Republicans pushed 'bogus' terror threat to expand FISA, lawmaker says | Nick Juliano | Published: Wednesday September 19, 2007
Republicans and the Bush administration used a 'bogus' terror threat that raised specific fears of an attack on the Capitol to scare lawmakers into adopting a dramatic temporary expansion of the government's spy powers last month, a former top intelligence committee Democrat said Wednesday.
...
"That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus; the intelligence agencies knew that," Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said at a forum on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington. However, lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until "the day" they approved the FISA expansion, she said. ....
Sunday, September 30, 2007
“In place of the Fourth Amendment, ... the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch ...
Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal | By SUSAN JO KELLER | Published: September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.
...
“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”
...
“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”
She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.
...
“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”
...
“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”
She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”
Monday, September 24, 2007
today conservatives are curtailing established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination ... abandoned “original intent"
September 17, 2007 | Conservatism Isn't What It Used to Be | By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
...
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.”
Gonzales is the attorney general who wrote memos justifying torture and denying that the Bush administration was bound by the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales told a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee that the US Constitution did not provide habeas corpus protection to American citizens.
To experience an attorney general of the US fiercely attacking the US Constitution, rending its every provision, is the most frightening experience of my lifetime. That the head of the legal branch of the executive, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would turn against it in order to enhance unaccountable executive power is a clear impeachable offense. If anyone anywhere in the world deserved criticism, Gonzales did. But when Chemerinsky unbraided the despicable Gonzales, conservatives rushed to Gonzales’ defense, not to the defense of the American Constitution.
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.”
Gonzales is the attorney general who wrote memos justifying torture and denying that the Bush administration was bound by the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales told a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee that the US Constitution did not provide habeas corpus protection to American citizens.
To experience an attorney general of the US fiercely attacking the US Constitution, rending its every provision, is the most frightening experience of my lifetime. That the head of the legal branch of the executive, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would turn against it in order to enhance unaccountable executive power is a clear impeachable offense. If anyone anywhere in the world deserved criticism, Gonzales did. But when Chemerinsky unbraided the despicable Gonzales, conservatives rushed to Gonzales’ defense, not to the defense of the American Constitution.
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
In a terrifying front-page article Saturday, the Post outlines the latest in US government surveillance.
Massive surveillance net keeps track of American's travel -- down to the size of your hotel bed | RAW STORY | Published: Saturday September 22, 2007
The Bush Administration has been collecting detailed records on the travel habits of Americans headed overseas, whether you fly, drive or take cruises abroad -- not simply your method of transit but the personal items you carry with you and the people you stay with, according to documents and statements obtained by the Washington Post.
The Bush Administration has been collecting detailed records on the travel habits of Americans headed overseas, whether you fly, drive or take cruises abroad -- not simply your method of transit but the personal items you carry with you and the people you stay with, according to documents and statements obtained by the Washington Post.
They even keep sometimes keep track of what books you read. For as long as 15 years.
In a terrifying front-page article Saturday, the Post outlines the latest in US government surveillance.
...
"The federal government is trying to build a surveillance society," said John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist in San Francisco whose records were requested and then first revealed in Wired News. The government, he said, "may be doing it with the best or worst of intentions. . . . But the job of building a surveillance database and populating it with information about us is happening largely without our awareness and without our consent." ...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
military detainees to protest decision fails with 56 votes FOR, 43 votes AGAINST [... Democracy in action! ed.]
September 19, 2007 | How Senate Voted on Detainee Rights | By The Associated Press
The 56-43 roll call by which the Senate refused to consider an amendment to give military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of an amendment and a "no" vote was a vote against it. Supporters fell four votes shy of the 60 they needed to bring the amendment up as part of a defense bill.
Voting "yes" were 49 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 0 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 1 independent. ...
The 56-43 roll call by which the Senate refused to consider an amendment to give military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of an amendment and a "no" vote was a vote against it. Supporters fell four votes shy of the 60 they needed to bring the amendment up as part of a defense bill.
Voting "yes" were 49 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 0 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 1 independent. ...
[Democracy? majority wins? not really ...] procedural obstructions doubled in 2007, triple the nummber from 2005 ...
New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy | September 21, 2007 01:35 PM
...
Technically speaking, Webb's measure - which would have given soldiers as much time at home as their previous tour deployed - was not filibustered. Prior to its introduction, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed that, in order to avoid a procedural tit-for-tat, there would be a 60-vote threshold on all Defense Authorization amendments. Nevertheless, seeing his pet project defeated for the second time, even with the support of 55 other Senators, left Webb a bit steamed.
"I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely," the Virginian declared. "They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. And they are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability."
...
Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.
...
Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.
"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill." ...
...
Technically speaking, Webb's measure - which would have given soldiers as much time at home as their previous tour deployed - was not filibustered. Prior to its introduction, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed that, in order to avoid a procedural tit-for-tat, there would be a 60-vote threshold on all Defense Authorization amendments. Nevertheless, seeing his pet project defeated for the second time, even with the support of 55 other Senators, left Webb a bit steamed.
"I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely," the Virginian declared. "They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. And they are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability."
...
Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.
...
Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.
"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill." ...
Friday, September 14, 2007
Justice Dept - "longstanding Republican electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races."
Purge of voter rolls could swing 2008 election | Jason Rhyne | Published: Wednesday September 12, 2007
Using statistics and methodology that some voting experts are calling "flawed," the Justice Department's Voting Section is telling 10 US states to purge voter rolls which allegedly show more registered voters than are eligible--a house-cleaning effort AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld says could swing the 2008 election.
...
According to experts interviewed by Rosenfeld, however, the Justice Department is misrepresenting the information they are using to make their recommendations.
"That data does not say what they purport it says," David Becker, senior voting rights counsel for People for the American Way, said. "They are saying the data shows the 10 worst voter rolls. They have a lot of explaining to do." Rosenfeld also quotes U.S. Election Assistance Commission consultant Kim Brace, who said "You are basically seeing them grasping at whatever straws are possible to make their point."
Obtaining the same data used by the Voting Section, AlterNet's analysis found that "some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected Democrats -- such as St. Louis, Philadelphia and South Dakota's Indian reservations."
"Voter roll purges, if incorrectly done, can be a factor in determining election outcomes -- particularly in tight races," Rosenfeld writes. "Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges could be a new and legal way to accomplish a controversial longstanding Republican Party electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races." ...
Using statistics and methodology that some voting experts are calling "flawed," the Justice Department's Voting Section is telling 10 US states to purge voter rolls which allegedly show more registered voters than are eligible--a house-cleaning effort AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld says could swing the 2008 election.
...
According to experts interviewed by Rosenfeld, however, the Justice Department is misrepresenting the information they are using to make their recommendations.
"That data does not say what they purport it says," David Becker, senior voting rights counsel for People for the American Way, said. "They are saying the data shows the 10 worst voter rolls. They have a lot of explaining to do." Rosenfeld also quotes U.S. Election Assistance Commission consultant Kim Brace, who said "You are basically seeing them grasping at whatever straws are possible to make their point."
Obtaining the same data used by the Voting Section, AlterNet's analysis found that "some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected Democrats -- such as St. Louis, Philadelphia and South Dakota's Indian reservations."
"Voter roll purges, if incorrectly done, can be a factor in determining election outcomes -- particularly in tight races," Rosenfeld writes. "Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges could be a new and legal way to accomplish a controversial longstanding Republican Party electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races." ...
Monday, September 10, 2007
Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system ... to benefit Republican elections
Attorney seeks probe of electoral vote plan | By Steven Harmon | MEDIANEWS SACRAMENTO BUREAU | Article Launched: 09/08/2007 03:04:50 AM PDT
# Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system
SACRAMENTO -- A Lafayette attorney who specializes in election law is seeking a Congressional investigation into whether the White House was involved in pushing a California ballot initiative to change the way the state allocates its electoral votes.
...
But the idea had been around since at least 2002, when Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk and others approached the Republican National Committee that year, asking if they'd like them to pursue such an initiative. But Bush's political team decided against it, confident he could win without it, according to Rob Stutzman, a California Republican consultant familiar with the discussions -- who dismissed their significance.
"This is quite funny," Stutzman said. "There is no grand conspiracy. This is the idea of a Republican attorney in California. This FOIA effort is all politics, trying to tie the Bush White House to the initiative. There's no there there because the proprietors of the initiative are California Republicans."
Opponents say they're particularly interested in a 2002 memo written by the RNC to Karl Rove, the former White House political advisor to President Bush, discussing the 2004 presidential election.
"We do have information indicating that a meeting did take place involving high level White House aides, including Karl Rove, in the context of the 2004 election," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and spokesman for Californians for Fair Election Reform. "This initiative seems to be a byproduct of these discussions. It's important to find out who discussed it, why, and where this information came from."
# Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system
SACRAMENTO -- A Lafayette attorney who specializes in election law is seeking a Congressional investigation into whether the White House was involved in pushing a California ballot initiative to change the way the state allocates its electoral votes.
...
But the idea had been around since at least 2002, when Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk and others approached the Republican National Committee that year, asking if they'd like them to pursue such an initiative. But Bush's political team decided against it, confident he could win without it, according to Rob Stutzman, a California Republican consultant familiar with the discussions -- who dismissed their significance.
"This is quite funny," Stutzman said. "There is no grand conspiracy. This is the idea of a Republican attorney in California. This FOIA effort is all politics, trying to tie the Bush White House to the initiative. There's no there there because the proprietors of the initiative are California Republicans."
Opponents say they're particularly interested in a 2002 memo written by the RNC to Karl Rove, the former White House political advisor to President Bush, discussing the 2004 presidential election.
"We do have information indicating that a meeting did take place involving high level White House aides, including Karl Rove, in the context of the 2004 election," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and spokesman for Californians for Fair Election Reform. "This initiative seems to be a byproduct of these discussions. It's important to find out who discussed it, why, and where this information came from."
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
voter fraud and intimidastion ... EAC publicly released a report ... that completely stood our own work on its head.
A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting? | By Tova Andrea Wang | Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A21
After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.
...
... The EAC finally released me from the gag order this summer, and, under pressure from Congress, it has publicly released 40,000 pages of revealing documents and e-mail.
...
Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.
Consider the title. Whereas the commission is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation, this new report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code. ...
...
We have learned that several Republican officials, including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer complained about our project, particularly about my role in it. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report. And it is evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report.
Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch. ...
After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.
...
... The EAC finally released me from the gag order this summer, and, under pressure from Congress, it has publicly released 40,000 pages of revealing documents and e-mail.
...
Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.
Consider the title. Whereas the commission is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation, this new report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code. ...
...
We have learned that several Republican officials, including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer complained about our project, particularly about my role in it. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report. And it is evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report.
Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch. ...
White House Won't Name Tech Contractor ... responsible for email archives ...
Bush E-Mail Mystery Deepens: White House Won't Name Tech Contractor | August 31, 2007 11:20 AM | Justin Rood Reports:
The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of potentially millions of White House e-mails.
The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and "have repeatedly requested" the information since then, according to Waxman.
They are still waiting for an answer, the chairman wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding. Waxman asked the White House to come up with the company's name by Sept. 10. ...
The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of potentially millions of White House e-mails.
The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and "have repeatedly requested" the information since then, according to Waxman.
They are still waiting for an answer, the chairman wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding. Waxman asked the White House to come up with the company's name by Sept. 10. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)