>>>I assume these are fair game among spies. It's the illegal part that's illegal. Bypassing the FISA court (which was rubberstamping thousands of orders anyway) is what makes it illegal.
>>>
>>Site the case where this has been proven please.
>
>"Site" - assign a location to. Probably somewhere in DC.
>
:)

>>Articles and opinions do not count, I'm talking about a legal ruling on the specific issue.
>
>So if it wasn't brought to court yet, or is still not decided on, it's somehow legal in advance?
>

You asserted as fact that it is "illegal". In truth the "facts" are in dispute and have yet to be ruled on. At this point all we have is opinion.

>Assume I refuse to pay my taxes. Is it completely legal for me to do so until there's a court ruling against me?
>
Taxes are voluntary :)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060707203302AAMlrfw
http://www.buildfreedom.com/suprynowicz.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME2k2Iti0_o&search=income%20tax%20trailer

I wouldn't suggest challenging the IRS without a HUGE bankroll and a team of excellent and passionate lawyers.

>>This is typical for intelligence operations, the intelligence committee and/or leadership is informed because they "need to know", wheras the house and senate as a whole are not due to security concerns. Concers, I might add, that are being proven daily with the intelligence leaks.
>>
>>>but were sworn not to tell.
>>
>>Duh, classified.
>
>Yes, six congress... persons? ... knew some but not all and weren't allowed to tell, and that's "Especially considering the congressional oversight being applied. Reviews ever couple weeks, weekly intelligence briefings, judicial oversight. These have all been involved since day one, which by the way is why no legal challenge will hold up."? That's just a cheap pretext and CYA politics, not "they were involved from day one".

These are some of the "facts" that are in dispute, since the information is classified and there is also an investigation as to who leaked the information.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

>>>Then they were accused for not telling.
>>
>>By who? Reporters? Columnists? Bloggers? Is there a legal case against the senators that I'm missing?
>
>By GOP propaganda machine and politicians. December 2005. Short memory?
>
I remember a couple coming out saying they were "outraged" only to find out they'd known. Is that what you are referring to? The courts will settle this, but I don't think you're going to like the decision.

>>>>What specifically did Bremer's authority not do?
>>>
>>>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/133647/157
>>>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/25/1343214 for the full interview.
>>
>>"The book tracks the radical neo-liberal" (I thought he was a neo-con) "economic program the Bush administration has tried to impose on Iraq, which threatens to leave Iraq's economy and oil reserves largely in the hands of multinational corporations."
>>
>>This is a perfect example of why you need to expand your sources. Sheesh. Imperial America! Globalization! Multi-nationals! The sky is falling!
>
>This is a perfect example of why I'm beginning to lose patience with you. Yes, globalization is just a fancy word for the multinationals spreading american empire (i.e. market) all over the globe, but that's always been in the nature of capitalism (the mantra of growth, growth, growth), no news here.

Nothing wrong there either. Greater freedom & prosperity = less war. Free people do not attack one another.

>Yes, I expected you'd object to the source (but the smell of the lunch was just too much - had to finish fast, no time to find more links). I also expected you wouldn't agree with ms Juhasz's (pron: yoo-hahs) conclusions.
>
>I didn't expect that you'd dismiss it altogether. There are facts in there that you could easily check (but you decided that more important to cry out loud at the messenger's hairstyle):

There are opinions in there that I can easily dismiss as well.

I don't have time to go through these so let me be brief. Companies merge and get taken over. Contracts were given out without a bidding process. Initially that is fine due to the nee for quick stability, but they should've been reviewed and opened for bidding a couple of months in. I do not believe you are correct about violations of the Geneva convention in regards to the occupation. The new laws were a temporary necessity due to the previous Baathist rule. The new constitution was enacted based on a democratically elected body of Iraqis. Yes the US had influence but in the end it was Iraqis who ratified it. The level of utilities/infrastructure can be laid directly at the feet of the insurgency and jihadis.

>
>- did the oil industry fund Bush & cheney's first campaign with 13 times more money than they did for the Dems, or did they not? Is 9:1 the ratio for the second campaign or not?
>- did ChevronTexaco and Unocal merge or not?
>- did Exxon and Mobil merge or not?
>- did BearingPoint of Virginia get the $250 million contract to rewrite the
entire economy of Iraq or not? Was their contract renewed or not?
>- did Bremer issue his 100 orders or not?
>- does this quote reflect reality or not:
>Bremer became the dictator of Iraq. His orders laid out the law. Now, probably the most important thing to know is that that was completely illegal under international law. The Geneva Conventions are very specific about what an occupying power should do. It must provide basic security and services. It cannot change the laws or the political structure of the country it occupies. The Bush administration did exactly the opposite -- changed all the fundamental economic and political laws and utterly failed to provide for the security and the basic needs of the Iraqi people.
>- is it true that $50 billion was given to 150 US corporations for the reconstruction or not?
>- is it true that the general level of utilities is still below the pre-war levels in Iraq or not?
>- is it true that these companies mostly weren't hiring Iraqis?
>- is it true that Bremer fired 120,000 civil servants?
>In the end, a quote from Naomi Klein's article in Harper's:
>
>"The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war’s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society." (http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html)

ME2k2Iti0_o