I have read and agree to comments policy as posted here www.informationclearinghouse.info/c1.htm
George W. Bush will be the first president to pardon himself when he leaves office.
This is interesting. Andy Napolitano was a judge when I practiced law in New Jersey. His reputation was authoritarian. Now he's with Fox News (authoritarian-approved "news" media) and he's actually criticizing the immunities that Dubya and Dick have granted their business pals?
Something strange in the water at Andy's house. Something very strange. Is this a limited hangout? Is Andy now finding his conscience, and rebuking his past as an authoritarian?
I agree with stowe's pet goat. Just recently, I've been seeing this 'new and improved' Napolitano, author of "Constitutional Chaos" and "A Nation of Sheep". Where has he been hiding? Who is this man??
Since the Constitution was suspended on March 9, 1933 when we were declared to be under a state of emergency, none of this stuff matters. Look it up.
War powers, law of necessity, march 9 1933.
This explains why the country does not reflect the constitution as the "Law of the Land".
Until THIS is changed, nothing else will.
How could the eavesdroppers know in advance that someone was going to make an overseas phone call at a given time from a given phone and it needed to be monitored? To monitor any phone calls or e-mails, all must be monitored at all times. All or our electronic communications, most likely, are in a huge database that certain people can search at will. Hopefully the Cheneybush goons' communications are in the same database and their communications are the most frequently monitored, scrutinized, and documented for their impending war crimes trials.
"Granting Immunity Rewards Lawlessness"
That's how they got away (for now, at least) with 911, 7/7, and all the aggression against Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. And all this is only the tip of a very big iceberg.
.................
@Stowe's Pet Goat and Justin o Guy---
Part Truth and Part dis-Information-----What would you expect from a former Judge and Foxxy News Guy!
Look up the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for yourself and see if there is
ANY, repeat, ANY, reference to
Americans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Act talks about US Persons, not Americans; however, the foreigners do include Americans!!!!
Do you know the difference? see below
The Act applies to those under the control of the Corporation, known as THe UNITED STATES.
READ: http://www.usavsus.info
The Corporation that was formed in 1871 went Bankrupt in 1933-----and is still Bankrupt!!!!!!!!!!
WE the People didn't go Bankrupt,
but, "they" would like to make you responsible for it.
see http://beam.to/1933
Don't believe anyone, unless you check things out yourself!!!!
When Judge Napolitano leaves Fox News, I may listen to what he has to say. Otherwise ICH should print a disclaimer for anything he might have to say.
Re Judge Napolitano's critique:
YES, BUT what about the recent US Supreme Court ruling, against the ACLU, on basically this same issue?
And, if Congress votes "yes" on a bill that Bush then happily signs -- or even if Congress simply passes a Resolution -- approving this Administration's non-court-approved wiretapping, & immunizing the telecoms for complicity in that wiretapping -- what if the U.S. Supreme Court then "interprets" the Constitution as "legally" ALLOWING that wiretapping to have taken (and to continue to be taking) place?
Consider the Feb. 19, 2008 AP news item about that Court ruling (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?
id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1):
The opening paragraphs say it all:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping...."
So, when the Exec Branch chooses to knowingly violate the law (whether FISA or Constitution, depending upon your point of view), regardless of whether or not the rationale for doing so is well-intentioned, and it thereby illegally wiretaps Americans in general (as opposed to wiretapping, with specific prior court-order, only persons accused of or convicted of specified & openly-codified crimes), and then the US Senate (and maybe at some point the House of Representatives) goes along with & officially support that action, and then the Supreme Court refuses to hear cases about the matter or even rules in favor of supporting and/or, possibly, of immunizing all who knowingly participated in that arguably illicit wiretapping, then who do you go to to set things back on a Constitution-based track?
Now, that, I think, is a question that calls for exploration.
Where, I wonder, are the outstanding champions of our Constitutional rights today, in our hallowed halls of Government, and in our corporate boardrooms, and in the mainstream media, who SHOULD be vigorously and relentlessly fighting NOW to uphold those cherished principles upon which our rights and freedoms were -- until recently -- so painstakingly founded?
There was and is no U.S. law, and there is nothing in the Constitution, that authorizes warrantless wiretaps on Americans in the United States, no matter with whom they speak or e-mail. In fact, both the law and the Constitution prohibit such surveillance without a search warrant.
Wanna bet Andrew? And You know it's true don'tcha Andrew?
That's why you got out of the business of Courts and stuff.
http://www.usavsus.info/
http://www.usavsus.info/
The above is why Americans cannot get Justice!
My guess is that A Nation of Sheep marks a certain kind of shock that sometimes, oddly, never happens to some people. It's a moral awakening.
When will the courts rise to their own contempt
Steven S.
When you are King, you need a law, you make it.
In this case, you have the same court that placed you in the King slot to back you up.
All this blathering about warrantless wiretaps, eavesdropping and our constitutional rights is a waste of time. In the early 90's the cia and fbi were using carnivore and various other programs to mine data from phone calls and computers. We have all been victims for over a decade and a half.
Also, the CALEA Act in the 80's had the specific provision to mandate all cell phones have tracking ability by the cell companies.
If you have a cell phone, you and all your communications, travel habits, emails and general daily patterns have been neatly compiled in a file in some secure facility somewhere to be used against you when the time is right.
I think Orwells 1984 started in about 1984.
Regarding "FallenAngel's" response (see above) to my observations as to whither our Constitutional freedoms in this current era of our digital age:
"Blathering"? "A waste of time", to examine the current state of political/corporate-motivated digital intrusions on our Constitutional freedoms and our presumed rights of privacy – because many of these same freedoms and rights were “already” disappearing as of 1984?
Is “FallenAngel” saying that the past obviates the present? That the past obviates the future? That any consideration of any given issue is a waste of time because some aspect of that issue, or some conceptual element relevant to that issue, was already considered at some prior point in the timeline of human history?
If so, then why bother to engage in any effort whatsoever to explore and analyze any given issue?
Could it be that Woody Allen was correct in observing that “Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history”?
Or is it possible that H.G. Wells was also on target in declaring that “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe”?
That “FallenAngel” makes reference to such privacy-intrusive mandates and programs as CALEA and Carnivore, dating back to the 1980s & 1990s, is indeed relevant to the current discussion. And there are other such highly controversial programs that also have long been the subject of heated debate – at least within civil rights circles, if not so much the major media.
But to declare that an effort to focus on, and to pose questions about, the current state of intrusions into our rights of privacy and personal freedoms, is “blather” and “a waste of time”, purportedly because attacks on those freedoms and rights have long been underway, is to me misinformed and illogical: it is a disservice to any efforts to fully comprehend what’s involved and to seek to generate a future in which those freedoms and rights can be reclaimed to their true and rightful owners – to “We, The People”.
Yes, the digital age has brought with it increasingly efficient and increasingly intrusive methods of tearing away at our various freedoms. And unfortunately -- depending upon one's point of reference -- those capabilities have been acted upon extensively and are yet being further developed to emplace yet broader and more insidious means of tracking, tracing, categorizing, classifying, controlling, us all.
And when the creation and utilization of these powerful tools is placed in the hands of entities -- whether governmental, corporate, or otherwise -- whose desires may not necessarily coincide with the principles of personal freedoms that most of us may hold dear, then, as the paraphrase goes, "Houston, we have a problem".
And if you happen to think that the extent of such activities as these was already at a noteworthy level in the 1940s-1950s (Remember Hitler's use of IBM technology to classify and track German citizens? How about HUAC, McCarthy, the "Red Scare", all even before "the digital age"?), or in the 1960s-1970s (Remember Vietnam, Nixon and "the Imperial Presidency", his use of his "Enemies List" and the IRS to quell political dissent? What about the extensive Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings, under the leadership of Senator Frank Church, on the critical issue of Government Databases versus Privacy?), or in the 1980s-1990s (when PC's -- and "P.C" and its dissent-chilling impact -- became of age), and now -- with the current situation re privacy, civil liberties, & other fundamental Constitutional issues currently under siege vis-à-vis the current Administration -- and the obvious question comes to light:
Where does it end?
The answer: It doesn't end. The onslaught progresses -- but toward what penultimate goals, toward what increasingly complex and ever-expansive directions, will it proceed as it more intrusively sweeps over and into our lives?
Is it "Fallen Angel's" contention that because terrible things regarding the dissolution of our freedoms, in his/her view, occurred years ago, that there consequently is no longer any value to addressing the current state of affairs, or that there is little to be gained by seeking to explore the present state of those developments in order to try to redirect ourselves toward a brighter, more freedoms-enhanced future?
History, the present, and the future, are all aspects of a single continuing process. Perhaps we can't jump into history to change what's already happened -- but we certainly can work in the present to change -- or to at least influence our pathway into -- our future.
After all, the present, and the future, are yet the gifts -- whether terrifying, merely acceptable, moderately bright, or even glorious -- that we can yet give to ourselves.
These, we CAN control.
With a comprehensive understanding of the past AND of the present -- the knowledge of which is indeed a necessity -- we can envision, and more effectively strive to shape, our own opportunities for the future.
Have our civil freedoms and inherent rights of privacy been so vastly and clandestinely taken away from us that there is no possibility of return?
Or can it yet be wrenched from the grasp of those who would take it from us, and can it yet be breathed back to life, such that, at least in the full-blown diligence of our efforts to reclaim and revitalize that once-shining future of Constitutional rights and freedoms for ourselves and our children, we will then be able to proudly declare, in the words of Winston Churchill, that “truly, this was our finest hour”?
From the article..
Every government official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. What kind of a country would we have if a president can persuade people to break the law and then help them get away with it? What laws will they break next?
Oh Dear,
Andrew, you've just started to realize the depths of depravity your government is capable of, sad but true...
Do the research Andrew, it's sickening.!
"...In fact, both the law and the Constitution prohibit such surveillance without a search warrant...."
...but who enforces whatever the constitution says and/or proscribes - no one - it's all "voluntary compliance" - and the power knows it...why whine about "the constitution" now, when it was the judiciary that enabled the coup so many years ago (Dec. 2000)...? It was the judiciary that opened the door to all that happened after and thus committed treason against the citizenry, with the obvious result that the judiciary has zero credibility....
It's all about the fundamentally flawed "constitution"....
Steven S --
I read fallenangel as highlighting how it's even worse than most assume, not as suggesting that nothing can or should be done about it.
I think fallenangel's just detailing the fact that it will take a lot more than simply getting rid of Bush/Cheney. It will take a lot more than __________ (pick your favorite) winning the White House in 2008.
Basically I read fallenangel as saying there's a shit-ton of work facing us, if we want to try to fix America.
Whether anyone wants to conclude that the pile of work is insurmountable and therefore not worth doing, that's his/her own choice.
All countrys need to put an immediate stop to all immigration now. The whole world is totally out of control at the moment, and we have many other major problems to deal with right now.
Vicariously—I think you’ve got the game plan down.
And one of Bushie's aides better remind him, “Don’t forget your pardon, sir, for ordering torture as well.”
Thanks for the perspective -- Stowe’s Pet Goat. I was surprised that one of Fox’s own legal minds would question the Emperor’s interpretation of the law—or of anything for that matter. If the Decider decides its legal then it’s legal, damn it!
Maybe Judge Napolitano likes his authoritarianism proactive rather than retroactive.
Steven S—
Thanks for taking the time to write a coherent and thoughtful post. ICH gets a little heavy on ranting and Smug-upmanship at times so effort is appreciated.
@TIM--- Now you know!!!!!
for further info:
http://www.freedom-school.com
TRUTH SEARCHER & Been here before
You have good points!
see above link for more enlightenment
and to see if what they
are doing--really applies to you?????
And WHICH United Staes???
http://www.usavsus.info
Puts things in perspective.
You liberals are all correct. The problem with my fellow conservatives is that they are not willing to take responsiblity. Sure, the gun crowd tries to convince the public they will defend us in the case of a gunman (or woman) run amok, but somehow as much as you Leftists fear the government somehow you do not trust the person with a concealed weapon permit to protect you.
We conservatives need to stop the war in Iraq and let the public defend the nation. We need to take matters into our own hands. You also have a responsibility. You tell us we are in Iraq because of oil. How many of you worship celebrities who travel by private jet, eat too much meat or drive an SUV? Remember, it takes forty times the fossil fuel to produce a pound of feedlot beef as does soybean (which fact I have been repeating ad naseum to liberals without any response for a long time) but it has only been in the last week that the Humane Society broke the story and people are taking a second look at meat.
Do you really trust Sens. Clinton or Obama to end the madness? Do you remember Mrs. Sheehan, or have you forgotten Camp Casey? Funny how you all managed to use her for your 'Regime change' (I voted Democrat for Congress that day) - now she is forgotten.
We need real change, and I mean someone outside of Washington.
I logged onto this site again this evening because I'd been notified that there was additional discussion on this topic, e.g., re the challenges to Constitutional government, a topic which interests me. Thus I must say that I was a bit chagrined to note that the new posting was instead a poster's charge about "You liberals" vs "We conservatives" and that it focused not on the above issue but instead on a slew of other matters.
May I therefore recommend that this particular site be clearly reserved for discussion of the Constitutional issues (if anyone "out there" still wishes to contribute thoughts here), and that other matters be discussed on pages more specifically attuned to discussing the merits of those other matters?
Steve S.--- I hear you!!!!!
SEE MY POST, above.
How can you have a discussion about "the" Constitution, unless you have some idea about what you are talking about????????????????????
WHICH CONSTITUTION???????
Aer you EVEN a Party to ANY Constitution? Do you have any RIGHTS to claim that you are???????????????
It'll take you 2 days to read the above, with the links, and then read:
http://www.usa-the-republic.com
If you don't get the Basics, you won't get the tough stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
