOOK II
_______


FINAL REPORT

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE
TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS

WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
UNITED STATES SENATE

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND SEPARATE
VIEWS




APRIL 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976






A. VIOLATING AND IGNORING THE LAW


MAJOR FINDING


The Committee finds that the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens. 1 The legal questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions, they were intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the "national security" the law did not apply. While intelligence officers on occasion failed to disclose to their superiors programs which were illegal or of questionable legality, the Committee finds that the most serious breaches of duty were those of senior officials, who were responsible for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure compliance with the law.

Subfindings

(a) In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens.

(b) Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked.

(c) On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal.

(d) Internal recognition of the illegality or the questionable legality of many of these activities frequently led to a tightening of security rather than to their termination. Partly to avoid exposure and a public "flap," knowledge of these programs was tightly held within the agencies, special filing procedures were used, and "cover stories" were devised.

(e) On occasion, intelligence agencies failed to disclose candidly their programs and practices to their own General Counsels, and to Attorneys General, Presidents, and Congress.

(f) The internal inspection mechanisms of the CIA and the FBI did not keep -- and, in the case of the FBI, were not designed to keep -- the activities of those agencies within legal bounds. Their primary concern was efficiency, not legality or propriety.

(g) When senior administration officials with a duty to control domestic intelligence activities knew, or had a basis for suspecting, that questionable activities had occurred, they often responded with silence or approval. In certain cases, they were presented with a partial description of a program but did not ask for details, thereby abdicating their responsibility. In other cases, they were fully aware of the nature of the practice and implicitly or explicitly approved it.

Elaboration of findings

The elaboration which follows details the general finding of the Committee that inattention to -- and disregard of -- legal issues was an all too common occurrence in the intelligence community. While this section focuses on the actions and attitudes of intelligence officials and certain high policy officials, the Committee recognizes that a pattern of lawless activity does not result from the deeds of a single stratum of the government or of a few individuals alone. The implementation and continuation of illegal and questionable programs would not have been possible without the cooperation or tacit approval of people at all levels within and above the intelligence community, through many successive administrations.

The agents in the field, for their part, rarely questioned the orders they received. Their often uncertain knowledge of the law, coupled with the natural desire to please one's superiors and with simple bureaucratic momentum, clearly contributed to their willingness to participate in illegal and questionable programs. The absence of any prosecutions for law violations by intelligence agents inevitably affected their attitudes as well. Under pressure from above to accomplish their assigned tasks, and without the realistic threat of prosecution to remind them of their legal obligations, it is understandable that these agents frequently acted without concern for issues of law and at times assumed that normal legal restraints and prohibitions did not apply to their activities.

Significantly, those officials at the highest levels of government, who had a duty to control the activities of the intelligence community, sometimes set in motion the very forces that permitted lawlessness to occur -- even if every act committed by intelligence agencies was not known to them. By demanding results without carefully limiting the means by which the results were achieved; by over-emphasizing the threats to national security without ensuring sensitivity to the rights of American citizens; and by propounding concepts such as the right of the "sovereign" to break the law, ultimate responsibility for the consequent climate of permissiveness should be placed at their door. 2

Subfinding (a)

In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens.

From 1940 to 1973, the CIA and the FBI engaged in twelve covert mail opening programs in violation of Sections 1701-1703 of Title 18 of the United States Code which prohibit the obstruction, interception, or opening of mail. Both of these agencies also engaged in warrantless "surreptitious entries" -- break-ins -- against American citizens within the United States in apparent violation of state laws prohibiting trespass and burglary. Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was violated by NSA's program for obtaining millions of telegrams of Americans unrelated to foreign targets and by the Army Security Agency's interception of domestic radio communications.

All of these activities, as well as the FBI's use of electronic surveillance without a substantial national security predicate, also infringed the rights of countless Americans under the Fourth Amendment protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The abusive techniques used by the FBI in COINTELPRO from 1956 to 1971 included violations of both federal and state statutes prohibiting mail fraud, wire fraud, incitement to violence, sending obscene material through the mail, and extortion. More fundamentally, the harassment of innocent citizens engaged in lawful forms of political expression did serious injury to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Bureau's maintenance of the Security Index, which targeted thousands of American citizens for detention in the event of national emergency, clearly overstepped the permissible bounds established by Congress in the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and represented, in contravention of the Act, a potential general suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus secured by Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution.

A distressing number of the programs and techniques developed by the intelligence community involved transgressions against human decency that were no less serious than any technical violations of law. Some of the most fundamental values of this society were threatened by activities such as the smear campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the testing of dangerous drugs on unsuspecting American citizens, the dissemination of information about the sex lives, drinking habits, and marital problems of electronic surveillance targets, and the COINTELPRO attempts to turn dissident organizations against one another and to destroy marriages.

:mad:

Subfinding (b)

Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked.

Legal issues were clearly not a primary consideration -- if they were a consideration at all -- in many of the programs and techniques of the intelligence community. When the former head of the FBI's Racial Intelligence Section was asked whether anybody in the FBI at any time during the 15-year course of COINTELPRO discussed its constitutionality or legal authority for example, he replied: "No, we never gave it a thought." 3 This attitude is echoed by other Bureau officials in connection with other programs. The former Section Chief of one of the FBI's Counterintelligence sections, and the former Assistant Director of the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division both testified that legal considerations were simply not raised in policy decisions concerning the FBI's mail opening programs. 4 Similarly, when the FBI was presented with the opportunity to assume responsibility for the CIA's New York mail opening operation, legal factors played no role in the Bureau's refusal; rather, the opportunity was declined simply because of the attendant expense, manpower requirements, and security problems. 5

One of the most abusive of all FBI programs was its attempt to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet former FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan testified that he "never heard anyone raise the question of legality or constitutionality, never." 6

Former Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms testified publicly that he never seriously questioned the legal status of the twenty-year CIA New York mail opening project because he assumed his predecessor, Allen Dulles, had "made his legal peace with [it]." 17

"... [F]rom time to time," he said, "the Agency got useful information out of it," 8 so he permitted it to continue throughout his sevenyear tenure as Director.

The Huston Plan that was prepared for President Richard Nixon in June 1970 constituted a virtual charter for the use of intrusive and illegal techniques against American dissidents as well as foreign agents. Its principal author has testified, however, that during the drafting sessions with representatives of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, no one ever objected to any of the recommendations on the grounds that they involved illegal acts, nor was the legality or constitutionality of any of the recommendations ever discussed. 9

William C. Sullivan, who participated in the drafting of the Huston Plan and served on the United States Intelligence Board and as FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence for 10 years, stated that in his entire experience in the intelligence community he never heard legal issues raised at all:

We never gave any thought to this realm of reasoning, because we were just naturally pragmatists. The one thing we were concerned about was this: Will this course of action work, will it get us what we want, will we reach the objective that we desire to reach? As far as legality is concerned, morals, or ethics, [it] was never raised by myself or anybody else ... I think this suggests really in government that we are amoral. In government -- I am not speaking for everybody -- the general atmosphere is one of amorality. 10

Subfinding (c)

On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal.

Even when agency officials recognized certain programs or techniques to be illegal, they sometimes advocated their implementation or permitted them to continue nonetheless.

[ODShowtime]

Just the name "The Patriot Act" should make you suspicious.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Just the name "The Patriot Act" should make you suspicious.

One entry found for euphemism
.
Main Entry: eu·phe·mism
Pronunciation: 'yü-f&-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek euphEmismos, from euphEmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phEmE speech, from phanai to speak -- more at BAN

: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted

[FORD]

Originally posted by zeronumber

I guess the clue train comes slow these days...

Certainly hasn't reached YOU yet.

What part of BUSH LIED THIS COUNTRY INTO WAR don't you understand?

Now, knowing for a fact that Bush not only LIED about his reasons for Iraq, but in fact came into office with the prefabricated PNAC agenda to do exactly THAT, can you honestly DENY that it was the BCE who had the motives, the opportunity, and the technology to pull off the very operation that THEIR OWN FUCKING AGENDA refers to as the "new PERLE Harbor" required to deceive the American people??/

Let me spell it out for you in terms that you cannot possibly misinterpret.

ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. ANY COVER STORY YOU BELIEVE, EMPLOYEES OF THE BUSH CRIMINAL EMPIRE/CIA/MOSSAD/AL QAEDA (WHICH ARE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE SAME MACHINE IN REALITY) COMMITTED MASS MURDER ON 9-11-01 FOR THE JUSTIFICATION TO COMMIT EVEN MORE MASS MURDER THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST.

The sooner you face that reality the sooner those of us with BRAINS (as opposed to useless FAUX puke receptacles) will be able to figure out how the FUCK we are going to survive this nightmare.

And they will have NONE of my civil liberties, motherucker. Not one.

[Warham]

I guess Clinton LIED too. He said Iraq had chemical weapons as well.

But that was nothing un-natural to him.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Certainly hasn't reached YOU yet.

What part of BUSH LIED THIS COUNTRY INTO WAR don't you understand?

Now, knowing for a fact that Bush not only LIED about his reasons for Iraq, but in fact came into office with the prefabricated PNAC agenda to do exactly THAT, can you honestly DENY that it was the BCE who had the motives, the opportunity, and the technology to pull off the very operation that THEIR OWN FUCKING AGENDA refers to as the "new PERLE Harbor" required to deceive the American people??/

Let me spell it out for you in terms that you cannot possibly misinterpret.

ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. ANY COVER STORY YOU BELIEVE, EMPLOYEES OF THE BUSH CRIMINAL EMPIRE/CIA/MOSSAD/AL QAEDA (WHICH ARE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE SAME MACHINE IN REALITY) COMMITTED MASS MURDER ON 9-11-01 FOR THE JUSTIFICATION TO COMMIT EVEN MORE MASS MURDER THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST.

The sooner you face that reality the sooner those of us with BRAINS (as opposed to useless FAUX puke receptacles) will be able to figure out how the FUCK we are going to survive this nightmare.

And they will have NONE of my civil liberties, motherucker. Not one.

The only thing you have is a wild imagination that'll believe any kook theory you read on the 'interweb'.

George W. Bush is not the Antichrist. A plane DID crash into the pentagon on 9/11, and yes, Jesus loves you.

[Warham]

What I find hard to believe, FORD... if your theories are actually true, is how you think that you, or anybody else for that matter, are going to be able to stop any of this if the BCE has indeed been controlling the government since the early 1900's. What makes you think that when Bush is out of office, and Hillary is elected President, that it's going to change. You've already said Bill is a sell-out. What's to stop him from controlling his wife? What's to stop Poppy from continuing his global empire after 2008? Howard Dean the savior? You've compared him to Christ which is absolutely laughable.

I've never been able to understand how you think it's going to change.

[FORD]

Like I said, the most ridiculous conspiracy theory about 9-11 that was ever circulated was this one:

19 idiots with box cutters taking orders from a kidney patient in a middle eastern cave managed to pull off the most immaculately timed and executed attack against the United States of America, some how fooling the Air Force into standing down. Also one of the pilots, who was said not to be fit to fly a crop duster, somehow managed to crash a 757 into the Pentagon, making only a 15-ft hole in the building, and leaving no damage to the lawn in front of the building, nor the guardrail that surrounds it.

Now THAT is one insane theory. But it's the one the BCE expects you to believe.

[scorpioboy33]

congrats on the 10 K posts ford

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
What I find hard to believe, FORD... if your theories are actually true, is how you think that you, or anybody else for that matter, are going to be able to stop any of this if the BCE has indeed been controlling the government since the early 1900's. What makes you think that when Bush is out of office, and Hillary is elected President, that it's going to change. You've already said Bill is a sell-out. What's to stop him from controlling his wife? What's to stop Poppy from continuing his global empire after 2008? Howard Dean the savior? You've compared him to Christ which is absolutely laughable.

I've never been able to understand how you think it's going to change.

Poppy won't be a factor much longer. Satan's already preparing his office at DIA (the Demonic Intelligence Agency in Hell) It's been said that Junior really wanted to do Iraq to get daddy's approval, and that was his personal motive, above and beyond what PNAC wanted. Maybe Junior's trying to show George Sr. that he's "worthy" of running the BCE, but I think Jeb will probably end up in charge when the old man moves "downstairs".

As for Hillary being BCE, it's entirely possible. So what? She won't be the nominee. That's the Republican fantasy. Besides, this is all going to change before 2008.

Think 1974........ ;)

[Warham]

Well, it doesn't matter to me. I don't believe this stuff anyway.

Here's a good article on that Pentagon kook theory you believe in, from a former believer.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

[FORD]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
congrats on the 10 K posts ford

Thanks. Now what do I win?

A date with Shania Twain? :cool:

[Warham]

I have to tell ya, that had to be one hell of a missile, if it knocked down light posts on the highway on it's way to the target...

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I guess Clinton LIED too. He said Iraq had chemical weapons as well.

But that was nothing un-natural to him.

But CLINTON, and CLINTON, but but CLINTON...

WTF does that have to do with this thread?:rolleyes:

[Warham]

I'm sick of the Bush lied, lied, lied bullshit.

Bush lied about it like everybody else did before 2001. It was the same goddamned intelligence.

That's what it has to do with this thread.

:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I have to tell ya, that had to be one hell of a missile, if it knocked down light posts on the highway on it's way to the target...

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

Wrong thread for this, this is supposed to be about the "Patriot Act," not 9/11 conspiracy day...

But check this out...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/pentagon_cctv.gif

[Warham]

Bush Lied Revisited

What is a lie? A lie is an “assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue: a deliberate misrepresentation of fact with intent to deceive (Webster’s Third).” Was President Bush lying when he said that he believed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Let’s put the question another way: did President Bush not really believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed WMDs? For that is what those who accuse the president of lying on this subject are saying.

So let’s play a little game. Just for giggles, let’s assume the president was lying when he said he believed that Hussein had WMDs. Does the president have enemies, honorable adversaries, those who respectfully disagree with his policies, those who hate his guts and the horse he rode in on? Yes. Are there people who have kept the deeds and misdeeds of Hussein’s regime in their sights far longer than the president has? Definitely. Are there individuals, international entities, intelligence services, foreign heads of state, Iraq experts, Iraqis themselves, who have been studying, reporting and spying on Iraq who could have definitively refuted the president’s belief that Iraq had WMDs? Of course there are. But outside of one Scott Ritter, they did not do so.

Could President Bush’s predecessor, having access to the same information, have refuted this belief? Of course he could have. So why did former President Clinton make this speech and why does he keep corroborating President Bush’s statements on the subject (and proving my assertion in the comments of this post that even a person of low character can sometimes tell the truth)?

Or maybe both presidents were/are lying? Maybe the UN, Jacques Chirac, MI5 and the rest are all lying and this whole matter is merely one big conspiracy: the UN and the French sit back and pretend to oppose the actions of the US, the UK and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing, while all the time absolutely none of them ever believed that Hussein possessed WMDs!

Maybe President Clinton knew that George W. Bush would be elected in 2000 and they cooked up this whole scheme together back in 1998. Or maybe the two, along with President G.H.W. Bush cooked it up back in 1989! /crazy tin-foil hat donning sufferer of BDS

Not only do the chains of logic unravel, they melt down to cause the Mother of All Migraines. But that's what happens when facts are reshaped to suit one's beliefs rather than the other way around.

Faced with such disparate sources of information with conflicting agendas--President Clinton, Jacques Chirac, the CIA and the UN, et al.--telling him that Hussein has WMDs, it would have defied all reason for President Bush to not have believed it to be true.

However, the question remains: if they existed, where are they? If they are never uncovered, does that mean that the president lied about believing that they existed? Only in a world in which anything that one’s enemy says is a lie, no matter if a friend says the exact same thing.

People that use such methods to denigrate the words and actions of an opponent will say and, likely, do anything. Laugh at them, sure, but definitely keep both eyes on them.

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/01/what_is_a_lie_a.html

[Warham]

I can't see much in that video, Nick, besides some blur going over the screen. Whatever hit it looks huge.

[Warham]

I'm going to pull back on those Pentagon statements. I think I need to research this a little more after seeing a certain video (not the one Nick posted.)

FORD may not be as wacky as I think.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm going to pull back on those Pentagon statements. I think I need to research this a little more after seeing a certain video (not the one Nick posted.)

FORD may not be as wacky as I think.


And another one sees the light:cool:


NO BOEING JET HIT THE PENTAGON.


Welcome to reality Warham. Keep digging, and post a link for us.

[Nickdfresh]

http://www.republicanpeoplemeet.com/index.cfm?track=GGC03004

Can I get Anne Coulter's number...:p

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And another one sees the light:cool:


NO BOEING JET HIT THE PENTAGON.


Welcome to reality Warham. Keep digging, and post a link for us.

Not to sound like LUCKY WILBURY here, but what did they do with all the people that never returned from American Airlines Flight 77?

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg

(From snopes.com)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
http://www.republicanpeoplemeet.com/index.cfm?track=GGC03004

Can I get Anne Coulter's number...:p

1-888-SHE-MALE

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[i]Not to sound like LUCKY WILBURY here, but what did they do with all the people that never returned from American Airlines Flight 77?


Good question.

Why WERE there no remains whatsoever recovered at the Pentagon?

Let alone remains of a Boeing Jet



[ and how dare you evoke Lucky's name?, didnt you get the memo he doesnt want his name uttered in here unless he's online;) ?]


77 was shot down, we just don't know where, and on who's orders

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Good question.

Why WERE there no remains whatsoever recovered at the Pentagon?

Let alone remains of a Boeing Jet


I'm pretty sure both were recovered at the Pentagon. Remember, a fire of jet fuel will burn like a fucking crematorium but remains were recovered I believe.

And an aircraft full of fuel hit (the ground in front of) the Pentagon at 350mph, it was fragmented upon impact.

You know, I once saw a plane crash (in the 80's) where there was nothing found because the airliner crashed into a Pennsylvania bog (I think, I'll try to research it) and there was virtually nothing left of the plane and few bodies were found.



and how dare you evoke Lucky's name?, didnt you get the memo he doesnt want his name uttered in here unless he's online;) ?]


77 was shot down, we just don't know where, and on who's orders

I'll think he'll get over it in this case since I presumably agree with him. :)

And an order was given to shoot down all hostile aircraft very shortly after the strikes at the WTC Towers. Richard CLARK, very critical of the Admin., stated that in his book.

[Warham]

I still think it was a Boeing. That video I saw isn't conclusive, and misses alot of things that nobody's been able to explain, like the downed lightpoles, some little parts of the airplane fuselage that was found on the site (which does match up with a Boeing).

The article I posted yesterday shows that an airplane hitting something that durable at that speed will likely be converted to confetti-like remains. That matches the pictures on the scene, where there was tiny bits of material everywhere.

[FORD]

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Great reference page for the Pentagon "crash".