Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The reason for the Orange alert

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 09:46 PM
Original message
The reason for the Orange alert
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=963100

on the Saturday that Saddam was captured and paraded before this nation, Bush signed patriot act 2 into law.

the legislature passed it via a voice vote, so that they would not have to account to the American people for their vote.

just before the invasion of Iraq, the nation was also put on orange alert, and Ashcroft had patriot act 2 waiting in the wings.

when someone from the DoJ leaked this act to The Center for Public Integrity, and that guy went on Bill Moyers, the public outcry made them pull back.

As a scholar of political repression in the article mentioned, this is a classic set up to silence dissent.

With the history of Hoover and the great depression (another one Bush might bring back), McCarthyism witch hunts, Iran/Contra and the "just say no" president allowing drug smuggling into this country...

I just wonder why anyone would ever vote for a Republican.

Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. why is there a good chance
the people of serbia are going to elect former butchers of the balkans to run serbia? i have no answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. gee, I'm so glad the media informed us of this.
I'm pretty well informed, believe it or not, but I didn't know this.

I heard something to the effect, but I was actually meaning to post here and get the scoop.

I am simply and utterly speechless.

The American people are getting screwed and they don't even KNOW IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you for this answer, RainDog!
Edited on Sun Dec-28-03 02:36 AM by dbt
I posted The Question on December 14, "What are we not supposed to be noticing while this (the "capture" of Saddam) is going on?"

Now that I have my answer, I don't like it worth a damn...

:freak:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Yeah, I remember that post
and isn't it strange that, at the time, the media seemed to "lose" this important bit of information and it had to come out via print media, rather than the more widely-seen t.v. media?

I always thought those people who used to moan and groan about the danger of tv were over-reacting to the ways in which tv would dumb down the nation and the images provoked violence, etc.

I think they had the right concern, but the wrong focus.

it's the so-called news that is the real danger, not "entertainment," although the eliding of the two is another problem...again for news and not for entertainment.

except I wonder about all those "reality" shows. Not only are they cheap to produce, they could also be a great vehicle for "show trials" for an uninformed or misinformed public to justify the abuses of power which Bush is now infamous for...with everyone who doesn't get their news from tv.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. You gotta hand it to Rove and his Media Minions...
Great orchestration...

Take a bow, Wolf Blitzer. You deserve it!

Hey, Marlene! Bush got Saddam bin Laden! Yee hah! We got 'im! That'll teach them Al Qairaqis! How dare you threaten me with a mushroom cloud! I hate mushrooms! Just lots of ground beef and pepperoni, triple cheese! Damn, I'm starving! Marlene! Call the Pizza Place, the usual, and bring me a beer! Rasslin's on real soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Damn, raindog, you is the dog!
It all connects - like a Jigsaw Puzzle from Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. arf, arf!
well, I can't claim credit...the entire DU forum contributors make it possible to keep track of who's doing what.

I just posted this as a separate thread because I didn't want this moment to get buried in other threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. This whole thing is deplorable and
I must say, I have heard people call in to C-SPAN who actually supported the Patriot Act'"s" because...after all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you CARE that the government is looking into your private life???!!! They actually feel that way! It's people like that who we need to be concerned about. They are too damn stupid to realize the repurcussions of this. They think in black and white. If you're not doing anything wrong or if you aren't a terrorist, you have no need to worry. <sigh> We live in a very sad and frightening time in history. I think this deserves a riot! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Someone needs to tell their buddy Rush
that he doesn't have rights anymore either.

He was complaining about his right to privacy last week. Didn't he read the Patriot Act I before he put his stamp of approval on it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. Is this it...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031213-2.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 13, 2003

Statement on H.R. 2417
Statement by the Press Secretary




On Saturday, December 13, 2003, the President signed into law:

H.R. 2417, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004," which authorizes FY 2004 appropriations for U.S. intelligence-related activities; and amends various intelligence-related authorities.

###
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. & This... Press Statement...
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031213/nysa015_1.html

Statement By President Bush
Saturday December 13, 8:21 pm ET


WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of a statement given earlier today by President Bush concerning the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004:"
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2417, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004." The Act authorizes funding for United States intelligence activities, including activities in the war against terrorists of global reach.

Section 506A(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, as enacted by section 312(b) of the Act, purports to require the President to request that the Congress enact laws appropriating funding for a major intelligence system procurement in an amount set as a cost estimate by an entity subordinate to the President or to explain why the President instead requests amounts below those levels. Moreover, beginning with the submittal to the Congress of the President's budget for FY 2006, section 312(d)(2) of H.R. 2417 purports to condition the obligation or expenditure of funds for development or procurement of a major intelligence system on the President's compliance with the requirements of section 506A. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of exclusive authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

Section 341(b) purports to require the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, acting through particular offices subordinate to them respectively, to establish certain policies and procedures relating to espionage prosecutions. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the authority committed exclusively to the President by the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Similarly, sections 1102(a) and 1102(c) of the National Security Act, as enacted by section 341(a) of the Act, purport to mandate that the Director of Central Intelligence use or act through the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive to establish and implement an inspection process for all agencies and departments of the U.S. Government that handle classified information. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.

The executive branch shall construe and implement section 376 of the Act, relating to making available classified information to courts, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security and consistent with the statutory authority of the Attorney General for the conduct of litigation for the United States.

Many provisions of the Act, including section 106 and subtitle D of title III of the Act, seek to require the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall implement section 319 of the Act in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 502 purports to place restrictions on use of the U.S. Armed Forces and other personnel in certain operations. The executive branch shall construe the restrictions -in section 502 as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

Section 106 enacts by reference certain requirements set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the House-Senate committee of conference or in a classified annex. The executive branch continues to discourage this practice of enacting secret laws and encourages instead appropriate non- binding uses of classified schedules of authorizations, classified annexes to committee reports, and joint statements of managers that accompany the final legislation.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 13, 2003.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC