posted on July 11, 2005 03:00:52 PM new
The Patriot Act. You think that's unreasonable??
At least in the US you have to be accused of probable cause and probable cause has been defined as facts and circumstances based on reasonably trustworthy information that would warrant a prudent person into believing a crime was committed and the person to be arrested committed it.
In the Netherlands one of the most liberal countries in the world and Aruba, it's completely different. All you need is some indication that the person may have been involved, and then you can be arrested and held for a substantial period of time.
And that substantial amout of time is initially, the police can hold someone for two days. They're not required to bring them before a magistrate until 72 hours. And the initial two can be extended for eight days and then two more periods of eight days. So that's about 26 days. And then another four months. So you're up to 146 days.
Come on now, US citizens are some of the most protected people from their government in the world.
You could be living elsewhere. Give the US constitution a break.
posted on July 11, 2005 03:22:37 PM new
O.K. neocons try to stay on subject. Your attempts at diverting the issue about Rove isn't working any anyway.
White House Mum on Karl Rove Revelation
Bush Said Previously the Leaker of a CIA Agent's Name Would Be Fired
By PETE YOST, AP
WASHINGTON (July 11) - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.
But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.
McLellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: ''I've really said all I'm going to say on it.''
Democrats jumped on the issue, calling for the administration to fire Rove, or at least to yank his security clearance. One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.
''The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration,'' said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ''I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security.''
posted on July 11, 2005 03:41:53 PM new
--The Patriot Act. You think that's unreasonable??
At least in the US you have to be accused of probable cause and probable cause--
Not with the Patriot act.
--Or how about Dan Rather who knowingly broadcast information that he knew was questionable and then untrue that he hoped would change the outcome of an election. Whatever happened to that "in depth" investigation, anyhow.?--
Rather did not commit treason.
Outing a CIA agent is treason.
posted on July 11, 2005 03:49:31 PM new
washington,I know this is off subject of the Rove issue. Since you asked me your question twice I want to answer. Just stay tuned you will hear a lot more about the Honorable Santorum as the 2006 election gets closer.
BTW washington Back on subject about Rove. I agree with you, anyone should see a court room for doing what Rove did.
posted on July 11, 2005 05:35:11 PM new
bigpeepa. You just don't read and comprehend very well do you. It wasn't a "neocon" who made the first post that left the subject of Rove in the dust. Just answering that post.
posted on July 11, 2005 05:39:52 PM new
Hmmm, according to the news that I saw the e-mail doesn't say Rove pointed out the CIA agent at all, and he says he didn't. Let's wait for an investigation or court hearing, okay.
posted on July 11, 2005 06:47:05 PM newLook at all the criminals clinton pardoned
Look at the criminal President Ford pardoned - former President Nixon.
Now who was the bigger crook.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 11, 2005 09:47:24 PM new
Tex - considering your statements, I have to wonder if you have actually read any of the Patriot Act or if your just drank the kool-aid.
You talk about how the US constitution allows a suspect much greater rights than other nations yet all of those rights are stripped by the Patriot Act. You can be arrested, held without charges, denied a lawyer, a phone call, any ability to notify anyone of your whereabouts for an indefinite period of time. Your home can be searched, your phones tapped, your financial records siezed with NO WARRANT and no oversight to avoid abuses.
The Patriot Act is a work around and the freedoms it affords law inforcement are being abused regularly in non terrorist related criminal investigations.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 11, 2005 10:03:45 PM new
Yes, fenix, I have read the Patriot Act and it, like any other law blindly passed by congress, is subject to being brought to court as unconstitutional. It would likely go to the Supreme Court and it is definitely a trespass on the First Amendment and hopefully would be recognized as such. At least by the present court.
Now am I as "neocon" as I am accused of?
posted on July 11, 2005 10:19:04 PM new
For those who missed today's press conference, here are the questions put to Karl Rove. Finally, a press corps with some backbone.
QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
QUESTION: I actually wasn't talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?
QUESTION: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?
QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this ?
QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?
QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... (LAUGHTER) ... because after the investigation began---after the criminal investigation was under way---you said, October 10th, 2003, I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this, from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.
QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.
QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?
QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?
QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?
QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?
QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...
QUESTION: Can I finish, please?
QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?
QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?
QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?
. . .
QUESTION: Scott, what was the president's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation? And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the president's reelection (OFF-MIKE) how important is Karl Rove to this administration?
QUESTION: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?
QUESTION: No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?
. . .
QUESTION: Scott, I think you're getting this barrage today in part because it is now clear that 21 months ago you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstrably false. Now, are you concerned that in setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?
QUESTION: Scott, at this point are we to consider what you said previously, when you were talking about this -- that you're still standing by that or are those all inoperative at this point?
QUESTION: Are you standing by what you said previously?
. . .
QUESTION: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?
QUESTION: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open...
QUESTION: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?
QUESTION: Was the request made of you or of whom in the White House?
. . .
QUESTION: In your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?
posted on July 11, 2005 11:20:30 PM new
Tex - I don't believe that you will ever see me using that word. Frankly it annoys me as much as "You Liberals". (Which by the way even Alan Colmes was making fun of tonight).
I'm not big on pigeonholing. I think every individual has varying degrees of political ideologies, for instance I'm quite liberal on most topics but I am as fervent a supporter of the death penalty as I am for a womans right to choose. If we debate on a topic, I'll debate you only on your stated view, not the percieved view of the political ideology that someone has assigned to you.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 11, 2005 11:30:08 PM new
Linda - don't dig yourself in too deep here. Rove lied to the press, McLellan either lied to or unintentionally mislead the press as a result of being lied to by Rove. This White House took a hard line stance and they are going to have to live up to it. Rove ADMITS that he is the person whose identity these two liberal reporters have been protecting. Why would they need to protect his identity if he had not disclosed the information?
You clearly have a desire to blow off this situation but can YOU (not Drudge or WND or any other source, but you in your own words) give a logical explination of why you believe that Rove did not do this. (Please don't say Because he said so...we already know he has lied once in this siutation so his credibility is out the window.)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 12, 2005 06:43:45 AM new
First I fully support the Patriot Act as it was originally written. And as of today, no one has been able to point out one violation of any wrong doing since it's inception. We need to be able to use these laws against terrorists. They HAVE been helpful in the arrests that have been made in the US. We use them for other criminals....but some don't want that extended to those who are suspected for plotting against us. And that's a big shame, imo. You're wanting to tie their hands so they can't do the best they can to route out these murderers.
----------------
fenix - What I'm saying is that there is a HUGE difference between mentioning to a reporter that Wilson had lied about so many issues, and that he was lying about being sent to Africa and by whom.....and actually 'outting' Wilson's wife.
Imo, Rove was trying to convince reporters not to believe Wilson, once again - not to take his word as gospel. Most statements Wilson has made have been discredited, even by the Senate Intelligence Comm. He's a total joke and he LIED.....didn't see anyone on the left fuming about that.
I posted a link two years ago that showed Wilson, himself, had 'outted' his own wife...and when. But the left wants to blame everything they can on this administration.
He lied? LOL how funny. That charge coming from clinton supporters?
I believe what this investigation will show is that words said are easily twisted to have a completely different meaning. Happens here day in - day out. And I do not believe anything will come of this either.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Linda says..."Imo, Rove was trying to convince reporters not to believe Wilson, once again - not to take his word as gospel"
Linda, You can't excuse Rove's crime by blaming Joe Wilson. You are way off base with that reasoning.
Carl Rove endangered U.S. national security to take revenge on a whistleblower.
"A man who would do what Rove did should not be in the White House in any capacity. And no person who tolerates a man like Rove in the White House should be commander in chief of American security." Juan Cole
posted on July 12, 2005 07:34:27 AM new
Based on what has come out, the least Rove should do is resign.
Linda I understand your loyalty for the President, however the President needs to distance himself from this or cause his own credibility into question. Rove has now made himself a liability.
posted on July 12, 2005 07:39:20 AM new
Linda, I'm not saying that the Patriot Act is not serving its purpose, just that, if it were challenged in the Supreme Court, in my opinion, it would be found unconstitutional.
That's just my two cents worth for what it's worth (probably about two cents).
posted on July 12, 2005 07:46:49 AM new
LindaK--I believe what this investigation will show is that words said are easily twisted --
and the accusers are probably "delusional", too
I wonder why, if he's so innocent why McCellen is lying ?
LindaK--He lied? LOL how funny. That charge coming from clinton supporters? --
No, not all the accusers are Clinton supporters and what would that have to do with anything anyway??
TREASON is a lot more serious than lying about your private life which is no one's business. But, I'm sure Bush supporters can't tell the difference.
Or LindaK are you saying treason and all other crimes committed by the present administration should be overlooked because Clinton lied about his sex life?
Or are you saying Rove, Bush, and McClend can lie because Clinton did?
posted on July 12, 2005 09:35:23 AM new
::Imo, Rove was trying to convince reporters not to believe Wilson, once again - not to take his word as gospel.::
So what... he said that Wilson should not be believed because his wife is a spy. Why do you even need to mention a mans wife profession is your intention is just to discredit him? That makes no sense.
::He lied? LOL how funny. That charge coming from clinton supporters?::
What does that have to do with anything Linda?
Lets hope he can come up with a better arguement than that one you are offering up. This one is just kinda sad and pitiful andreakes of desperation.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 12, 2005 09:39 AM ]
posted on July 12, 2005 10:48:44 AM new
My position on this subject has nothing to do with 'defending' this WH. It has to do with the fact, that at THIS point, nothing has been proven.
Anyone could have spoken about Wilson's wife, without saying specifically that 'she's a covert member of the CIA'. Because her name came up....doesn't PROVE he 'outted her' as an undercover agent. Period.
And another thing I think is being overlooked....there is no proof that KR was the ONLY one who spoke with these reporters. We don't know yet.
I'm saying you're all jumping to the conclusion you WANT to see be the truth....not what we know at this time.
-----------------
etexbill - I have no doubt that one or two areas of the Patriot Bill will be changed before it's renewed. I'm just saying that in each and every clause that's in it.....that we've already been using to catch criminals....I personally see absolutely no reason they can't be used in our discovery of terrorists living in the US ALSO.
I have no problem that you disagree with me....
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 12, 2005 10:50:27 AM new
I watched a documentary in which Valerie Plame's husband had said only 11 people knew his wife was a CIA agent. Those 11 people all worked in the White House. If is not Rove, it is somebody in the White House.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 12, 2005 10:56:56 AM new
At this point.....this is what Rove and his attorney are saying. Read the words HE used...and then tell me there's PROOF and we should fry Rove.
posted on July 12, 2005 10:57:27 AM new...he said that Wilson should not be believed because his wife is a spy
fenix, he never said wilsons wife was a spy. The news media is reporting that he mentioned that wilson's trip was not authorized by Cheney or other WH officicals but apparantly by somebody in the CIA who may have been wilsons wife. I dont think if he actually mentioned her name, although the suggestion is clear if anybody knew who his wife was - but if he did mention her by name, why would he have released the confideniality agreement held to by the reporter? It makes it sound like to me like he was suggesting a CIA administrative position
was involved here - since when can a CIA undercover agent authorize a trip to Africa?
posted on July 12, 2005 11:40:48 AM new
White House has said it will stand by Rove at this time.
I think this is a mistake and Bush's credibility will suffer. Rove needs to resign and/or Bush needs to fire him. This would be in keeping with his promise in June of last year.
Linda, Rove should of not of said anything. That should be the bottom line.
posted on July 12, 2005 11:51:09 AM new
Ron - I disagree....because, at that time, Wilson was trying to blame Cheney for falsifing the Niger information. So of course Rove would want to dispute the words of a liar. [wilson] And had every reason to do so.
I think what some here are forgetting is that two years ago....there was much discussion that MOST in DC already were aware Valerie Pulme/Wilson worked for the CIA. It also was much discussed at that time that on Wilson's OWN online bio....he mentioned his wife worked for the CIA. HIS OWN BIO. He outed his wife himself....and anyone who could put two and two together would see that.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 12, 2005 12:00:53 PM new
Washington Post Says CIA Angry Over Talon News 'Leak' Story; Ashcroft Steps Down from Investigation
Talon News ^ | December 31, 2003 | Bobby Eberle
Posted on 12/31/2003 3:45:51 PM PST by Jeff Gannon
HOUSTON (Talon News) -- The Washington Post reported Friday that according to their sources, the Central Intelligence Agency believes people in the Bush administration are continuing to release classified information to damage figures at the center of the Niger "yellowcake" controversy.
According to the Washington Post story, the CIA has alleged that one or more senior administration officials revealed the name of a covert operative to columnist Robert Novak. The complaint has led to an FBI investigation of the White House to determine circumstances surrounding the release of the identity of Valerie Plame to the media.
Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, claims someone at the White House sought to destroy his wife's career because of the report he filed after his mission to Africa in 2002. Wilson disputed the administration's statements about Saddam Hussein's efforts to buy uranium from Niger to advance his WMD programs.
The Washington Post cites an unnamed source who says, "The CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets." They point to a memo referenced in a Talon News interview of Wilson that suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa.
Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence. The newspaper goes on to say that CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the document purportedly written by a State Department official who works for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Jeff Gannon, the White House correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News declined to reveal whether he had seen the memo or had its contents described to him.
While he would not disclose his source, Gannon said, "I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration."
"For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible," Gannon added. "Washington is leaking like a cheap umbrella. Just look at what's happening over on Capitol Hill."
Gannon was referring to private Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee memos that have been leaked to various media outlets in the last few months.
Gannon's exclusive interview with Wilson focused on the many unanswered questions about the "outing" of his wife.
Gannon points out that other possibilities exist which might explain how Plame's name was revealed without the malice that Wilson believes was retribution for his decision to go public with criticism of the White House.
"When Bob Novak asked why a known partisan like Wilson would be sent on a critical mission to help the administration build its case to go to war with Iraq, the answer might have been that his wife got him the job, not realizing her identity was classified," Gannon said. "It's not as if nepotism is unheard of in Washington."
The Talon News reporter added, "Some people out there see a clandestine war going on between the White House and the CIA. It is generally perceived that a substantial amount of blame for intelligence failures that otherwise might have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has been laid at the agency's doorstep by the administration. They suggest the agency is fighting back with an allegation of a wrongdoing in the Plame matter."
In related matters, Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the leak investigation on Tuesday and called on Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, to serve as a special prosecutor.
Fitzgerald led the investigation of former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, who was charged with 22 counts of corruption.
In a Tuesday press conference, Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that Ashcroft's decision was not based on a conflict of interest but rather the desire to eliminate any appearance of conflict or favoritism.
"The attorney general in an abundance of caution believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation," Comey said. "I agree with that judgment."
posted on July 12, 2005 12:00:59 PM new
I am wondering how many meetings with Lawyers Rove,Bush and Cheney are having. Yes, the same Lawyers neocons don't like until they need one. LOL. I am also wondering if the American tax payer will get stuck with the Lawyers bills. This LIE from the White House is going to cost.
White House Mum on Karl Rove Revelation
Bush Said Previously the Leaker of a CIA Agent's Name Would Be Fired
By PETE YOST, AP
WASHINGTON (July 12) -- The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.
President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove - in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.
For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.
