Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Justice Department Quashes Wiretapping Inquiries

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, In These Times. Posted November 23, 2006.


The Department of Justice's response to inquiries sent by Maine, Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey about possible illegal wiretapping has been to sue.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Though Maine resident Doug Cowie just celebrated his 75th birthday in October, it was only this past January that he retired from the Maine Public Utility Commission (PUC) where he worked for 18 years. It would be easy to think of Cowie as an innocuous grandfatherly type -- particularly after his response when I told him some of his e-mails ended up in my spam folder: "Your what folder?" -- but he is one of a growing number of Americans who are acting, in lieu of Congress, as the only check and balance on the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

When USA Today published an article on May 11 alleging that the National Security Agency (NSA) had teamed up with major telecommunications companies to obtain access to Americans' communication records, Cowie sent an e-mail to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, asking if the company was taking part in this program. After ambiguous responses from Verizon, Cowie filed a complaint with the Maine PUC. According to Cowie, the "PUC is supposed to determine whether the complaint has merit and if it does, it's supposed to open an investigation and have a hearing." (He would know -- part of his former position there was managing these very complaints.) After two months of silence, the PUC finally acted, asking Verizon to swear under oath to the veracity of a May press release the company issued in response to the USA Today allegations.

That release claimed that Verizon was not providing records to the government, but was ambiguous enough to leave room for doubt. A deadline was set for Verizon to respond and about an hour after the deadline passed, a response was received -- a Justice Department announcement that it was suing the state of Maine.

The department invoked the state secrets privilege and claimed that for Verizon to even affirm that their previous statement was true would endanger the country. That's ridiculous, says Cowie. "[If] Verizon's public statements had classified information in them, they would have gone to jail."

Minutes after receiving notice of the Justice Department suit, Verizon submitted their filing, which stated that it could not verify its previous press statement because of the lawsuit that had just been announced. At that point, the Maine Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) got involved. The MCLU maintains that the Justice Department has no legal basis to sue the state of Maine for enforcing state law. Shenna Bellows, executive director of the MCLU, says that the department's claim that forcing Verizon to verify its previous statements would threaten national security "doesn't pass the straight-face test."

The Justice Department has sued four other states that launched similar inquiries: Missouri, Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey -- where the DoJ sued the attorney general for subpoenaing telecommunications companies within the state.

Doug Cowie's call for an investigation in Maine has now been backed up by some 400 other Mainers. That the PUC has yet to be assertive in its investigation confuses him. "I honest to God don't understand it," he says. "I'm so disappointed. The PUC should have tried to do the investigation based on unclassified data. I've been basically told that the staff has been told not to talk to anybody about this." Because the PUC refuses to pursue Cowie's complaint, legal remedy can't be sought.

While the legality of the NSA program has been challenged, the Bush administration has been pushing Congress to keep the cases out of the courts. Bills sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) would redefine electronic surveillance and force the cases against the NSA and telecommunications companies into the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, effectively keeping the cases, and any judicial remedy, from public eyes.

Regardless of the outcome, Cowie intends to spend his retirement making sure Americans' constitutional rights aren't violated. "Who the hell wants to take up all your time doing stuff like this?" asks Cowie. "But something has to be done. You just gotta do it."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: wiretapping, sue

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer. A former assistant editor of AlterNet, she has also written for MotherJones.com, Women's e-News, and PopMatters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
proof
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 23, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have proof here that the US government is violating the US constitution and the ACLU/other organizations should try to get the "law" passed by Congress and signed by the first criminal declared unconstitutional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: STFU Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: STFU Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: STFU Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: STFU Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: STFU Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: STFU Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: STFU Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: STFU Posted by: LMNOP
» Canada to the rescue Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE:Hey Conservasaurus, DEFINE "TERRORIST"!!!!! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» You are shameless Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: You are shameless Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: You are shameless Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: You are shameless Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: You are shameless Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: You are shameless Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Think about it . . . Posted by: slydad
» RE: proof Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: proof Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: proof Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: proof Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: proof Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: proof Posted by: Conservasaurus
» neocons are so obtuse... Posted by: Annapurna1
» Stealing company time!!!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Stealing company time!!!!! Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: Stealing company time!!!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Stealing company time!!!!! Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: Stealing company time!!!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Ditto Heads again Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Ditto Heads again Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Ditto Heads again Posted by: waves999
» Quote of the day! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Ditto Heads again Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Ditto Heads again Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: May I just butt in for a sec . . . Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Heck yea! Posted by: slydad
» RE: Heck yea! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Yup! He knows too much . . . Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Drop dead. Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Drop dead. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Drop dead. Posted by: LMNOP
» I have a new theory. Posted by: slydad
» RE: I have a new theory. Posted by: LMNOP
» Helping Liberals? Posted by: slydad
» RE: Helping Liberals? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Drop dead. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Drop dead. Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: DIG THIS Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Ditto Heads again Posted by: riley
Court Oversight was too difficult for them before
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Nov 23, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The irony of the administrations attempt to use the Court system to block the inquiry--the administration has always claimed that going to a court was too burdensome when they wanted to wiretap or tap into emails. Seems that the administration is very selective about when they would like to have the courts on their side and when they wouldn't.
They also want to let the states do things the way the states want when it serves their purpose of (such as blaming state and local government for the Katrina failures) but when they want to control dissent or disruption to their policies, they claim that the federal government should be supreme. Inconsistency of position is usually the test of stupidity and deceit. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.AmericasTunnelVision.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the US is at war
Posted by: Ghoulman on Nov 23, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the US is at war... with itself.

Many folks who get that what the Bush/Cheney Junta has done is literally turn the USA into a fascist state, not just lefty hooters but actual folk of Law, and these people are fighting back. Washington is thier enemy.

Washington is looting America, not to mention putting thousands, and if not thousands soon far more, into jail for "subversion". It's HUAC all over again but with a scary lack of habeas corpus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is HUAC? Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Yea, you are ignorant... Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: cure for ignorance Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: cure for ignorance Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: cure for ignorance Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: cure for ignorance Posted by: waves999
» Famous sayings! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Compare the media on Clinton and Bush and their impeachable offenses
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 23, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure most people recall the daily barrage of front-page headlines in all the major newspapers when Clinton was being invesitgated by Ken Starr - there were what, five investigations? The only one than panned out involved a romantic tryst between the Prez and his 22-yr old intern - how many front page headlines did that entail?

Now look at Bush. His crimes include (1) cooking up false intelligence to justify a war with Iraq that has cost thousands of American lives and was really just an oil grab, (2) initiating an illegal surveillance program targeting his political enemies and journalists within the United States, (3) gross negligence or active criminality in the awarding of military and government contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans, (4) probable foreknowledge of the Fall 2001 airplane/anthrax terrorist attacks within the US, and I'm sure there are more. Numbers (1) and (2) have the most supporting evidence.

So, where is the media on this? How can you look at their treatment of Clinton on one hand, and Bush on the other, and not come to the conclusion that the corporate media is just the propaganda arm of the military-industrial-academic complex that's been running this country since the 1950's?

What Bush and Cheney need is a special prosecutor and a Congressional mandate that Bush and Cheney testify about the false WMD intelligence and the domestic wiretapping under oath before a Congressional committee. That's just the tip of the iceberg, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alberto Is A Fascist
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 23, 2006 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dictionary
fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alberto Is A Fascist Posted by: robmikejas
» Meh. Not so much... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Meh. Not so much... Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Meh. Not so much... Posted by: slydad
» RE: Meh. Not so much... Posted by: riley
» Turkeys Posted by: jwg
A nation of laws...or a nation of men? It's chilling, and a threat to our Republic.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 23, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I understand why DOJ would want an expedited process for intercepting suspect communications. In 2006, understand some of the need for expedited intercepts for the purposes that the administration has laid out.

What I don't understand, nor can I tolerate, is our President deciding what he can and can't do. Congress passed the FISA Act; the President asked select members of Congress about doing something else, and then...

...just did it. As if he was an actor in a Nike commercial, rather than the Chief Executive Public Servant, bound by our laws, bound by our Constitution.

There is a process for changing our laws. There is a review for such changes, and there are rules for their lawful, proper enforcement. Co-equal branches of government oversee these functions--these processes; they are not reliant on a "smoky room deal", struck between the President, his 'buddy Congresscritters, and the US AG. Among the many things for which I will never forgive this President is his abandonment of the rule of law.

As a final note, I get a little broken up every time I hear the Grand Poobah or one of his minions stand up and declare:

"This here terrist tappin' program is Constutooshinah!"

He still doesn't know that that determination is made by the Judicial branch...and I bang my head on the table as a little more pesky ink falls off the U.S. Constitution...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush’s Defeated Foe: US Civil Liberty
Posted by: rwa on Nov 23, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Paul Craig Roberts

11/22/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --- George Orwell warned us, but what American would have expected that in the opening years of the 21st century the United States would become a country in which lies and deception by the President and Vice President were the basis for a foreign policy of war and aggression, and in which indefinite detention without charges, torture, and spying on citizens without warrants have displaced the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution?

If anyone had predicted that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency would result in an American police state and illegal wars of aggression, he would have been dismissed as a lunatic.

What American ever would have thought that any US president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?

What American ever would have expected the US Congress to accept the president’s claim that he is above the law?

What American could have imagined that if such crimes and travesties occurred, nothing would be done about them and that the media and opposition party would be largely silent?

Except for a few columnists, who are denounced by “conservatives” as traitors for defending the Bill of Rights, the defense of US civil liberty has been limited to the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The few federal judges who have refused to genuflect before the Bush police state are denounced by attorney general Alberto Gonzales as a “grave threat” to US security. Vice president Richard Cheney called a federal judge’s ruling against the Bush regime’s illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program “an indefensible act of judicial overreaching.”

Brainwashed “conservatives” are so accustomed to denouncing federal judges for “judicial activism” that Cheney’s charge of overreach goes down smoothly. Vast percentages of the American public are simply unconcerned that their liberty can be revoked at the discretion of a police or military officer and that they can be held without evidence, trial or access to attorney and tortured until they confess to whatever charge their torturers wish to impose.

Americans believe that such things can only happen to “real terrorists,” despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the Bush regime’s detainees have no connections to terrorism.

When these points are made to fellow citizens, the reply is usually that “I’m doing nothing wrong. I have nothing to fear.”

Why, then, did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Full article at:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15703.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Justice "William O. Douglas"
Posted by: mite on Nov 23, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
said " As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of. Change in the air- however slight- least we become unwitting victums of the darkness."
Get up off yout dead butts turkeys of the U.S., and read history before history is destroyed or rewritten again.
Give me liberty or give me death!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush/Gonzalez/NSA: All Committing FELONIES
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 23, 2006 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The behavior of Bush is evidence of ongoing illegal activity in violation of the Constitution and laws of the USA. The US Constitution specifically requires a warrant and mutliple federal laws also do for any type of electronic monitoring of domestic communication. What is incredible is that Bush now wants the law changed RETROACTIVELY. Why retroactively? Because, what is currently being done is illegal. Those at NSA doing it are violating the oath they swore to defend the constitution of the United States and are complicit. NSA has installed equipment at all the major internet ISP switches to vacuum up emails to be scanned for "code words" and then those emails identified are read and traced. NSA also has put in place filters to suck up email and web traffic to specific IP addresses, with the capability to identify dyamic IP addresses back to an original source as well. Fiber optic lines route this traffic back to NSA HQ for analysis and dissection. But, the problem, all this is ILLEGAL without a warrant. So says the consititution. When will Congress hold the President accountable?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nat Parry:
Posted by: rwa on Nov 24, 2006 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Defense Department might be moving toward legitimizing the use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy.

A secret Pentagon program “Information Operations Roadmap,” approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for “full spectrum” information operations and notes that “information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa.”

“PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,” the document states. The Pentagon argues, however, that “the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of U.S. government intent rather than information dissemination practices.”

It calls for “boundaries” between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits on PSYOP campaigns.

Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between “collecting” and “receiving” intelligence on U.S. citizens, the Information Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not intentionally “targeted,” any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the American public is acceptable.

The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the Web as a potential military adversary. The “roadmap” speaks of “fighting the net,” and implies that the Internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system.”

In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld elaborated on the administration’s perception that the battle over information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War.

“Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place,” Rumsfeld said.

The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched “heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, (and had them) openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans,” reported journalists Jeremy Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005.

Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as “some of the most feared professional killers in the world,” Scahill and Crespo said Blackwater’s presence in New Orleans “raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitler, Gonzales and John Yoo
Posted by: bob t on Nov 25, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sounds like Hitler and the Republican Nazi-Fascist Party is still alive and doing very well. Sgt. Alberto 'Adolph' Gonzales strikes again. Sgt. Alberto Gonzales of the Air Force Academy is STILL wreaking havoc on our American values, shredding our beloved Constitution (along with John Yoo) and our democratic values and institutions, but then he is a catholic and hispanic and most of them so willingly violate American laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: "Alberto Is A Fascist"
Posted by: bob t on Nov 25, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a common thread that runs through the regimes of Mussolini in Italy, Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain. That common and underlying thread is the Catholic Church, my church, which had it's insidious hand in all of these regimes and which since approx. 1980 has been a total and unquestioning ally of the Republican Party and it's line of shady/corrupt presidents. The Catholic Church is the most powerful authoritarian organization in the world. Though the Europeans have sucessfully staved it off since it's support of Hitler during WWII the U.S. is helpless to do so as a result of it's staunch and continious alignment with the Rethug party starting from Reagan and continuing to this very day. Via the Repthug party and especially the Bush 43 administration has a stranglehold on american politics and policy, both foreign and domestic. So if you don't like what Bush and the Repubs are doing, and I don't, the Catholic Church must be thrown out of american politics. And yes, Alberto and John Yoo are fascists and nazis and along with the Catholic Church and the white southern Baptists are shredding our beloved Constitution and our nation of laws and the rule of law. Get these fundamentalist Theocon ideologies out of our gov't and one third of the problem will be solved, get the Neocons out of our gov't and two thirds of the problem will be solved, put some reasonable governmental controls on BIG greedy corporations and ninety percent of our gov't problems will be solved. Or simply throw most Repubs out of political power and demand political reform from the Dems and 95% of gov't/political problems will be solved. Then and only then will 'we the people' once again be able to take back control of OUR damned gov't, which is not THEIRS but IS OURS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

States Rights
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 26, 2006 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mean nothing. Years of Federal self-aggrandisement with the the support of the 'progressives', 'liberals', and recently the 'rightwing' have taken away any sense of the State, or local for that matter, having any power. There are no 'checks and balances' in the US for many years as the original 'check' was a federal government with sovereign states, and local common-wealths and municipalities, and an armed citizenry to provide a check on national power. Despite the teachings of a federal triumvirate of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, the original intent was for the limited national gov't, the states, and the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Nov 28, 2006 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
States riights only apply when it's convenient for these wingnut A**Holes!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement