Comments:  This section is for listeners. To receive a reply from Jack Clark, you should call the comment line.

brilliant, thanks for the research

posted by Anonymous  10:16 AM   [+]

 

well done jack

it doesnt get any better than this.....

bring on the midterms
the neos days are numbered
just like rats deserting a sinking ship
cheers con hatzi

posted by con  10:46 PM   [+]

 

"Dick Cheney, a man clearly in touch with the people and not blinded by power and greed, insists that Americans don't mind being spied on by their own government." - Fark.com

posted by Anonymous  6:20 AM   [+]

 

Boo hoo....you libs want your rubber nipple to suck on?

posted by Anonymous  7:30 PM   [+]

 

thanks for your needed analysis. i am an australian living in japan. your pod cast is a unique view, delivered not only succinctly but also entertainingly. i know too well what it is like to live in the shadow of the right biased murdoch media. in australia he owns just about all of the print media, which set the agenda daily. thank you for your work.

rahul

industry08@hotmail.com

posted by Anonymous  6:41 AM   [+]

 

Good research effort.

This idea of finding right-wingers who will defend the law, reminds me of what I read once on how to tell if someone posting on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup was a genuine critic or just a Scientologist posing as a critic.

The most reliable way available to tell them apart was if they posted effective criticism or not.

I wonder if you can distinguish between honest conservatives and Bush apologists that way.

posted by Anonymous  4:36 PM   [+]

 

Er, you DO realize that the wiretaps are legal, and that the normal American citizen doens't get wiretaped right? Unless you are making calls with the words "kill, president, Allah, bomb, etc" in them you will NOT be wiretapped. I know how paranoid liberals are, but do you think you could calm down a bit? Oh and one more thing.

Clinton, Carter and FDR ALL used wiretaps. :)

posted by Robert M.  9:30 AM   [+]

 

DarkSaturos, wiretapping is all well and good... until the people doing the wiretapping decide that YOU'VE done something wrong.

Suppose two Muslims are on the phone talking about new ways to "spread the word of Allah". Uh-oh, they've been tapped.

Suppose two teenagers are on the phone and one says "did hear that new song -- it's the BOMB!" and the other says "Yeah! It IS the BOMB!" Uh-oh, they've been tapped.

Suppose you are talking to your fellow Nazi/Fascists about how you want to "kill the president of Iran". Double uh-oh, you said "kill" and "president" in the same sentence! See the black SUVs pulling up in your driveway?

Or suppose the person in charge was a fanatic and wanted to tap everyone that disagreed with him (a la J. Edgar Hoover)... better yet, suppose I could arbitrarily wiretap people -- I'd know exactly when your mom called.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, little fella.

Need I continue, or do you get it?

posted by GOP=NAZI  7:55 PM   [+]

 

Ridicolous! They don't wiretap domestic places. They wiretap incoming calls from the mid-east between known terrorists. Get your facts straight.

posted by Robert M.  8:41 AM   [+]

 

I notice you didn't complain when Clinton did it either.

posted by Robert M.  8:42 AM   [+]

 

DarkSaturos,

You really know nothing. It's a FACT that there are 18 acres of computers at Fort Meade dedicated to listening to DOMESTIC conversations. After all, if an al-Qaeda managed to become a citizen and called from Bangor to Bangladesh, how else would the government know? If they aren't interested in domestic conversations, why are they tapping into local and long distance lines of all the major carriers? You're about as smart as a box of fried chicken, you know that?

And as for Clinton tapping lines, he isn't president right now, is he? Don't try the usual right-wing "blame Clinton" technique because he has nothing to do with Bush doing it ILLEGALLY. You can't prove it and he never admitted it unlike this sucker that's running the show now.

DarkSaturos, just exactly why are you here? You should be with the other losers at freerepublic.

posted by GOP=NAZI  8:04 PM   [+]

 

I also noticed you did not comment on my reference to J. Edgar Hoover. He abused the power of wiretaps and had it not been for the Weather Underground, no one would have ever known.

Ok, go play with your blocks now.

posted by GOP=NAZI  8:06 PM   [+]

 

The problem is not whether you are breaking the law now, but whether you end up breaking the law at some future date, for example if the senate decides to reintroduce prohibition.

When it was originally introduced, people simply broke the law to get around it, until it had been undermined so thoroughly that the law had to be repealed. Today, if you had the same situation and a bunch of people saying 'if you don't break the law you'd have nothing to hide' rather than a strong list of civil liberties, youd be looking at an indefinitely dry future.

posted by Saii  2:31 AM   [+]

 

First of all GOP=Nazi I'm going to ignore your childish insults regarding my age. Secondally to respond to the J. Edgar Hoover thing, he was wrong, I'm not defending him. Thirdly the domestic computers are to spy on domestic calls that are coming into the US from other country's. As for your "blaming Clinton" thing I'm not blaming him. I'm defending him. He did the same thing as Bush is doing now. The exact same thing. As for you saii, are you proposing we arrest Bush for what he MIGHT do?! We better lock you up right now then, you might murder someone! Is that how you want the US to work. Finally for your question of why am I here. I am here because I see the ridicolousness and hypocrisy of the left and want to at least defend my president. If you don't have the balls to admit that your dear President Clinton was doing the same thing as Bush and defend him then you are a slimy hypocrite.

posted by Robert M.  7:43 AM   [+]

 

No, DarkSaturos, Bush has BROKEN THE LAW. The law prescribes a method for getting a wiretap (the FISA court), and he has ADMITTED to circumventing the law. Even Republicans are coming to see this. If the law says you have to stop on red before passing through an intersection, and you drive through the red, YOU HAVE BROKEN THE LAW! Can you drive yet?

Thus, he should be impeached since we impeached Clinton over fellatio, a clear violation of the law of... what? We need another forty million dollar impeachment trial to impeach George Bush.

posted by GOP=NAZI  8:12 PM   [+]

 

Can you drive yet?

Looks like your age joke backfired on you because yes I can drive. Thanks for asking.

If you find me the exact law that Bush broke I'll believe you.

posted by Robert M.  11:33 AM   [+]

 

DarkSaturos,

That wasn't a joke, that was a real question. I'm now afraid to drive since some fool gave you a license.

The law that Bush broke? FISA!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

Let me make it clear for you: HE WIRETAPPED WITHOUT A WARRANT AND THE LAW *REQUIRES* A WARRANT. Whats more, the FISA court has granted all but 4 warrants since it was set up.

And as for "Clinton did it too", let's look at Larry King Live.

Gonzales: I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.

RISEN (James): There was a--he mentioned the Aldrich Ames case in I think it was 1994 or '93 while the investigation of Aldrich Ames, who was a Soviet spy, was ongoing. Janet Reno authorized a physical search of Ames' house without a search warrant.

Under the FISA -- under the rules at that time the attorney general could authorize a warrantless physical search of a house. After the Ames case, it's my understanding that Congress changed that and closed that loophole and so that now that kind of search couldn't be done under the law.

Anything else you need?

posted by GOP=NAZI  8:58 PM   [+]

 

That link again:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/
uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

posted by GOP=NAZI  9:01 PM   [+]

 

err, GOP=NAZI, would you mind citing the specific paragraph?
I seem to have misplaced my law degree somewhere...

Not that I disagree with the gist of your argument, but trying to unravel all that legalese makes me feel my life is slipping away.

posted by Anonymous  12:35 AM   [+]

 

No DS you're missing the point I was trying to make. I was saying that the more repressive measures you try to take, such as wiretaps, the greater is the ability of any government to clamp down on dissent regarding ANY subject, not just ones you agree with. Hence the example of prohibition.

I'm not entirely sure how you drew from my post that I wanted to arrest bush for future crimes (if you were talking past crimes, perhaps.)

About Clinton, I entirely agree, he was a nasty piece of work, and his campaigns in South America killed quite as many innocents as Bush has managed. His own failures however are not a justification for the actions of Bush.

posted by Saii  4:19 AM   [+]

 

I'm not entirely sure how you drew from my post that I wanted to arrest bush for future crimes (if you were talking past crimes, perhaps.)

He hasn't commited crimes though. (Disagreeing with you is not a crime I'm afraid.)

posted by Robert M.  12:11 PM   [+]

 

Unilaterally ignoring UN guidelines to agressively (as opposed to defensively) invade another country is a crime under international law, regardless of whether the institution has the guts to actually enforce it, and regardless of whether it was 'moral'. As such, Bush could be imprisoned for that crime, and the associated murders of between 30-100,000 people. The man is a war criminal who sadly has not yet been brought to justice.

posted by Saii  1:27 AM   [+]

 

NB// As far as straw men regarding my commitment to free speech goes (which I have no doubt goes rather deeper than yours), at least I've never considering bombing news sources I can't control and attacked everyone in sight who disagrees with me on the grounds they're national traitors...

posted by Saii  4:17 AM   [+]

 

Unilaterally ignoring UN guidelines to agressively (as opposed to defensively) invade another country is a crime under international law,

You mean like Saddam did Kuwait?

International law does not mean impeachment. Stop being a dumbass and think. Impeachment is when they break US law!

posted by Robert M.  9:15 AM   [+]

 

Um, fine he wouldn't be impeached, but I said imprisoned, which yes, he could be under international law, if he was, for example, extradited to Iraq on a charge of war crimes against the Iraqi people (unlikely, I'll admit, given the US military presence, but eminently legal).

And yes, very true, Saddam has been a bastard, again though, I don't see how this is a justification for Bush acting the same way?

International law is there for a reason, the big one of course being that governments have a habit of finding 'just cause' for pretty much any action they take (France for example invaded most of Europe to 'spread democracy'. Funny how they did so by looting every major city they conquered...). Sadly, it's rarely enforced, because which country is going to have the balls to pick a fight over something that won't bring them anything but trouble?

posted by Saii  6:55 AM   [+]

 

Can you please tell me EXACTLY what laws he broke? No one I've talked to has been able to do that so far.

posted by Robert M.  3:27 PM   [+]

 

Okay, DarkSaturos, I am not a lawyer but I will do my best to answer your legitimate question (since GOP=NAZI seems to have gone AWOL.)

Go to the link GOP=NAZI provided( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html ).

Click on SUBCHAPTER I.

Click on § 1805.

Scroll down to (f) Emergency orders, and read the paragraph.

You will see, if you are fair-minded, that the Prez was not in compliance, by his own admission, (though probably only to avoid perjuring himself ala Clinton, Libby, and co.)

This does not in any way undermine the far graver crime of the unilateral, unprovoked invasion of oil-rich Iraq, as stated by Saii.

Or would you appreciate it if a foreign country invaded the U.S. because of its possession of WMD's, put a convicted felon in charge of the interim government, threw the doors of the Smithsonian institute open to looters, experimented with the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in civilian areas, and permitted the operation of death squads on American soil?

Don't bother answering with a knee-jerk straw-man arqument, as you often do.

Keep up the legitimate questions which keep us honest.

posted by Anonymous  12:50 AM   [+]

 

Okay a quick guide to international law then:

Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorize war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Now originally of course the US attempted to make the invasion legal by claiming self defence against Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Subsequently however, it has been shown that none existed - proof positive that they could not have had enough evidence to be reasonably certain of their proposition.

Any posturing that this was a war about regime change, bringing democracy to Iraq etc is irrelevant. Bush was in contravention of UN law, and as head of the armed forces is directly responsible for their conduct. As such, he is open to charges of waging an unprovoked war of agression against a sovereign state, and is thus a war criminal.

Hope that clears things up for you.

posted by Saii  5:09 AM   [+]

 

NB// Though of course, I would not want to anticipate the verdict if it ever went to trial.

posted by Saii  5:12 AM   [+]

 

How many times do you morons have to be told that UN LAW IS NOT ENOUGH FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!

Or would you appreciate it if a foreign country invaded the U.S. because of its possession of WMD's, put a convicted felon in charge of the interim government, threw the doors of the Smithsonian institute open to looters, experimented with the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in civilian areas, and permitted the operation of death squads on American soil?


Have you noticed that America is nothing like Iraq?

We don't:

harbor terrorists

tourtue our people

have dictatorship

DO have nukes and at least admit it unlike Scumbag Hussien (who I know you all must love.)

posted by Robert M.  12:09 PM   [+]

 

DarkSaturos :

It would be a full-time job to keep up with all your emotional outbursts, which show at once, a pitiful gullibility to propaganda, and a pathetic lack of balance in your perception of politics and history.

So let's keep things really, really simple, and deal with a single teeny weeny little question at a time: your question on what law Bush broke.

The answer is the FISA law, and you will see very, very easy instructions on how to find this law in my last post, just before Saii's.

That's about all the time I'm going to waste on someone who's favorite drink is probably Kool-Aid.

posted by Anonymous  9:57 PM   [+]

 

And one final thing.

Recognizing that Saddam is bad is to your credit and shows you have morals, DarkSaturos.

Selling WMD's to this maniac would only be done by someone without such morals.

Oh, wait... what does the bill of lading say the country of origin is on that shipment of chemical weapons? Let's see...U...S...

Omigod! Better keep this quiet!!!

posted by Anonymous  10:51 PM   [+]

 

But as I keep saying DarkSaturos, I'm not talking about impeachment, and haven't at any point mentioned the word in this discussion. I'm struggling to comprehend how you could continue to be unaware of this given that I've already explicitly said so at least once. I've been talking about the possibility of IMPRISONMENT, which is quite a different thing and can be carried out in any country.

----

harbor terrorists

Really? Because I know of at least three columbian paramilitary leaders holed up in Florida who the US government refuse to extradite, not to mention Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and various others. Oh and Iraq had no links whatsoever with terror at the time of the invasion (Particularly Al Quaeda, as the dictatorship was secular - Bin Laden had called for Saddam's head).

tourtue our people

No but you have said it's fine to use torture on all foreign nationals, unlike any other civilised country in the world but very similar to various dictatorships.

Have dictatorship

Lol yeah you're a free country all right, so free the Dixie Chicks can't even declare themselves as being against the war without being pulled off the airwaves, you've got the third highest rate of public executions in the world and one of the highest rates of gun crime per head. You've been to war 50 times in the last 75 years, at least a third of those being against democratic countries.

Congratulations, oh mighty fount of moral fortitude.

DO have nukes and at least admit it unlike Scumbag Hussien (who I know you all must love.)

But he didn't have nukes. He didn't even have chemical weapons. The US administration has even admitted as much, are you calling them liars? And actually no you don't admit it. There are around 162 nuclear weapons under Lakenheath in the UK for example which have never been admitted to by the US military.

posted by Saii  4:29 AM   [+]

  Post a Comment