WXIA 11Alive.com - ACLU Releases Government Photos: "ACLU Releases Government Photos |Jon Shirek Reports | Web Editor: Michael King | Reported By: Jon Shirek | Web Editor: Tracey Christensen | Last Modified: 1/25/2006 9:41:15 PM
A government photo shows Caitlin Childs protesting. | Caitlin Childs, shown at an ACLU news conference
The ACLU of Georgia released copies of government files on Wednesday that illustrate the extent to which the FBI, the DeKalb County Division of Homeland Security and other government agencies have gone to compile information on Georgians suspected of being threats simply for expressing controversial opinions. "
...
An undercover DeKalb County Homeland Security detective was assigned to conduct surveillance of the protest and the protestors, and take the photographs. The detective arrested Childs and another protester after he saw Childs approach him and write down, on a piece of paper, the license plate number of his unmarked government car.
"They told me if I didn't give over the piece of paper I would go to jail and I refused and I went to jail, and the piece of paper was taken away from me at the jail and the officer who transferred me said that was why I was arrested," Childs said on Wednesday.
The government file lists anti-war protesters in Atlanta as threats, the ACLU said. The ACLU of Georgia accuses the Bush administration of labeling those who disagree with its policy as disloyal Americans.
"We believe that spying on American citizens for no good reason is fundamentally un-American, that it's not the place of the goverment or the best use of resources to spy on its own citizens and we want it to stop. We want the spies in our government to pack their bags, close up their notebooks, take their cameras home and not engage in the spying anymore," Gerald Weber of the ACLU of Georgia said during a news conference.
"We have heard of not a single, government surveillance of a pro-war group," Weber said. "And I doubt we will ever hear of a single surveillance of a pro-war group." ...
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Another Payola Scandal... This Time Fox News Columnist On Big Tobacco Payroll...
Another Payola Scandal... This Time Fox News Columnist On Big Tobacco Payroll... | The Huffington Post: "
The New Republic | Posted January 26, 2006 02:11 PM
... Milloy has been affiliated with FoxNews.com since July 2000. On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. "If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize," Milloy wrote. For good measure, he heaped scorn on a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that also linked health risks and secondhand smoke. Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie--the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke." You might chalk it up to Milloy's contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies. Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. ... Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. Asked about Milloy's tobacco ties, Paul Schur, director of media relations for Fox News, said, "Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." Milloy could not be reached for comment.
The New Republic | Posted January 26, 2006 02:11 PM
... Milloy has been affiliated with FoxNews.com since July 2000. On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. "If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize," Milloy wrote. For good measure, he heaped scorn on a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that also linked health risks and secondhand smoke. Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie--the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke." You might chalk it up to Milloy's contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies. Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. ... Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. Asked about Milloy's tobacco ties, Paul Schur, director of media relations for Fox News, said, "Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." Milloy could not be reached for comment.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization by Paul Craig Roberts
Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization by Paul Craig Roberts: "by Paul Craig Roberts
A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.
Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:
"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."
This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."
The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).
"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.
...
It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment,"
Insight: " January 23-29, 2006, Posted On: 1/23/2006 | Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst
...
...
The law limits the government surveillance to no more than 72 hours without a court warrant. The president, citing his constitutional war powers, has pledged to continue wiretaps without a warrant. ...
...
...
"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.
Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.
...
The law limits the government surveillance to no more than 72 hours without a court warrant. The president, citing his constitutional war powers, has pledged to continue wiretaps without a warrant. ...
...
On Jan. 16, former Vice President Al Gore set the tone for impeachment hearings against Mr. Bush by accusing the president of lying to the American people. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, accused the president of "indifference" to the Constitution and urged a serious congressional investigation. He said the administration decided to break the law after Congress refused to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore said.
"I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution,” he said. “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country." ...
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Fishing in Cyberspace - ustice Department is making this baldfaced grab to try to prop up an online pornography law
Fishing in Cyberspace - New York Times: "Published: January 21, 2006
Enough is never enough, not when the government believes that it can invade your privacy without repercussions. The Justice Department wants a federal judge to force Google to turn over millions of private Internet searches. Google is rightly fighting the demand, but the government says America Online, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online service, have already complied with similar requests.
This is not about national security. The Justice Department is making this baldfaced grab to try to prop up an online pornography law that has been blocked once by the Supreme Court. And it's not the first time we've seen this sort of behavior. The government has zealously protected the Patriot Act's power to examine library records. It sought the private medical histories of a selected group of women, saying it needed the information to defend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the federal courts." ...
...
... Had Google not resisted the government's attempt to seize records, would the public have ever found about the request?
Enough is never enough, not when the government believes that it can invade your privacy without repercussions. The Justice Department wants a federal judge to force Google to turn over millions of private Internet searches. Google is rightly fighting the demand, but the government says America Online, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online service, have already complied with similar requests.
This is not about national security. The Justice Department is making this baldfaced grab to try to prop up an online pornography law that has been blocked once by the Supreme Court. And it's not the first time we've seen this sort of behavior. The government has zealously protected the Patriot Act's power to examine library records. It sought the private medical histories of a selected group of women, saying it needed the information to defend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the federal courts." ...
...
... Had Google not resisted the government's attempt to seize records, would the public have ever found about the request?
President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed ... five photographs of Abramoff and the President [... conflict with press sectetary statements]
TIME.com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- When George Met Jack | : "Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006 | By ADAM ZAGORIN, MIKE ALLEN
White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story
As details poured out about� the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few 'staff-level meetings' that were not worth describing further. 'The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him,' McClellan said.
The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s." ...
White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story
As details poured out about� the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few 'staff-level meetings' that were not worth describing further. 'The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him,' McClellan said.
The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s." ...
Spying: executive director of the A.C.L.U: the N.S.A. has been unleashed in a much broader way on Americans.
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush: "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? | by Bob Herbert | The New York Times | January 19, 2006
...
So why is the president illegally spying on Americans when the administration can so easily comply with the law by secretly getting warrants from the terminally compliant court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Clues can be found in a couple of lawsuits seeking to stop the illegal spying that were filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition to arguing that the domestic spying program should be shut down because it is illegal, both groups express the fear that the National Security Agency has been spying on individuals who have had nothing whatever to do with terrorism." ...
...
"That means," said Mr. Romero, "that the N.S.A. has been unleashed in a much broader way on Americans." ...
...
So why is the president illegally spying on Americans when the administration can so easily comply with the law by secretly getting warrants from the terminally compliant court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Clues can be found in a couple of lawsuits seeking to stop the illegal spying that were filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition to arguing that the domestic spying program should be shut down because it is illegal, both groups express the fear that the National Security Agency has been spying on individuals who have had nothing whatever to do with terrorism." ...
...
"That means," said Mr. Romero, "that the N.S.A. has been unleashed in a much broader way on Americans." ...
Vice Voyeur is pushing the federal government to constantly monitor millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls, e-mail notes and Internet searches
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush: "Googling Past the Graveyard | by Maureen Dowd | The New York Times | January 21, 2006
I don't like the thought of Dick Cheney ogling my Googling.
Because what I'm Googling, of course, is Dick Cheney. I have to constantly monitor how Vice Voyeur is pushing the federal government to constantly monitor millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls, e-mail notes and Internet searches.
If you want to know why the Grim Peeper is willing to turn this country into a police state to take his version of democracy to other countries, just do a Google search under 'antiterrorism,' 'government snooping,' 'overreaching' and 'fruitcake.'
It was hard to know which story yesterday was scarier: Osama bin Laden, still alive and taunting the U.S., or the Justice Department's trying to force Google to turn over a suspiciously broad array of information on millions of users' searches and Web addresses, supposedly to investigate online crime involving pornography.
The Internet is full of vile diversions, but prying without justification is just as vile. Innocent Americans - not just lonely guys in their boxers - could be swept up in the fishnet dragnet. Who decides what is porn? Will those who Google to find out-of-print copies of Lynne Cheney's juicy, cheesy lesbian Old West novel, 'Sisters,' be suspect?" ...
I don't like the thought of Dick Cheney ogling my Googling.
Because what I'm Googling, of course, is Dick Cheney. I have to constantly monitor how Vice Voyeur is pushing the federal government to constantly monitor millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls, e-mail notes and Internet searches.
If you want to know why the Grim Peeper is willing to turn this country into a police state to take his version of democracy to other countries, just do a Google search under 'antiterrorism,' 'government snooping,' 'overreaching' and 'fruitcake.'
It was hard to know which story yesterday was scarier: Osama bin Laden, still alive and taunting the U.S., or the Justice Department's trying to force Google to turn over a suspiciously broad array of information on millions of users' searches and Web addresses, supposedly to investigate online crime involving pornography.
The Internet is full of vile diversions, but prying without justification is just as vile. Innocent Americans - not just lonely guys in their boxers - could be swept up in the fishnet dragnet. Who decides what is porn? Will those who Google to find out-of-print copies of Lynne Cheney's juicy, cheesy lesbian Old West novel, 'Sisters,' be suspect?" ...
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Congressman, law scholar urge House to consider impeachment inquiry at hearing
The Raw Story | Congressman, law scholar urge House to consider impeachment inquiry at hearing: "RAW STORY |Published: January 20, 2006
An article written by Stewart M. Powell, White House correspondent for Hearst Newspapers, reports that Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and law professor Jonathan Turley both argued strenuously that the President's alleged crimes and misdemeanors may be impeachable offenses.
Rep. Nadler said that the legal justifications offered, so far, by the Bush Administration are "not even debatable. They're frivolous arguments; they're arguments that could only be made by a monarch -- by someone who's trying to justify absolute power in the executive branch."
"This type of violation should be a textbook example of the impeachment issue because not only is it a federal crime but it violates the doctrine of separation of powers," Turley said at the hearing.
...
Turley, a law professor at George Washington University since 1990 who has served as a defense lawyer in espionage cases, said Bush "committed a crime" by ordering domestic eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails inside the United States without the court approval required by federal law. Violations carry up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Turley said that Bush committed a potentially impeachable offense by claiming inherent powers under the Constitution to violate a law approved by Congress.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps
Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps: "By Dan Eggen | Washington Post Staff Writer | Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.
The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees 'fully and currently informed' of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.
The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law. ...
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.
The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees 'fully and currently informed' of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.
The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law. ...
Leading Conservatives: our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance...": " Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential | 1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM"
...
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
...
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation ...
We Don't Need a New King George ... How can the President interpret the law as if it didn't apply to him?
TIME.com: We Don't Need a New King George -- Jan. 23, 2006 -- Page 1: "By ANDREW SULLIVAN | Posted Sunday, Jan. 15, 2006
How can the President interpret the law as if it didn't apply to him?
A somewhat legal law is a little like a somewhat pregnant woman. At first blush, it seems like an absurdity. But President Bush disagrees. In the past five years, quietly but systematically, he has been arguing that the law doesn't always apply to him. How has he done this? By attaching 'signing statements' that spell out his own attitude to bills he signs.
Previous Presidents have sporadically issued signing statements, but seldom and mainly as boilerplate or spin. Until the 1980s, there had been just over a dozen in two centuries. The President's basic legislative weapon, after all, is the veto power given him by the founders. He can use the power as leverage to affect legislation or kill it. But he cannot legislate himself or interpret the law counter to Congress's intent. Signing statements were therefore relatively rare instances of presidential nuance or push-back. In eight years, Ronald Reagan used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, and Bill Clinton 105.
In five years, President Bush has already challenged up to 500 provisions, according to one tally--far, far more than any predecessor. But more important than the number under Bush has been the systematic use of the statements and the scope of their content, asserting a very broad legal loophole for the Executive. Last December, for example, after a year of debate, the President signed the McCain amendment into law. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, the amendment banned all 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment of U.S. military detainees. For months, the President threatened a veto. Then the Senate passed it 90 to 9. The House chimed in with a veto-proof majority. So Bush backed down, embraced McCain and signed it. The debate was over, right? That's how our democracy works, right?
Not according to this President. Although the meaning of the law was crystal clear and the Constitution says Congress has the exclusive power to 'make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,' Bush demurred." ...
...
Translation: If the President believes torture is warranted to protect the country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courts try to stop him, he'll ignore them too. This wasn't quibbling or spinning. Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do, Bush all but declared himself above a law he signed. One professor who specializes in this constitutional area, Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon, has described the power grabs as "breathtaking." ...
How can the President interpret the law as if it didn't apply to him?
A somewhat legal law is a little like a somewhat pregnant woman. At first blush, it seems like an absurdity. But President Bush disagrees. In the past five years, quietly but systematically, he has been arguing that the law doesn't always apply to him. How has he done this? By attaching 'signing statements' that spell out his own attitude to bills he signs.
Previous Presidents have sporadically issued signing statements, but seldom and mainly as boilerplate or spin. Until the 1980s, there had been just over a dozen in two centuries. The President's basic legislative weapon, after all, is the veto power given him by the founders. He can use the power as leverage to affect legislation or kill it. But he cannot legislate himself or interpret the law counter to Congress's intent. Signing statements were therefore relatively rare instances of presidential nuance or push-back. In eight years, Ronald Reagan used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, and Bill Clinton 105.
In five years, President Bush has already challenged up to 500 provisions, according to one tally--far, far more than any predecessor. But more important than the number under Bush has been the systematic use of the statements and the scope of their content, asserting a very broad legal loophole for the Executive. Last December, for example, after a year of debate, the President signed the McCain amendment into law. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, the amendment banned all 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment of U.S. military detainees. For months, the President threatened a veto. Then the Senate passed it 90 to 9. The House chimed in with a veto-proof majority. So Bush backed down, embraced McCain and signed it. The debate was over, right? That's how our democracy works, right?
Not according to this President. Although the meaning of the law was crystal clear and the Constitution says Congress has the exclusive power to 'make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,' Bush demurred." ...
...
Translation: If the President believes torture is warranted to protect the country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courts try to stop him, he'll ignore them too. This wasn't quibbling or spinning. Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do, Bush all but declared himself above a law he signed. One professor who specializes in this constitutional area, Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon, has described the power grabs as "breathtaking." ...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
SPying: tragic waste of the F.B.I.'s resources in dangerous times, outrageous and pointless intrusion on privacy
Spying on Ordinary Americans - New York Times: "Published: January 18, 2006
In times of extreme fear, American leaders have sometimes scrapped civil liberties in the name of civil protection. It's only later that the country can see that the choice was a false one and that citizens' rights were sacrificed to carry out extreme measures that were at best useless and at worst counterproductive. There are enough examples of this in American history - the Alien and Sedition Acts and the World War II internment camps both come to mind - that the lesson should be woven into the nation's fabric. But it's hard to think of a more graphic example than President Bush's secret program of spying on Americans.
... Vice President Dick Cheney, who never shrinks from trying to prey on Americans' deepest fears, said that the spying had saved "thousands of lives" and could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had it existed then.
Given the lack of good, hard examples, that argument sounded dubious from the start. A chilling article in yesterday's Times confirmed our fears.
According to the article, the eavesdropping swept up vast quantities of Americans' private communications without any reasonable belief that they could be related to terrorism. The National Security Agency flooded the Federal Bureau of Investigation with thousands of names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and other tips that virtually all led to dead ends or to innocent Americans.
...
This was not just a tragic waste of the F.B.I.'s resources in dangerous times. It was an outrageous and pointless intrusion into individuals' privacy. Anyone who read the original reports on the spying operation and thought, "Well, so what, I have nothing to hide," should think about the uncounted innocent Americans who had F.B.I. officers knocking on their doors because of secret and possibly illegal surveillance. The National Security Agency was originally barred from domestic surveillance without court supervision to avoid just this sort of abuse. ...
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends - New York Times
Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends - New York Times: "By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr. | Published: January 17, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said. ...
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Detainee Case Hits on Limits of Presidency - New York Times
Detainee Case Hits on Limits of Presidency - New York Times: "Detainee Case Hits on Limits of Presidency | By LINDA GREENHOUSE |
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - When the Supreme Court agreed two months ago to hear an appeal from a Yemeni detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, named Salim Ahmed Hamdan, it was evident that an important test of the limits of presidential authority to conduct the war on terror was under way. Now that the final briefs have begun to arrive at the court, in advance of a late March argument, the dimensions of that test appear greater than ever.
Several of the two dozen briefs filed on Mr. Hamdan's behalf late Friday address an issue that was not even part of the case when the justices granted review on Nov. 7: whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed or whether Congress, in a measure that President Bush supported and signed into law on Dec. 30, has succeeded in shutting the federal courthouse doors on Mr. Hamdan and 150 other Guantánamo detainees whose cases are pending at various levels of the federal court system.
If that proved to be the case, the result would be "a nightmare scenario," a group of prominent law professors told the Supreme Court in one of the briefs. "The keys to the courthouse will be placed in the exclusive control of the executive," the brief says, creating "the legal equivalent of incommunicado detention of Japanese aliens in a relocation camp in Idaho." The professors were Burt Neuborne and Norman Dorsen of New York University, Judith Resnik of Yale, and Frank Michelman and David Shapiro of Harvard.
Another brief, filed by the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties group, and the Constitution Project, a bipartisan study group, asserts flatly that if the new law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, does in fact strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the Hamdan case, then the law is unconstitutional. ...
Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse [at Guantanamo]
Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse: "Thursday, January 12, 2006 � Last updated 2:45 p.m. PT | By LOLITA C. BALDOR | ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The former commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, who has been tied to the prisoner abuse scandal, is declining to answer questions in two courts-martial cases involving the use of dogs during interrogations.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller invoked the military's version of the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, a move that was defended Thursday by the military's top commander. ...
lair gives green light for security services to spy on elected representatives [... 1984? ed.]
Independent Online Edition > UK Politics: "MI5 will get new powers to bug MPs | By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor | Published: 15 January 2006
Furious cabinet revolt as Blair gives green light for security services to spy on elected representatives
Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
He is expected to formally announce to the Commons within weeks that MPs can no longer be sure that the security services and others will not intercept their communications.
Until now, successive administrations have pledged that there should be no tapping 'whatsoever' of MPs' phones, and that they would be told if it was necessary to breach the ban. ...
Furious cabinet revolt as Blair gives green light for security services to spy on elected representatives
Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
He is expected to formally announce to the Commons within weeks that MPs can no longer be sure that the security services and others will not intercept their communications.
Until now, successive administrations have pledged that there should be no tapping 'whatsoever' of MPs' phones, and that they would be told if it was necessary to breach the ban. ...
Investigator believes CIA flouted law in Europe
Investigator believes CIA flouted law in Europe - Americas - International Herald Tribune: The Associated Press | SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 2006
BURGDORF, Switzerland The head of a European investigation into reports of CIA prisons on the Continent accused the United States on Friday of violating international human rights law in its war on terror. Dick Marty, the Swiss lawmaker leading the probe on behalf of the Council of Europe, said there was no question the CIA was undertaking illegal activities in Europe in its transportation and detention of terror suspects. "The strategy in place today respects neither human rights nor the Geneva Conventions," Marty said at a news conference in the Swiss town of Burgdorf. "The current administration in Washington is trying to combat terrorism outside legal means, the rule of law."
...
"The question is: Was the CIA really working in Europe? I believe we can say today, without a doubt, yes," he said. "All the indications are that this 'extraordinary rendition' was already known about," Marty said, referring to the CIA program of transferring terrorism suspects to third countries where harsher interrogation methods, including torture, are allowed. ...
BURGDORF, Switzerland The head of a European investigation into reports of CIA prisons on the Continent accused the United States on Friday of violating international human rights law in its war on terror. Dick Marty, the Swiss lawmaker leading the probe on behalf of the Council of Europe, said there was no question the CIA was undertaking illegal activities in Europe in its transportation and detention of terror suspects. "The strategy in place today respects neither human rights nor the Geneva Conventions," Marty said at a news conference in the Swiss town of Burgdorf. "The current administration in Washington is trying to combat terrorism outside legal means, the rule of law."
...
"The question is: Was the CIA really working in Europe? I believe we can say today, without a doubt, yes," he said. "All the indications are that this 'extraordinary rendition' was already known about," Marty said, referring to the CIA program of transferring terrorism suspects to third countries where harsher interrogation methods, including torture, are allowed. ...
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Raw Story | National Security Agency mounted massive spy op on Baltimore peace group, documents show
The Raw Story | National Security Agency mounted massive spy op on Baltimore peace group, documents show: "Kevin Zeese | Published: January 10, 2006
The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned.
According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department. ...
Sunday, January 08, 2006
A Donor Who Had Big Allies - "a seamy abuse of the legislative process." to obstruct investigation
A Donor Who Had Big Allies - Los Angeles Times: "A Donor Who Had Big Allies | By Richard A. Serrano and Stephen Braun, Times Staff Writers | January 8, 2006
# DeLay and two others helped put the brakes on a federal probe of a businessman. Evidence was published in the Congressional Record.
WASHINGTON — In a case that echoes the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, two Northern California Republican congressmen used their official positions to try to stop a federal investigation of a wealthy Texas businessman who provided them with political contributions.
Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion."
The investigation was ultimately dropped.
The effort to help Hurwitz began in 1999 when DeLay wrote a letter to the chairman of the FDIC denouncing the investigation of Hurwitz as a "form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees." When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered proteges of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency's confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz.
Then, in 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional Record, making them public and accessible to Hurwitz's lawyers, a move that FDIC officials said damaged the government's ability to pursue the banker.
The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process." But soon afterward, in 2002, the FDIC dropped its case against Hurwitz, who had owned a controlling interest in the United Savings Assn. of Texas. United Savings' failure was one of the worst of the S&L debacles in the 1980s. ...
# DeLay and two others helped put the brakes on a federal probe of a businessman. Evidence was published in the Congressional Record.
WASHINGTON — In a case that echoes the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, two Northern California Republican congressmen used their official positions to try to stop a federal investigation of a wealthy Texas businessman who provided them with political contributions.
Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion."
The investigation was ultimately dropped.
The effort to help Hurwitz began in 1999 when DeLay wrote a letter to the chairman of the FDIC denouncing the investigation of Hurwitz as a "form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees." When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered proteges of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency's confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz.
Then, in 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional Record, making them public and accessible to Hurwitz's lawyers, a move that FDIC officials said damaged the government's ability to pursue the banker.
The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process." But soon afterward, in 2002, the FDIC dropped its case against Hurwitz, who had owned a controlling interest in the United Savings Assn. of Texas. United Savings' failure was one of the worst of the S&L debacles in the 1980s. ...
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children ...no law can restrict the actions of 'Commander-in-Chief,’ in war
Bush Advisor Says President� Has Legal Power to Torture Children: "Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children | By Philip Watts | 01/08/06 'revcom.us' -- --
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, 'Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo.'
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, 'Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo.'
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished." ...
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying ...unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying: "Report Rebuts Bush on Spying | Domestic Action's Legality Challenged | By Carol D. Leonnig | Washington Post Staff Writer | Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad." ...
...
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad." ...
...
The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.
The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.
"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said ...Friday, January 06, 2006
An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture
Democracy Now! | An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture: "Friday, January 6th, 2006 |
Five years after President Bush joked, 'If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” we look at the growing controversy over presidential power and how it relates to many of today’s biggest stories: the Senate ban on torture, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, domestic surveillance and the jailing of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. ...
Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. In this document Bush declared that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. Legal experts say this means Bush believes he can waive the anti-torture restrictions. This is not sitting well with some Republican Senators, including John Warner, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Five years after President Bush joked, 'If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” we look at the growing controversy over presidential power and how it relates to many of today’s biggest stories: the Senate ban on torture, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, domestic surveillance and the jailing of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. ...
Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. In this document Bush declared that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. Legal experts say this means Bush believes he can waive the anti-torture restrictions. This is not sitting well with some Republican Senators, including John Warner, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Graham told the Boston Globe, "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified." ...
Thursday, January 05, 2006
"The Law, and the Fact, are both to be decided by the same single Judge" was "directly repugnant to the Great Charter ...
TomDispatch - Tomgram: Nick Turse on Repealing the Magna Carta: "What Year Is This Anyway? | Rollback to 1214 AD | By Nick Turse
What might happen to an 'often cruel and treacherous' national leader who 'ignored and contravened the traditional' norms at home and waged 'expensive wars abroad [that] were unsuccessful'?"
On June 15, 1215, just such a leader arrived at Runnymede, England and --under pressure from rebellious barons angered by his ruinous foreign wars and the fact that "to finance them he had charged excessively for royal justice, sold church offices, levied heavy aids," and appointed "advisers from outside the baronial ranks"-- placed his seal on the Magna Carta. The document, which was finalized on June 19th, primarily guaranteed church rights and baronial privileges, while barring the king from exploiting feudal custom. While it may have been of limited importance to King John or his rebel nobles (as one scholar notes, "It was doomed to failure. Magna Carta lasted less than three months"), the document had a lasting impact on the rest of us, providing the very basis for the Anglo-American legal tradition.
...
Fast forward 561 years. Says NARA, "In 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament." They found it in the Magna Carta. Fast forward another 230 years. ...
...
In 1957, the American Bar Association erected a monument at Runnymede to "acknowledg[e] the debt American law and constitutionalism" owed to the Magna Carta. Today, the defining tenet of the American legal system is in jeopardy as the Bush administration has attempted to roll back the clock to the 13th century. Such a gambit seeks to do nothing short of shatter and effectively bury the framework for the Anglo-American legal tradition by transforming the chief executive into an unchecked despot and so plunging us into a pre-1215 world. The implications are dire. As Harold Hongju Koh, dean of the Yale Law School, observed, "If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
...
During the birth of the United States, John Adams -- who also proclaimed that Britain's rule under which "The Law, and the Fact, are both to be decided by the same single Judge" was "directly repugnant to the Great Charter [Magna Carta] itself" -- wrote of "a government of laws and not of men." ...
What might happen to an 'often cruel and treacherous' national leader who 'ignored and contravened the traditional' norms at home and waged 'expensive wars abroad [that] were unsuccessful'?"
On June 15, 1215, just such a leader arrived at Runnymede, England and --under pressure from rebellious barons angered by his ruinous foreign wars and the fact that "to finance them he had charged excessively for royal justice, sold church offices, levied heavy aids," and appointed "advisers from outside the baronial ranks"-- placed his seal on the Magna Carta. The document, which was finalized on June 19th, primarily guaranteed church rights and baronial privileges, while barring the king from exploiting feudal custom. While it may have been of limited importance to King John or his rebel nobles (as one scholar notes, "It was doomed to failure. Magna Carta lasted less than three months"), the document had a lasting impact on the rest of us, providing the very basis for the Anglo-American legal tradition.
...
Fast forward 561 years. Says NARA, "In 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament." They found it in the Magna Carta. Fast forward another 230 years. ...
...
In 1957, the American Bar Association erected a monument at Runnymede to "acknowledg[e] the debt American law and constitutionalism" owed to the Magna Carta. Today, the defining tenet of the American legal system is in jeopardy as the Bush administration has attempted to roll back the clock to the 13th century. Such a gambit seeks to do nothing short of shatter and effectively bury the framework for the Anglo-American legal tradition by transforming the chief executive into an unchecked despot and so plunging us into a pre-1215 world. The implications are dire. As Harold Hongju Koh, dean of the Yale Law School, observed, "If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
...
During the birth of the United States, John Adams -- who also proclaimed that Britain's rule under which "The Law, and the Fact, are both to be decided by the same single Judge" was "directly repugnant to the Great Charter [Magna Carta] itself" -- wrote of "a government of laws and not of men." ...
Bush has put himself above the law and in the company of rogues
TIME.com: Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation -- Jan. 09, 2006 -- Page 1: "Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation | Tuesday, Jan. 03, 2006 | By BOB BARR
Back in the 1930s, when confronted with clear evidence he had violated the law, Georgia's then agriculture commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Eugene Talmadge popped his bright red suspenders and dared those accusing him of corruption to do something about it, declaring, "Sure, I stole, but I stole for you." He was elected Governor in 1932. Accused of breaking the law in the current debate over electronic spying, President George W. Bush has, in his own way, dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of our Constitution, I hope they will.
..
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the assertion that a President may conduct electronic surveillance without judicial approval for national security, noting in 1972 that our "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch." Rather than abiding such a clear missive, the Administration instead is taking the road mapped out nearly two centuries ago by Andrew Jackson, who, in response to a Supreme Court decision he didn't like, ignored it and is said to have declared, "The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it."
...
Barr, a Republican, was a member of the House of Representatives from Georgia from 1995 to 2003
Back in the 1930s, when confronted with clear evidence he had violated the law, Georgia's then agriculture commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Eugene Talmadge popped his bright red suspenders and dared those accusing him of corruption to do something about it, declaring, "Sure, I stole, but I stole for you." He was elected Governor in 1932. Accused of breaking the law in the current debate over electronic spying, President George W. Bush has, in his own way, dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of our Constitution, I hope they will.
..
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the assertion that a President may conduct electronic surveillance without judicial approval for national security, noting in 1972 that our "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch." Rather than abiding such a clear missive, the Administration instead is taking the road mapped out nearly two centuries ago by Andrew Jackson, who, in response to a Supreme Court decision he didn't like, ignored it and is said to have declared, "The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it."
...
Barr, a Republican, was a member of the House of Representatives from Georgia from 1995 to 2003
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
NBC confirms it's investigating whether Bush spied on CNN's Christiane Amanpour
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth: "Wednesday, January 04, 2006 | by John in DC - 1/04/2006 10:27:00 PM
That is the only way to read NBC's just-issued statement on why they deleted key portions of Andrea Mitchell's interview after we reported on it here earlier today.
[Background: We reported earlier today that NBC's Andrea Mitchell, while interviewing New York Times' reporter James Risen (the man who broke the domestic spying scandal) asked Risen if there was any evidence to suggest Bush was spying on US journalists. When Risen said none that he knew of, Mitchell then pressed the issue again and asked if there was any evidence that Bush was spying on CNN's Christiane Amanpour. We reported on the fact that Mitchell seemed to know something, and shortly thereafter NBC deleted the section of the transcript dealing with Amanpour.]
Via Atrios and MediaBistro:
Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.
This is quite big. Note exactly what NBC said.
- NBC did not say it pulled the references to Bush spying on Amanpour because it was inappropriate conjecture about something which Andrea Mitchell had no evidence.
- No, NBC said it pulled the references because it was still investigating the accusation and didn't want to scoop itself before it was finished investigating. And make no mistake, NBC is 'continuing their inquiry.'" ...
That is the only way to read NBC's just-issued statement on why they deleted key portions of Andrea Mitchell's interview after we reported on it here earlier today.
[Background: We reported earlier today that NBC's Andrea Mitchell, while interviewing New York Times' reporter James Risen (the man who broke the domestic spying scandal) asked Risen if there was any evidence to suggest Bush was spying on US journalists. When Risen said none that he knew of, Mitchell then pressed the issue again and asked if there was any evidence that Bush was spying on CNN's Christiane Amanpour. We reported on the fact that Mitchell seemed to know something, and shortly thereafter NBC deleted the section of the transcript dealing with Amanpour.]
Via Atrios and MediaBistro:
Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.
This is quite big. Note exactly what NBC said.
- NBC did not say it pulled the references to Bush spying on Amanpour because it was inappropriate conjecture about something which Andrea Mitchell had no evidence.
- No, NBC said it pulled the references because it was still investigating the accusation and didn't want to scoop itself before it was finished investigating. And make no mistake, NBC is 'continuing their inquiry.'" ...
Monday, January 02, 2006
The Moderate Voice - New, Troubling Questions Over Bush Domestic Spying
The Moderate Voice - New, Troubling Questions Over Bush Domestic Spying: "by Joe Gandelman
Newsweek adds a new troubling twist to the controversy over the Bush administration's warrantless spying. It reports that even then-Attorney General John Ashcroft would not authorize the spying sought by the administration:
On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try—without success—to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping. Miffed that Comey, a straitlaced, by-the-book former U.S. attorney from New York, was not a 'team player' on this and other issues, President George W. Bush dubbed him with a derisive nickname, 'Cuomo,' after Mario Cuomo, the New York governor who vacillated over running for president in the 1980s. (The White House denies this; Comey declined to comment.)
There's a few things troubling in this paragraph from a piece that tries to present both sides (see below): (1) Because Comey wouldn't go along with the President's desires he was basically labeled by the President a Democrat within his heart. So, if you don't agree with everything the President says you MUST be a closet Democrat? (2) It's clear it was no dice when the Bush administration went to James Comey so the administration tried to end-run him and go higher up. (3) When even its ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED, the administration then did what what it sought to do anyway...without going to a court.
If this was so justified in doing as warrantless wiretaps, then, why did they bother to go to Comey or Ashcroft in the first place?" ...
Newsweek adds a new troubling twist to the controversy over the Bush administration's warrantless spying. It reports that even then-Attorney General John Ashcroft would not authorize the spying sought by the administration:
On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try—without success—to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping. Miffed that Comey, a straitlaced, by-the-book former U.S. attorney from New York, was not a 'team player' on this and other issues, President George W. Bush dubbed him with a derisive nickname, 'Cuomo,' after Mario Cuomo, the New York governor who vacillated over running for president in the 1980s. (The White House denies this; Comey declined to comment.)
There's a few things troubling in this paragraph from a piece that tries to present both sides (see below): (1) Because Comey wouldn't go along with the President's desires he was basically labeled by the President a Democrat within his heart. So, if you don't agree with everything the President says you MUST be a closet Democrat? (2) It's clear it was no dice when the Bush administration went to James Comey so the administration tried to end-run him and go higher up. (3) When even its ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED, the administration then did what what it sought to do anyway...without going to a court.
If this was so justified in doing as warrantless wiretaps, then, why did they bother to go to Comey or Ashcroft in the first place?" ...
The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime
The Hidden State Steps Forward: "December 20, 2005 (January 9, 2006 issue) | The Hidden State Steps Forward | Jonathan Schell
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President? ...
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President? ...
Last year, President Bush stated: -- "a wiretap requires a court order
The Bulldog Manifesto: "The Gruesome Truth Revealed in the Lie
Last year, President Bush stated: 'Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'" ...
Last year, President Bush stated: 'Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'" ...
Last year, President Bush stated: -- "a wiretap requires a court order
The Bulldog Manifesto: "The Gruesome Truth Revealed in the Lie
Last year, President Bush stated: 'Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'" ...
Last year, President Bush stated: 'Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'" ...
What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?
The Bulldog Manifesto: "Tuesday, December 27, 2005 | What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?
Tom Delay (R-TX): "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. ...
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.): "I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ...
James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI): "What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. ...
Chuck Hagel (R-NB): "There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? ...
Bill Frist (R-TN): "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. ...
Tom Delay (R-TX): "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. ...
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.): "I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ...
James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI): "What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. ...
Chuck Hagel (R-NB): "There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? ...
Bill Frist (R-TN): "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. ...
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore
Booman Tribune ~ Boo!: "Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore | by Cedwyn | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 at 07:55:29 PM EST | cross-posted from Dembloggers and A Faerie's Farthing
Neither is it just for democrats, liberals and other assorted leftists anymore. Congressional republicans have joined the calls for an investigation and the momentum for impeachment is steadily growing. Bob Barr, a former U.S. Representative who was active in Clinton's impeachment is now turning the same ire on shrubya, saying 'This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws.' Robert Levy, a Senior Fellow of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute - and Board Member of the Federalist Society - makes some excellent points regarding limits on presidential power before concluding that shrubya has 'overreached.' I think he was euphemizing.
In a recent interview with Diane Rehm, conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein were a bit more blunt. Ornstein is quoted as saying, 'I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.' Fein was not so reserved:
I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want - I don't need to consult any other branches - that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that ... wjavascript:void(0);
Publish Post ould lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant." ...
Neither is it just for democrats, liberals and other assorted leftists anymore. Congressional republicans have joined the calls for an investigation and the momentum for impeachment is steadily growing. Bob Barr, a former U.S. Representative who was active in Clinton's impeachment is now turning the same ire on shrubya, saying 'This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws.' Robert Levy, a Senior Fellow of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute - and Board Member of the Federalist Society - makes some excellent points regarding limits on presidential power before concluding that shrubya has 'overreached.' I think he was euphemizing.
In a recent interview with Diane Rehm, conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein were a bit more blunt. Ornstein is quoted as saying, 'I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.' Fein was not so reserved:
I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want - I don't need to consult any other branches - that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that ... wjavascript:void(0);
Publish Post ould lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant." ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)