January 25, 2006

The BuzzFlash Mailbag

The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. More reader opinion is at "Contributors." You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18.

Subject: Help!!! 

What do you do when both senators from Missouri are Bond and Talent...and if possible...worse than Bush. In fact, I sometimes wonder if Christopher Bond is even in control of his mind...I am helpless here! I have no idea who to plead my case to.

Shirley..............St. Louis

[BuzzFlash Note: How about writing or calling the senators who say they're undecided, such as Patty Murray and Jay Rockefeller? Or urge Patrick Leahy or others who have criticized Alito to filibuster?

Subject: About Getting Out the Word

No sense wasting any more time and energy on MSM, so embedded are they with the powers that be. No problem, though, because, in changing the world, the alternate media will more than suffice. Except we'd best hurry because at this very moment the powers that be are closing in on us Netters, figuring-out how to shut us down and/or lock us up. Which means we the people change the world right now, or else. Wow!

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Fear Is a Dangerous Thing!

The Bush administration is so good at spreading fear. On the Fox News channel, they have the color coded terror alert on the bottom of the screen. telling us when it's high and when it's low. Damn! I wish people could see what this administration has done to us.

By instilling fear in us, some of us were willing to give up certain rights. Some were willing to go along with the Patriot Act, knowing fully well we're going to lose some of our civil liberties. Some among us didn’t have a problem with certain groups of people being singled out on airplanes. Look at what we've become. Do you really believe they're doing this because of 911?

The above letter is a letter that I wrote to my local paper in ... 2003. I had no Idea that three years later, we would be dealing with wiretapping, spying and trying to get Google's search engine records. It's time for people in this country to behave like adults and stop running around like scared little bunnies. Bush hasn't done one thing to protect America. He didn't before September 11 and he's not doing anything now. You're a damn fool if you believe that this administration didn't spy on their political opponents and people who are anti-Bush. Just look at their history, they attack anyone who doesn't agree with Bush ... and if they can't get to them they'll go after their family.

Name one thing that Bush has done to gain your trust? When are Neocons going to listen to the Anti-Bush, Pro-America people? We were right about this ill-fated war, right about no WMDs and we're right about Bush's abuse of power.

People who are opposed to wiretapping and spying, are not opposed because they have something to hide. They're opposed because they believe in The Bill of Rights. Don't let this be another "I told you so." We don't need the terrorists to ruin America and everything that she stands for; Bush is doing a pretty good job on his own.

Kimberly D.
New York

Subject: Pizza Anyone?

Just click ... it speaks for itself.

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/assets/aclu-pizza/

Monica
Kankakee

[BuzzFlash Note: This is about data mining, and almost funny, sponsored by the ACLU.]

Subject: Ed Schultz and the Filibuster

Just listening to the Ed Schultz Show. He is asking his listeners to reconsider the use of the filibuster because the Republicans will invoke the nuclear option and change the rules of the senate. He says the Republicans will then attain everything they want.

So how would that be any different than things are now? The only thing they have not pulled off yet is the private accounts for social security. Is Ed sincere or is he still a closet republican? Lindsey Graham just threatened to "clean our clock" if the dems do filibuster. Does that sound like the US Senate or the mafia? What could a filibuster accomplish anyway? You can't talk forever and life is not a Jimmy Stewart movie.

Pisces
Idaho

Subject: The Law and Surveillance

I read the Fourth Amendment today, and it is very clear to me (even though I am not a JD and I don't play one on TV) that the government has no right to invade anyone's privacy without probable cause.

Just for kicks, I also went to the DOJ website. There is a very interesting manual there with the title of "Criminal Resource Manual."

Section 9, which covers electronic surveillance is very interesting -- particularly 9-7.112, Emergency Interception. It is rather lengthy, but states, in part:

... As defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7), an emergency situation involves either: (1) immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to any person; (2) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or (3) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. The only situations which will likely constitute an emergency are those involving an imminent threat to life, i.e., a kidnapping or hostage taking. See United States v. Crouch, 666 F. Supp. 1414 (N.D. Cal. 1987)(wiretap evidence suppressed because there was no imminent threat of death or serious injury); Nabozny v. Marshall, 781 F.2d 83 (6th Cir.)(kidnapping and extortion scenario constituted an emergency situation), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1161 (1986). The emergency provision also requires that grounds must exist under which an order could be entered (viz., probable cause, necessity, specificity of target location/facility) to authorize the interception. Once the AG, the DAG, or the AssocAG authorizes the law enforcement agency to proceed with the emergency Title III, the government then has forty-eight (48) hours, from the time the authorization was granted, to obtain a court order approving the emergency interception. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7). The affidavit supporting the application for the order must contain only those facts known to the AG, the DAG, or the AssocAG at the time his or her approval was given, and must be accompanied by a written verification from the requesting agency noting the date and time of the authorization. Failure to obtain the court order within the forty-eight-hour period will render any interceptions obtained during the emergency illegal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/7mcrm.htm

Our current laws are very specific and do not appear to allow any exceptions for a pretend "War President" who is somewhat demented and masochistic (the assertion that Bush can torture anyone he sees fit to).

Another point I just thought of: Since only the Congress can declare a state of war, then we are legally not at war. Wouldn't this simple fact render moot any of the "unitary privilege" that the administration claims they have?

It would be nice if the ACLU, Judicial Watch, and a plethora of organizations on all sides of the spectrum would file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the American taxpayers and citizens against Bush et al.

Lisa J.
Milwaukee, WI

Subject: We Will Bury You: Alito, the Last Nail in the Coffin

Khrushchev, wasn't it? Well he didn't. It was corporate America that did. Its blackout, change-the-subject, cover up, censorship, lying Barbie-dolled media. Its lackey, proxy cabal that styles itself the American government. Its Bechtel, Halliburton (yada, yada) government contractor-run military that kills (with shock-und awe) for its corporate principal in order to rob others of their wealth. Its House of Corporate Representatives and its Spin-et.

You will learn that its eternal manufactured War on Terrorism is good for all you civilian to soldiers victims. You will learn that habeas corpus, due process, equal protection are obsolete and hopelessly dated. You will learn that no blood, all glory "Off to War" is good for you.

You will learn that its job outsourcing is justice. Its (soon to be outsourced) unauthorized wiretapping is freedom. After all, its Christian fundamentalist torture gulags are now--or will soon be--"constitutional." Its national voter fraud is real democratic progres-er, process. In fact, you will learn that anything $ wants is "constitutional" and anything $ doesn't, isn't.

Will Wyche
Palm Springs, CA

Subject: BuzzFlash Editorial - The Power Of One 1/24/06

In the editorial you talked about Democratic Senators who would not fight for our freedoms. Is there any way you can give us the 44 names? This could be very helpful come election time. Thank you for your help with this question, but most of all THANKS for all you do to promote our basic rights and freedoms.

http://democrats.senate.gov/senators.html

Jan M Duryea

Subject: Lieberman and Bush

CNN said today that Joe Lieberman was the Democrat most supportive of Bush and his policies. They sounded incredulous that he was now taking a stand against the administration he has so enabled in the past.

Lieberman, who recently has become a White House ally on many issues, said the committee has been unable to answer either of those questions because "the White House has produced just a very small portion of the documents we requested."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/24/katrina.levees/

COULD THE REASON BE THAT "KISSIN JOE" FINALLY HAS A BONAFIDE CHALLENGER IN CONNECTICUT??? HUH ?

Now if we can just find one for Feinstein and Nelson!

Hey BUZZ please give us a profile on the Lieberman challenger?

Lawton Watson
Springdale, AR

[BuzzFlash Note: Some background: Taking Aim at Joe (Westchester Weekly); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont.]

Subject: Rick Santorum, you wild and crazy guy

Listen to him ask people to serve and fight for their country by putting on one of his campaign bumper stickers. The prelude is great, where he praises volunteers who are really fighting, and then asks if it is too much to ask to put one of his stickers on. I mean, he is really out of luck if he thinks he can convince Young or College Repubs to sign up to really fight, but who wants to mess up the looks of your Lexus or Bimmer with a bumper sticker?

http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/...

Karen Webb

Subject: Google to censor sensitive terms in China

Yeah. Google are “big heroes” fighting to protect “our rights” over here ...

Google says no to data demand: Government wants records of searches (sfgate)

... but I think it’s just as important to watch what they are doing elsewhere ...

Google to block some searches in China Company says it will censor politically sensitive terms to comply with Beijing's policies (Reuters/CNN)

Nothing like spreading Freedom ... one Dollar at-a-time.

John L. Johnson
Laingsburg, Michigan

Subject: Voting for the Bad Guys

A recent speech by the leader of the pack, Karl Rove, showed that the Republicans are very sure of themselves. Mr. Rove is so arrogant that he seems to think that playing the same song will be successful forever.

Mr. Rove says that Republicans are post 9/11 thinkers and Democrats are pre 9/11 thinkers. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 repeated endlessly to convince Americans that only Republicans can protect them.

We have been safe since 9/11 only because of Republican vigilance and toughness, they claim. Or are we safer over here because we have sent hundreds of thousands of Americans over there to act as targets? 2235 Americans have died in Iraq and another 259 have been killed in Afghanistan. Looks to me like we have made killing Americans much easier.

According to government figures, “serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year.” Are we really “winning” the war on terror?

In spite of all that the government, with its enormous and terrifying power, has been able to do with their spying, they haven’t managed to catch anyone except some poor schmuck who thought he could take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. According to the FBI, they were aware of this looney tune before the NSA bothered to spy on him.

All these busy little spies with their sophisticated equipment and the full power of the government have resulted in hundreds of indictments, right? Dozens? A couple? Any? It would appear that the administration's spying venture has been about as competent as everything else they do.

It’s hard to understand how they stay in power when they are so incompetent.

Is there any reason for elected officials to pay any attention to the citizenry when 95% of the incumbents will be returned to Washington no matter what they do? As long as voters know who you are, that name recognition thing, no matter how badly you serve them, they will vote for you. Great for incumbents, bad for the country, and a sad commentary on voters. Such a wonderful right we have. How little we seem to value it.

Marjorie L. Swanson
Kenosha, WI

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE JANUARY 25, 2006 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG