Will it be here?

You know this means we'll have to kill you

.

Exactly 9 months after the last secret meeeting, the anti-christ was born. That should be hard to top.

America is a fascism.

Remember that super-secret surveillance database out there that supposedly keeps a cache of every internet and phone conversation from the last 10 years? Well, I'm starting to thin+++++++CARRIER LOST+++++++++

FTFA: Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

Uh, you're doing it wrong.

Why are they meeting in secret? I mean, if they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?

pocketrubbish: I see what you did there. Good show.

Cheney's gonna give noogies all around, and when the doors open the telcos will have been granted immunity. Congress will stream out the door and head home for a two week vacation. The story will be forgotten before the summer re-run season begins. Huzzah.

FTFA: Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

Ya, I pretty much peed my pants when I read that.

The_OcO: FTFA: Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

Ya, I pretty much peed my pants when I read that.

So basically he's taking the Andrew Jackson route and saying, "Fark the Supreme Court, I'll do whatever I want, try and stop me". As we all know, that sure that ended well. If by "well" you mean that it resulted in the Trail of Tears, that is.

Well, if you found out that the whole thing was secret because they were actually spying on reverse vampires, and if the public ever found out to what extent the reverse vampires have compromised our national security, well then, mass panic; international hysteria...

Whatsleft: Uh, you're doing it wrong.

I have that exact quote in my clipboard right now. I stopped reading right there to come here and say, well, basically what you just said.

FTFA: Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

This statement is 100% pure FAIL.

You sir, FAIL at Constitutional... anything.

/bears bears bears bears bears bears...
//rawr!

they're gonna pass a law that we can't see about stuff that we're not supposed to know and trust that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we can trust the government no to abuse whatever super secret powers it gives itself in a closed debate with no input from citizens at all.

And we call this democracy?

Y'know, if I felt like I could legitimately trust any branch of my government, I wouldn't have a problem with closed-door sessions for national security reasons.

But I always get this feeling that they're not really talking about, for example, telecom immunity behind those closed doors. I always feel like they're talking about other things. Things like "stock options", "public funding", "Stipends", "Fact finding missions to the Bahamas" etc.

Nah.

Surely the voters wouldn't elect someone of questionable morals...



Would they?

FTA

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging they violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.

The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program in order to decide whether the companies acted lawfully. If they did, the lawsuits would be dismissed.

The Dems are being totally reasonable on this one. The last paragraph of that part of the article totally invalidates George Bush's grieviance with the bill.

Which tells me one thing. He has something to hide. Chances are that it was not the telecomms doing something illegaly but rather gross abuse of government power that pretty much forced the hand of major telecomms to do something unlawful at worst and unscrupulous at best.

pocketrubbish: Why are they meeting in secret? I mean, if they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?

There is just something about meeting in secret to decide how much the rest of us can be watched.

I wonder if the president can just decide to listen in?

After all it is constitutional if he says it is.

PirateKing: But I always get this feeling that they're not really talking about, for example, telecom immunity behind those closed doors. I always feel like they're talking about other things. Things like "stock options", "public funding", "Stipends", "Fact finding missions to the Bahamas" etc.

Nah.

Nah I picture something more like this,


Congressman 1: Oh Shiat...did you see what happened to Spitzer?
Congressman 2: I know, what do you think it means for us?
Congressman 1: We need to do something to prevent the FBI from listening to us...make a law that says it's illegal to wiretap politicians.
Congressman 2: Good thinking, this should help us. By the way did you see the new girl at the place down on Maine Ave?
Congressman 3: Guys, shouldn't we debate on how to protect our constituents and not on hookers? I mean it is our job.
Congressman 1: Shut up Randy and someone pass me another $2,000 beer

Man,

Been doing some reading up on this and apparently Bushy has been circumventing the FISA warrants for wiretaps since 2002.

The court had a huge increase in wiretap requests that they had to modify for whatever reasons. So Bush and Co. just simply stopped going through them.

One of the judges was so fed up that he quit the court in disgust.

I'm going to go throw up.

Maybe they'll secretly locate their integrity and intestinal fortitude...

Weaver95: they're gonna pass a law that we can't see about stuff that we're not supposed to know and trust that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we can trust the government no to abuse whatever super secret powers it gives itself in a closed debate with no input from citizens at all.

And we call this democracy?

Astoundingly, This.

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: they're gonna pass a law that we can't see about stuff that we're not supposed to know and trust that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we can trust the government no to abuse whatever super secret powers it gives itself in a closed debate with no input from citizens at all.

And we call this democracy?
-.-.-.-.-
Astoundingly, This.

It's a representative republic...and shiat like this is exactly the problem with it.

Gregory F. Stuart: Not that I'm advocating such an extreme action, but there's always the possibility that someone will get fed up enough to vote from the rooftops.

NOTE: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENT ACTION. I am merely acknowledging that such an event is possible given that there are a number of people who are increasingly frustrated with the grossly burgeoning powers of the Executive office. Please do not purposely misconstrue my statement into indicating that I am going to commit violence or that I am advocating violence, because I am doing neither.

That addendum? That's what we call the chilling effect, kids. At the point you need a full paragraph of qualifiers to state an opinion, free speech is dead. So that's the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth in the crapper, with the Second, Sixth, and Eighth circling the bowl. They may as well go for broke and make me house a Marine.

The needle is hovering somewhere between "jury box" and "ammo box", and moving closer to the latter by the day.

If it was possible to simply trust officials to look out for our best interests, we wouldn't need democracy and a balance of powers to begin with.

*No* domestic wiretaps without warrants.

*No* torture.

FTFA: House Democratic leaders agreed Thursday to a rare closed-door session - the first in 25 years - to debate surveillance legislation.

Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices.

Interesting.

I wish I had the faith to believe that the Democrats would stand firm on this issue. It is a sad day in America again today.

From TFA: Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

Translation -
Republicans: Give the Telecoms immunity or we're going to blow all your scandals up in the media as well.

Democrats: Eat shiat and die, you took just as much money as we did. You just don't want your "Christian Conservative" base to not realize what giant heaping bags of scum you are.

Republicans: Hippies!

Democrats: Old Codgers!

/Lets get a fresh, clean start this November. Vote out all the Incumbents.

DOUBLE SECRET!

pocketrubbish: Why are they meeting in secret? I mean, if they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?

Haha, awesome.

I bet they will pass a congressional pay raise.

It was a lot funnier on C-SPAN last night.
Maybe I was just stoned but it sounded like Roy Blunt and Dennis Kucinich just wanted to smoke some weed.
"We haven't done this since '78"
"Yeah man only like five times in our history, dude"

Whatsleft: FTFA: Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

Uh, you're doing it wrong.

Wow... that's... that's just completely totally and blatantly wrong. I find it hard to believe that that's not an uninformed or intentional misreading of a (probably also stupidly insipid) deeper argument on presidential power.

They don't usually just go with crazy talk in their court documents. They hide it with legal jargon.

Weaver95: they're gonna pass a law that we can't see about stuff that we're not supposed to know and trust that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we can trust the government no to abuse whatever super secret powers it gives itself in a closed debate with no input from citizens at all.

And we call this democracy?

Well technically we're a Democratic-Republic, but still, I agree with your point.

Where is the Irony tag when you need it?

Alan Greenspan is already living up in the tree house out back already. Probably has some super secret documents with him.

I think I may have just made an obscure reference that will disprove the statement "nothing is obscure on Fark"

I'm kind of surprised this thread hasn't exploded yet...

Y'know, I really like the principals and vision upon which America was built. In fact, I think America is one of the best countries in written history.

But in the last 20 years, something seems to have broken. It's sad.

FTFA:

[RI Sen. Sheldon]Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war.

Thought that might be important...

Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said intelligence is already being lost.

Hee Hee.

"Congress owes the American people more than blind obeisance to the executive branch," said Hoyer, D-Md.

Send this man a check.

bheilig: "Congress owes the American people more than blind obeisance to the executive branch," said Hoyer, D-Md.

Send this man earned a check.

FTFY. That's one. Now if the other 534 of them would do their damn jobs.

Weaver95: they're gonna pass a law that we can't see about stuff that we're not supposed to know and trust that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we can trust the government no to abuse whatever super secret powers it gives itself in a closed debate with no input from citizens at all.

And we call this democracy?



America is not a democracy. America is a republic.

Thank god these brave freedom warriors are finally putting a barrier up to keep the liberal press from giving away the game plan to the islamofac... I just can't. How do the pros do it? I feel so unclean. I must go wash.

Is it too late to call for all elected officials to be on live camera at every second, or at least while meeting with anyone at all in an official capacity? Make the feeds viewable on the Web, C-Span, and anywhere else you can find to put them. Any elected official found to have performed official duties or met with lobbyists, or done anything relating to their office while not under surveillance would be bounced out of office immediately, and forbidden from holding office for at least 5 years thereafter, or joining any kind of PAC or lobbying group for the same period.

mrexcess
If it was possible to simply trust officials to look out for our best interests, we wouldn't need democracy and a balance of powers to begin with.

*No* domestic wiretaps without warrants.

*No* torture.

QFT.

Already had you Farky'd as clever, but - yowza.
Thanks.

You embarrass me, good sir.

...but pray continue! :)

Alright, that does it - you're Farky'd up to the apex of categories, "Buddy".

No obligation or endorsement is hereby implied, insinuated or solicited. Your actual mileage may vary.


The clarity of what you posted just hit home with me today. I don't know what part of "No" is... politically challenging.

An enraged, livid federal candidate who was determined to devote sufficient money and resources to eradicate, verify and continually ensure the end of the USA's support (in any form) of torture would have a loyal campaigner and constituent for life, right here.

Same goes if "constitutional protections" is substituted for "torture", above.

Grrr
I don't know what part of "No" is... politically challenging.

Perhaps because it's such an easy concept, and therefor such a difficult one to confuse with dissembling and redefinition?