What the Pelosi-Briefing Claim Reveals - We need a Classified Crimes Act

Pelosi's consistent claim in light of arguments that she was informed about "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques is A) That she wasn't told the techniques were already in use and B) That She couldn't have done Anything about it ANYWAY!


Still I think she should have been able to do something, almost anything, to address Classified Crimes in Progress but unfortunately the current law doesn't allow for it.

It may be difficult for those who haven't had a security clearance to understand, but having access to classified information is often a much of a curse and a burden as it is a benefit.

You may get the information (some of it), but you can't do anything with it.

Under 18 USC 798

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Ten years in prison, this is no joke - and it applies to members of Congress just as much as anyone else. If you been granted access to a secure program, you CAN NOT share that information with anyone who doesn't have access to that specific program. Not your spouse, not your kids, not your co-workers and not your congressional staff.

YOU. CAN'T. TELL. ANYONE!

Now the canard has been raised that Pelosi (or Harman whose also been under this microscope) could have or should have objected somehow.

Objected to Who?

The best they could've done is write a sternly worded letter the way the Sen Rockefeller (and Jane Harmon -ht comments) did concerning NSA Wiretaps after he was supposedly "briefed" on the program.

Rockefeller, turning back to the NSA program in his letter, told Cheney: "Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received."

The letter, whose existence was unknown to Rockefeller's staff, indicated that the three briefers were Cheney, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then NSA-Director Michael V. Hayden. The letter said the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), was there, and it indicated, without naming them, the presence of then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking members of the House intelligence committee.

In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object. Rockefeller "was frustrated by the characterization that Congress was on board on this," said one official who is close to him and who spoke on background because of the topic's sensitive nature. "Four congressmen, at least one of whom was raising serious concerns, does not constitute being on board."

His letter was simply ignored, so fat lot of good THAT did. Cheney just BLEW HIM OFF, obviously because Cheney knew damn well there was nothing he could do about it. He couldn't call a hearing, he couldn't even tell his staff!

The National Security Act of 1947 requires that the Executive Branch provide congress with regular reports on it's intelligence activities. Yet time and time again we see that these reports are not provided, Congress is often told nothing or only given partial out-of-date information, and if they do get the data they have No Recourse if they happen to receiving alarming information.

We have to change this.

What occurred under the Bush Administration (as it has occurred with other Presidents) is that National Security Classification has been used to COVER UP ACTIVE CRIMES IN PROGRESS.

I'm going to suggest a radical idea here, since the problem seems to be that the law is preventing congress from ensuring the executive branch abides by the law.

Maybe, just maybe - Congress should Change the Law since being an alleged "co-equal" branch of government, making the law is what they're supposed to do. We can see clearly that the current process is broken. Congressional notification is simply being used as a CYA coupled with a Gotcha!

"See, we told you all along, and you didn't say or do anything and therefore you're complicit in the crime"

We all have to come to realize that's simply a load of bull, one that the Bushies were not just shovelling over Torture, but also Domestic Spying and many other programs as well.

However it's not an impossible problem to solve.

Congress needs to Amend the National Security Act to allow a secure channel for Whistle-blowers to access internal Inspector Generals and Ombudsmen when they suspect criminal activity is taking place under classified cover. They shouldn't need to resort to giving up their career and risking violating 798 by contacting the Press as former NSA Analyst Russel Tice did when he began talking to the New York Times about Illegal NSA Wiretaps.



As Tice describes in this report, the Bush Administration was specifically targeting journalists for data collection - the most likely reason for this is to catch Whistle-blowers like Tice and therefore maintain the Criminal Cover-up. The goal is clear, keeping the cover-up going by creating a Chilling Effect on Government employees, our SOLDIERS, the Press and even Congress itself (ie. Taping Harmon).

In additional to a guaranteed secure channel to internal administration oversight, various Whistle-blowers of Classified Crimes need a secure channel to Congress, and Congress needs the legal power to COMPELL Access to a program in a manner similar to a fully empowered Congressional Subpoena.

If a reluctant administration refuses to grant access to Congress, just as Bush denied Security clearance to the OPR in order to stall and shutdown their investigation into Domestic Surveillance - they need to power to force access - and conduct a secure investigation without allowing any genuine National Security Secret to be generally revealed.

798 should remain strong and prevent premature leaks of such an investigation prior to any potential referral to the DOJ, or calls for an Special Prosecutor.

In special cases, Congress may need the ability to Revoke a Programs Classified Status over the objections of a President by filing suit adjudicating the matter before a court similar to FISA.

Looking back over recent history we can clearly see a number of problems that an unaccountable unitarian executive has brought us. We need more than just disbarment for Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury. We need more than prosecutions for past crimes. We need more than wan assurances from our current executive that "times have changed" -- we need to SERIOUSlY start lobbying Congress to start untying their own hands, and give themselves the power to prevent future abuses by future Administrations.

These suggestions may not all be perfect or sufficient, certainly even the Obama Administration will push back against many of them - but if the abuses of the Nixon Administration brought us the FISA Court, the abuses of Bush should bring us some far far stronger medicine to salve what ailes this nation.


Vyan


Contact Data:

Nancy Pelosi
District Office
450 Golden Gate Ave.
14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 556-4862

Washington, D.C. Office
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4965

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/
Online Contact Form
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

Rep. John Conyers
* Washington Office: 202-225-5126
* Detroit Office: 313-961-5670
* Trenton / Downriver Office: 734-675-4084
Email john.conyers@mail.house.gov

Jay Rockefeller
Martinsburg
217 West King Street
Suite 307
Martinsburg, WV 25401-3211
(304) 262-9285
(304) 262-9288 Fax


Washington, DC
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
(202) 224-7665 Main Fax
(202) 228-1610 Scheduling Fax
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/
Contact Form

Sen Russ Feingold
Washington, DC
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
(202) 224-5323
TDD (202) 224-1280
Fax (202) 224-2725
Contact Form

U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
448 Russell Building | Washington D.C., 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2823 | Fax: (202) 224-1083

30 Lewis St Suite 101 | Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 258-6940/(800) 334-5341 —CT only
Fax: (860) 258-6958
Twitter

Update: Ok, I've talked to or left a message with all the above members of Congress, several we're very supportive of the idea particular Feingold's office. Left two messages with Speaker Pelosi. I hope others make a few calls to their own Representatives, particular those sympathetic to this situation - but I can at least say these people have all now heard this idea. Hopefully we can keep the pressure building on this over time.


P.S.: When I previously posted this article on Dailykos the issue was raised that Pelosi and Harmon could have walked out of the briefing room onto the House Floor and said just about anything without fear of legal reprisals under the “Speech and Debate” clause from Article 1.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

This theory was tested in 1972 when Senator Mike Gravel (yes, that Mike Gravel) released the Pentagon papers within his subcommittee and published them in the public record. The government sued to bring his staff before a Grand Jury to help reveal the source of the leak (Daniel Ellsberg) and Gravel exerted the clause as a shield. Although the Court found that the shield in theory could apply to not just a House or Senate member but also their staff within the context of Congressional deliberations – they unfortunately didn’t find that Congress members had absolute immunity from committing what would otherwise be considered crimes on the House or Senate floor.
Decision of the Court on Gravel v U.S.

Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. As the Court of Appeals put it, the courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House, but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations." United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d at 760.

Here, private publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence.

There are additional considerations. Article I, § 6, cl. 1, as we have emphasized, does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true. While the Speech or Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting, and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts.

From my reading the court actually ruled largely against Gravel's assertion of S&D, and in particular the clause has specific limitations in relation to "Treason or Felony" - and knowingly revealing classified information which might benefit an enemy nation fits the exact definition of "Treason" and certainly a "Felony" in my book, even if you do it on the floor of congress, and the information divulges the commission of a crime(s). IMO this doesn’t help solve the problem.

Homeland Security Report: Right-Wing Terrorist Threat Growing

Confirming previous reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center on the Rise of Right-Wing Hate Groups, Today Homeland security released a new report (pdf) that indicates that Extremist Right-Wing and Hate Groups have been dramaticaly recruiting since we've entered the "Age of Obama".

[R]ightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

Now it should be noted that this political shift in focus by Homeland Security could simply be the result of the change in administration. Let's recall that during the Bush Administation Peace Activists were targeted, surveilled and flagged as potential terrorists.

Three peace activists were detained at gunpoint in St. Paul yesterday by police who told them their car was on a federal "stop-and-search list." All three are prominent activists who've recently spoken out against Bush, McCain or the war in Iraq. They were held for 30 minutes then released without charge.

Similar targeting of anti-Bush peace groups took place in Maryland, where 53 Non-Violent Activists were added to the terrorist watch list, and in Milwaukee were 37 members of the Peace Action Milwaukee Group - including a priest and nun - were turned away at the gates because there names were included on the "No Fly List".

The path for this was laid out in 2001 an Energy Dept Report : “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat.”

In 2005 DHS issues another similar report that listed various left-wing groups as "dangerous" - yet miraculously failed to include ANY anti-government, supramacist or radical right-wings groups.

So while peace activists and non-violent protesters have been harrased under Bush without reasonable cause or justification - Right-Wing Rhetoric has grown more and more vitriolic, paranoid and dangerous as shown by these highlights from the new report.

Anti-immgration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”

Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms … may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

Let's also recall that we don't actually need a "REPORT" to see the danger of the Radical Right-Wing. This is not theoretically - it's already begun to build a bodycount starting with the Anthrax Letters which were mailed to Congress, the FAKE Anthrax attack on progressive TV hosts such as Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart, the shooter in Knoxville Tennesee - James Adkisson.

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

Not to mention the attempted Dirty-Bomber from Maine, and Richard Poplawski the Pittsburgh Cop-Killer who was in terror of an Obama Gun "Round Up".

Ignoring fact and reality, wingnuts who seem determined to play the self-described "Victim" card like Michelle Malkin are already calling this new report a political HIT JOB on Conservatives via Obama's DHS.

Malkin: By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent "economic downturn" and the "general state of the economy" for stoking "rightwing extremism." One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity" is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and...the historical presidential election.

No evidence? "Oklahoma City" Much? How about the Olympic Park Bombing? And the recent hightening reports of threats coming to the FBI? Typical.
This is what the reports says.

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of "leaderless resistance" and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

Hey Michelle - how many people has The Sierra Club and Earth First killed? I mean really?

Just imagine how loud these guys will squawk, whine and cry if say - Glenn Beck winds up on the "No Fly List" (Like Al Gore, Nelson Mandela and Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam were), was being "Profiled", stopped and repeatedly SEARCHED simply because of his advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government and organizing a set of nationwide protests of RABID TAX OUTRAGE against the duly elected President of the United States??

To this criticism DHS officials have responded by pointing out that an report "Left-wing" extremists was released in January.

See that, EQUAL TIME Paranoia. What a change of pace.

Vyan

Bush Spied on Everyone - Everywhere!

Despite his claims that "Wiretaps require a Warrant", and "We're only listening if you're talking to Al Qeada" - the Bush Administration was listening to every communication made by every American - and all Journalists information was SAVED. Exactly why former NSA analyst Rusel Tice wasn't sure - but the scale of the violation of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is staggering.

Tice's report here is in addition to what the L.A. times reported last October, that Bush spied on our own troops and the Red Cross. Intimate conesations between our soldiers in the field and their loved ones and family were passed around tha NSA Offices for FUN!

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/10/nation/na-intel10

U.S. intelligence analysts eavesdropped on personal calls between Americans overseas and their families back home and monitored the communications of workers with the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations, according to two military linguists involved in U.S. surveillance programs.

The accounts are the most detailed to date to challenge the assertions of President Bush, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and other administration officials that the government’s controversial overseas wiretapping activities have been carefully monitored to prevent abuse and invasion of U.S. citizens’ privacy.

Describing the allegations as “extremely disturbing,” Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the panel had launched an inquiry and requested records from the Bush administration.

The linguists said that recordings of intimate conversations between citizens and their loved ones were sometimes passed around, out of prurient interest, among analysts at an electronic surveillance facility at Ft. Gordon, Ga.

Vyan

Chris Dodd on the Rule of Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO9WXEqz03o

Bush on FISA Bill Capitulation

Illegal Domestic Spying Began before 9/11

Even worse than we imagined: AT&T contract for NSA to surveill all internet traffic, foreign and domestic, started before 9/11 Submitted by lambert on Fri, 2007-10-12 21:37.

That’s all Internet traffic, foreign and domestic, data and voice. And the decision to do this was taken, not because of 9/11, but as soon as Bush took office. As was the decision to ignore the rule of law. So much for the idea that the extremely benevolent and trustworthy Bush administration was reacting to 9/11, and just wants “surgical” surveillance* to keep us safe from terrorists, eh? Could this program be Spencer Ackerman’s “Project X”?

According to Wired:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/q...

And in May 2006, a lawsuit filed against Verizon for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA alleged that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated. That lawsuit is one of 50 that were consolidated and moved to a San Francisco federal district court, where the suits sit in limbo waiting for the 9th Circuit Appeals court to decide whether the suits can proceed without endangering national security.

According the allegations in the suit (.pdf):
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/gro...

The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATTÌs long distance network.

The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.

An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.

The allegations in that case come from unnamed AT&T insiders, who have never stepped forward or provided any documentation to the courts. But Carl Mayer, one of the attorneys in the case, stands by the allegations in the lawsuit.

“All we can say is, we told you so,” Mayer said.

more at:
http://www.correntewire.com/even_worse_tha...

Harman Shows how they play the "Fear Card" and win - only if we let them!

Yesterday on Countdown, Congresswoman Jane Harman boldly stated that the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell lied to Congress by claiming that there was an imminent threat against the Capital in order to pass the new FISA Law last month. But just as we've seen so many times before, the truth was far from obvious. In fact it was (deliberately?) buried beneath layer after layer of security and only after digging through these layers did Harman find that "the informant wasn't considered credible" by the very analysts that McConnel had sited.

If the informant wasn't credible why was McConnell spreading an unsubstantiated rumor around the halls of Congress?

To steal their power, that's why.

The day before Harman's appearance (which isn't yet available via transcript or video), Olbermann discussed her revelations with Bruce Fein.

Transcript

Congresswoman Harman made her charge at a forum on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, conducted in Washington by the Center For American Progress. She says that on August 2nd, hours before lawmakers were to leave for a month long recess, word of specific intelligence led to increased security around the Capitol. Republican Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee said at the time, quote, the leaders of the committees of jurisdiction have been briefed on threats to the Capitol."

And in urging Congress to give Mr. Bush the extra spying powers he wanted, Senator Trent Lott said on that date that, quote, "the disaster could be on our doorstep." Congresswoman Harman said the unreliability of the so-called intelligence about the attack on the Capitol before the 9/11 anniversary was only made clear the very day lawmakers approved the temporary expansion of Bush‘s spy powers. "That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus," said Representative Harman. "The intelligence agencies knew that."

She added that the administration was guilty of a "Rovian strategy of using terrorism as a wedge political issue." Talk about the nexus of politics and terror.

After Judge Ann Digg Taylor struck down the Administration circumvention of the FISA Law as being both unconstitutional and illegal, the Bushies managed to actually scare up a single FISA judge (whom many suspect may have been the ulta-neo-conservative John D. Bates) who was willing to authorize the program under FISA. Yet just a few months later the veritable rubber-stamp court had ruled twice against the Bush Administration program forcing them to seek a warrant for each and every wiretap.

To which of course the Administration cried and screamed "foul" at the top of their lungs like a NBA Coach in the Playoffs!

In May, a judge on the same court went further, telling the administration flatly that the law's wording required the government to get a warrant whenever a fixed wire is involved.

The rulings — which were not disclosed publicly until the congressional debate this month — represented an unusual rift between the court and the U.S. intelligence community. They led top intelligence officials to conclude, a senior official said, that "you can’t tell what this court is going to do" and helped provoke the White House to insist that Congress essentially strip the court of any jurisdiction over U.S. surveillance of communications between foreigners.

"All of a sudden, the world flipped upside down," said a senior administration official familiar with the rulings.

So naturally their solution is simply to remove the umpire and instead have the HOME TEAM make all the calls. Yeah, that's certain to ensure a fair and "just" result. And they did it by trying to scare the bejeezus out of Congress by claiming they were about be attacked at the Capital. Their own lives were supposedly "on the line."

Yeah, sure.

More from Harman's via Thinkprogress.

"I think [Congress] made a mistake," Harman said of Congress’s passage of FISA changes shortly before the August recess. Highlighting the need to rein in the recent unchecked expansion of power, Harman issued a challenge to her colleagues in Congress:

Congress must act. Congress is on trial here. I think we did the wrong thing in August. We have to correct it this fall.

Watch it:


Harman urged the need to restore "the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents searches and seizures of Americans without probable cause."

We've seen this strategery so many times before. This is how the Iraq War was started in the first place, when Congress was given a National Intelligence whose classified section included a vigourous dissent on the veracity of the Niger Uranium and Aluminum Tube claims.

Who would've expected that you could trust what Colin Powell would say before the U.N.? Who could have predicted that each and every allegation would turn out to be bogus - and that long before his presentation there was ample information providing doubt (such the fact that al-Libi and Curveball couldn't be trust) which were known to analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency and field CIA people such as Tyler Drumheller but where either bullheadedly ignored or deliberally hidden by those at the head of the Administration.

Yet again with General Petreaus we've seen the exact same Powell strategy replayed, the facts that fit their view of the world are those they Administration lackeys like Petreaus - impervious to criticism (or common frickin sense) in his finest Military dress green - spout pseudo "fact" after "fact" to make the case for doing exactly what they're going to be doing anyway. It doesn't matter what the GAO, the most recent NIE and the Congressional Research Service says - just like it didn't matter what Tyler Drumheller tried to tell Deputy DCI McLaughlin about Curveball.

But it matters to Jane Harman, she's done here what she should have done. Dig hard until you find the facts.

Unfortunately Harman's efforts were too little and too late at the time, Congress did shift the ability to decided "fair and foul" from the independant court judicial referees to the Department of Justice's Home Team Lawyers - at least for the next six months.

Yet McConnell is already back before Congress with his hand out for more power, claiming that simply discussing FISA in public could Kill Americans (even after he was caught in yet another lie when he claimed that the new law helped stop the recent german terrorist plot), still playing the fear card like some magic ace of spades that can trump anything, even fact and reality.

It's high time that we stopped letting these cheap confidence artists get away with it and finally call "Bullshit" on that noise as Harman has done. Maybe we should let her know we appreciate her efforts?

Phone Numbers to Office of Jane Harman:
Washington
Phone: (202) 225 8220
Fax: (202) 226 7290

El Segundo
2321 E. Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3270
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 643 3636
Fax: (310) 643 6445

Send Jane Harman an Email through her Site.

(In full disclosure, I am not a constituant of Ms. Harman's but her El Segundo Offices are literally right down the street from my home just about 4 miles away)

Update: Harman's appearance on Countdown.

Vyan

Sinking Ship Leaves Rat

Somewhere along that winding road between childhood and adultism we're supposed to learn that it's bad form to do a double-gaining jackknifed swandive onto the pigpile of someone elses sad misfortune. We're not supposed to get all gloaty and do the Snoopy Dance around the smouldering ruin of their charred and blackened career. We're not supposed to snicker as they slink off into the sunset.

Yeah, but sometimes when you're dealing with someone who's professional actions and public statments have been so mindnumbingly horrific you just have to say... "Fuck That Ms. Manners Shit"

Sinking Ship Leaves Rat by Michael Tomanski

We don't yet know whether Bush iced Gonzales, politically, or whether the disgraced attorney general realized on his own what the rest of Washington has known for months - that his credibility was completely shot and he couldn't continue in his job.

Indeed Gonzales' legacy is so resoundingly awful that one can't imagine which of his failures and transgressions his eventual obituary writers and future historians will highlight.

Oh, I can imagine, quite vividly...

But first let's let Tomansky have his turn in this episode of "A Lie Runs Through It!".

Lying to Congress, which is the clear implication made in testimony by his former aide Monica Goodling? Potential witness tampering, another charge Goodling made implicitly under oath? Helping Bush cover up his old drunk driving conviction?

Wait, there's more! Helping Bush, then governor of Texas, set a modern record for one governor in ordering 150 executions, reviewing in his capacity as Bush's counsel more than fifty clemency applications and never recommending clemency once? Later, declaring the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?

And of course, there's overseeing the firings of nine US attorneys because they would not participate in overtly political prosecutions.

Let me just add that Gonzales didn't just say that the Geneva Conventions were "Quaint" - he knew far better - like some mafioso Consigliare'. he specifically advised President Bush on how to knowingly commit War Crimes and get away with it. His advice, which was provided long before the dreaded Bybee Memo, set the stage for the standard of treatment that over 14,000 detainees would experience and precipitated the murder via abuse of nearly three dozen of those held in U.S. custody. There are few people, including Rumsfeld, who can be considered a greater accomplice before the fact to these War Crimes than Gonzo.

Of course Gonzo never killed anyone himself not even those on the Texan Death Row, but let me just point on by way of comparison that Charles Manson never killed anyone either - he simply told others when, who and how. Still, Charlie's bodycount pales in comparison to Fredo's. Chuck was a amatuer - Fredo's a Pro.

To me it's a toss-up whether Gonzo will be better remembered and vilified for the above or for overseaing the illegal warrantless spying of tens of millions of Americans and STILL. NOT. GETTING. BIN. LADEN!?

Hmm... decisions, decisions...is that the stench of burning paper, plastic or brimstone?

It seems now that even Gonzo's close Friends on The Fox apparently thought he was a punk-ass too. Whodathunkit?

Brit Hume on Gonzo.

Gonzales was a man almost without fans in Washington at the end, because he was never much appreciated or accepted by the conservative base of the Republican party and the conservative activists in Washington. And he certainly wasn’t popular among the Democrats. He was simply a crony. And I don’t mean that word to sound any worse than it is, but that was the case here.

And just where in this outpouring of simpathy and support for the out-going Attorney General do the 101st Fighting Keyboardists stand? Quite possibly on Gonzo's Neck.

Raw Story does a review of the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to the Gonzales resignation and finds "there is precious little love lost for the departing AG." RedState writes, "I am not sorry to see AGAG go." Andy McCarthy at the National Review writes the "resignation was overdue," and Captain’s Quarters adds that Gonzales’ attorney scandal "has been a royal embarrassment."

An "embarrisment"? No! You don't say?

And here I thought he was just a royal pain in the nation's ass.

That isn't to say that Fredo doesn't still have a fan club (of one).

President Bush: "It's sad that we live in a time that a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeding [sic] from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political purpose."

Or Two...

Ari Fliescher : Republicans were very hard on Janet Reno. Democrats were brutal to John Ashcroft and now Judge Gonzales. What’s happening is Congress is really politicizing the Justice Department, unfairly so and dangerously so, because there are so many important law important functions that go on there. It’s regrettable, both parties have done it.

Sniff

It's just all so unfair. I'm sorry Ari's right - the application of Justice and the laws of the land should be above politics.

I mean, "it's so sad", as John Cornyn has told us, that poor Fredo had to suffer the mean spirited slings and arrows of those Damn Dirty Democr... uh Republicans?

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH): "The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "The American people deserve an Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question. Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "I think that out of loyalty to the president that that [resignation] would probably be the best thing that he could do."

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)- "For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful."

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): "I don’t believe that Gonzales has the type of leadership that the department needs."

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO): "The president might decide that the current leadership remaining at DOJ is doing more harm than good."

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)- ""When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about it."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)- "There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there.'"

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)- "Sometimes, it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)- "For you to have said this was an ‘overblown personnel matter,’ I think that can't be erased. And the clouds over a lot of the professionals can't be erased and the worry by those who haven’t been subjected to those clouds can't be erased.

Ok, fine - forget what I said about "Unfairness" and "Sadness" and "political purposes" - Fuck the little bastard, because he certainly did all he could to Butt-Fuck America.

Then again, leaving now just might be the best thing for ole' Fredo - since it appears that the Bush Administration Ship of State has been permenently grounded on the rocky shoals of Congress - why not get out while the gettings good and the Congress Critters are all out of town?

At least we didn't have to waste time and energy Impeaching His Ass, now we can focus on preparing to Impeach Cheney!

Vyan

John Gibson thinks Jon Stewart "Purposefully" Misunderstood being mocked over 9/11?

Last week Fox News Host John Gibson decided that he's going to get into the "comedy" game and decided to make fun of Jon Stewart's viceral emotional reaction to the death, tragedy and loss of 9/11 - arguing in support of the notion that we need another 9/11 (Audio)

To which Stewart responded with.

Some idiot from Fox" was "playing the tape of me after September 11th" and "calling me a phony because, apparently, my grief didn't mean acquiescence"

But now he says Stewart has "purposefully misunderstood" him, and that Jon think's...

that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then.

Really now? I wonder just whose "purposefully" misunderstood whom?

Let us use the magic way-back machine (aka the Internets) to point out that what Gibson and his producer actually did on Aug 10th...

ANGRY RICH: Do you remember what the media was like shortly after 9-11?

GIBSON: Oh, Jon Stewart sobbing.

STEWART: The view from my apartment --

GIBSON: Sobbing.

STEWART: -- was the World Trade Center.

GIBSON: Oh, God, Jon. Just tell me it's not true.

STEWART: And now it's gone.

GIBSON: It's gone.

STEWART: And they attacked it.

GIBSON: They attacked it.

STEWART: This symbol --

GIBSON: This symbol.

STEWART: -- of American ingenuity --

GIBSON: American ingenuity.

STEWART: -- and strength --

GIBSON: And strength.

STEWART: -- and --

GIBSON: Determination.

STEWART: -- and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is gone.

GIBSON: Gone.

STEWART: But you know what the view is now?

ANGRY RICH: What is it, Jon?

GIBSON: What is it, Jon?

STEWART: The Statue of Liberty.

GIBSON: Oh! That's great. I'm -- God, I'm touched.

STEWART: The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty.

GIBSON: I'm touched.

ANGRY RICH: Let me bash Bush for the next six years.

STEWART: You can't beat that.

GIBSON: You can't beat that. Well --

ANGRY RICH: Phony.

So Stewart says he was called a phony, and low and behold - He was called a "Phony".

"What? You just lost your best friend in a horrible tragedy that killed thousands of others? Here - how 'bout a shake with a hand buzzer? ZZZZZzzzzTTTT Oh, and that chair you're in has a whoppee cushion -- Wheeeeeee!!!!

Phony!"

When exactly does cheap crap like that get funny?

Let me point out two other things, Jon Stewart isn't The Media - he's a comedian who actually broke character for moment and had an honest and real emotional response to what happened to the city in which he lives. There was no punchline in his crying jag. There was no setup. No zinger - that was it.

His work actually has nothing to do with being Liberal or being Conservative, it has to do with being FUNNY. He was pretty vicious (and hilarious) with President Clinton while he was in office - so exactly why shouldn't he go after Bush the same way that Jay Leno does? Or Conan O'Brien? Or Jimmy Kimmel (except for y'know - being funny when he does it?)

But the true arguement is really about Gibson's next statement.

GIBSON: Actually, you could. If you wait a little while, you'll say, just as Steve Martin used to say, "Should I fight the terrorists? Should I listen to their phone calls? Should I follow them everywhere on the planet to keep America safe? Nah, let's kick the hell out of Bush."

Ok, here's the thing, when exactly has Jon Stewart - or for that matter any Democrat or Liberal - said we shouldn't listen to Al Qaeda's phone calls? Who has said we shouldn't follow them everywhere on the planet?

Some would say this is a constructing a Straw Man Arguement - I myself tend to call it what it is - Bullshitting!.

The real arguement that many have made isn't about whether should listen to terrorists - it's about whether you should also listen to honest, innocent Americans without a probable cause and a warrant and independant judicial oversight!

And it's not just the media who has complained, the judges on the FISA Court have ruled that Bush's spying program is illegal - twice. 30 Members of the Bush Administrations' own Justice department - including John Ashcroft, James Comey and FBI Director James Meuller - all threated to resign in protest over the program. Federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional. None of them said "we shouldn't be listening" - they all said there should be proper oversight to avoid abuse of the program, the kind of abuse that has already occured with the FBI's National Security Letters.

The issue isn't whether we should or shouldn't fight terrorists - it's about how, and whether we should shred our own Constitutional in the process.

Most of us on this side of the arguement understand this - and not all of us are "one the left" or even close to it - but apparently John Gibson ("Purposefully") doesn't understand.

GIBSON: This is Stephen Hayes.

STEWART: No. They keep saying we don't understand the nature of this war. And critics keep saying, we understand the nature of it. You've been doing it wrong.

HAYES: Right, so why is that -- what's the -- what's the quality of difference there?

STEWART: Well, no -- the difference there is, we're not calling them traitors.

GIBSON: Yeah, you are.

HAYES: I don't -- yeah, but I don't think that the administration has called anyone a traitor. When has it happened? I mean, I'm serious. When has that happened? When has that happened?

STEWART: Let me say this. I -- I think that there's a real feeling in this country that your patriotism has been questioned by, by people in -- in very high-level positions. Not fringe people. You know, I myself had some idiot from Fox --

GIBSON: Uh-oh.

STEWART: -- playing the tape of me after September 11th --

GIBSON: Oh, well -- [audio clip of punching noises] ooh, ouch, geez, ooh. That was me he's talking about. You know, my problem with this is that I think there's a purposeful misunderstanding. We did -- we did tease him about his grief, but it was to compare it with what he's been saying lately.

Pardon me while I pull a Gibson:
That was a tease? Since when is it funny to tease someone for their grief?

Yeah, he thinks -- Jon Stewart thinks the war has been fought wrong.

Yeah, well - so do the soldiers (more of whom have been killed in this fruitless war in Iraq than died on 9/11).

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. [...]

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

And the Iraq Study Group who argued that escalating the conflict wouldn't help.

And 68% of Foreign Policy Experts.

And the American People.

CBS Poll Aug 2007

-69% Disapprove of how George Bush is handling Iraq.

-48% Disapprove of how George Bush is handling terrorism (44% approve)

-60% Would Disapprove of Mass Detention of Muslims even if there was another 9/11 attack

-63% Feel that most Muslims do not condone violence

Back to Gibson.

to say that the liberal side hasn't called people traitors is absurd. It certainly has. Bloggers who idolize Jon Stewart have been trashing me for mocking Stewart do precisely that.

They probably do - but that's not what Stewart said which was "I think that there's a real feeling in this country that your patriotism has been questioned by, by people in -- in very high-level positions. Not fringe people."

People like these, as I posted in detail last week...

• Dennis Hastert: liberals want to take "the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world...and release them out in the public eventually."
• Tom Delay : Pelosi and Reid are getting "very, very close to treason" by opposing the Iraq war.
• Donald Rumsfeld : War Critics are like Hitler Appeasers
• John Ashcroft : "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." [Washington Post, 12/7/01;]
• Dick Cheney : "It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again,"
• George Bush : "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

These people aren't Bloggers, John.

More from Gibby.

Stewart's funny. He's a -- he's a comedian doing the news. He should expect some shots once in a while.

Frankly, he probably does expect them. There are few people more self-depecriating that Jon Stewart on TV. The difference is that a "shot" is one thing, but ridiculing the man's legitimate grief and calling it "phony" isn't a shot, it's accusing him of being a liar - it's not comedy - it's Defamation.

I want to know, where is the Jon Stewart that was so grief-stricken, and why does he think what I think are reasonable measures to fight the war on terror like wiretapping, like going after Iraq, like Guantánamo Bay -- I think those are reasonable measures.

Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with terrorism - was just plain stupid. Even Dick Cheney said so way back before he became a member of the "Fourthbranch" as was like - still relatively sane.

Watch Video

Using Guantánamo Bay as an oasis for torture is in direct violation of International Law and is a War Crime.

Just ask Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or for that matter - Colin Powell.

"[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds," Powell said. "[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open... We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."

The Gibster.

He thinks they're absurd. He thinks they're almost beneath argument, and he thinks he's right without having to engage in an argument. And I guess he's come to think, and a lot of other people have come to think, that he is a sacred cow and cannot, you know, be subject to an elbow now and then. And I'm sorry he thinks that way 'cause I think he's funny and I like him and I think he's one of the most dangerous guys on TV. He certainly was when I was there.

John, I certainly wouldn't trust your opinion of what Jon Stewart thinks since you haven't gotten anything right so far. Sorry, that's how I feel.

The idea that Stewart's tears of grief are cannon fodder for bad.. really bad... so-called comedy on your part, that they were somehow illegitimate or "phony" simply because Stewart has not acquiesced to each and every crime that the Bush Administration has perpurtrated against the American people and the world under the pretext of their failed War on Terror is just. plain. preposterous.

The Latest Nation Intelligence Estimate says that our efforts in Iraq have made Al Qaeda as strong as it was before 9/11. You don't think that track record deserves - no, DEMANDS - more than a bit a criticism and ridicule?

But then again, since you want another 9/11 why should you care right?

Here's a "reasonable" measure for you John, instead of invading the wrong country then refusing to leave like a spoiled child, surveiling, rendering and torturing innocent people like Maher Arar, Abu Omar and as many as 14,000 others - how 'bout we actually GET BIN LADEN?!

Why does your American IDLE Bush stand by while Pakistan signs a Peace Treaty with the Taliban - and then the Taliban announce a Merger With Al Qaeda? Why doesn't he focus on that instead of Iraq? Why doesn't he stop the people who actually attacked us?

How bout that, eh? That sound "reasonable enough" for you?

Or would actually succeding in the War on Terror get in the way of your ongoing War on Common Sense and the Constitution? Do you really want to Win the War on Terror or simply use it to continue terrorizing and manipulating the American people?

Just wondering.

Vyan

Quick Truths

- Despite claiming he was at Ground Zero “as often, if not more” than 9/11 rescue workers, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s mayoral archive reveals that from Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001, “he was there for a total of 29 hours.” In that same period, “many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”

- Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to Bush asking that he provide all documents and other information sought by the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in order to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

- The State Department’s “$5 billion construction efforts abroad have come under increasing strain.” In a cable sent this summer, “U.S. diplomats complained of building delays and shoddy workmanship, underscoring problems with State’s one-size-fits-all approach to building.” The IG is now probing the use of sole-source contracts at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

- The “number of coalition military deaths in the war in Iraq has reached 4,000,” with the majority of the fatalities — 3,702 — suffered by U.S. soldiers. Forty-four U.S. troops have died this month.

- “People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.” It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, a CIA spokesman said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization’s network.

- Today, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe dismissed a report by the Washington Post that claimed Bush aides were resisting the open testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions prior to the September 15th report,” he said. “That has always been our intention.” Apparently, that message hasn’t been communicated to Congress:

- This morning, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “asked the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) to investigate potentially false or misleading testimony given by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his appearances before various congressional committees.” Leahy highlights several contradictory statements made by the Attorney General on the NSA’s spy program, the use of National Security Letters, and his role in the U.S. attorney purge:

Consistent with your jurisdiction, please do not limit your inquiry to whether or not the Attorney General has committed any criminal violations. Rather, I ask that you look into whether the Attorney General, in the course of his testimony, engaged in any misconduct, engaged in conduct inappropriate for a cabinet officer and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, or violated any duty — including the duty set out in federal regulations for government officials to avoid any conduct which gives the appearance of a violation of law or of ethical standard, regardless of whether there is an actual violation of law.

Read the full release.

- In a July hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed that he took notes of the infamous White House visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room because the events were so “out of the ordinary.” Chairman John Conyers wrote to Mueller after the hearing to request access to his notes. Today, Conyers’ office put out a statement explaining that the Judiciary Committee has taken a look at Mueller’s notes, which were “heavily-redacted.” Yet, even from the amount the Committee was able to read, Conyers reported that it is clear there was a craven effort to take advantage of “a sick and heavily-medicated Ashcroft“

- After the recent resignation of Karl Rove, media outlets speculated on what the rest of President Bush’s term will look like without “the Architect.” The President is “fighting lame duck status,” reported the AP. In response, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow shot back: “As the president has said many times, he’s going to sprint to the tape.”

But even Tony Snow doesn’t want to be around for that sprint. In an interview with the conservative Hugh Hewitt show, Snow signaled that he will not stay until the end of the term. He also mentioned that there are “probably a couple” of other high-level resignations “coming up in the next month or so.”

- Yesterday, the LA Times reported that the September progress report on Iraq “would actually be written by the White House,” instead of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The Washington Post echoed the admission in an article today, describing the report as “the Bush administration’s progress report.” But the WaPo’s editorial page is still pushing the myth that “the September report will represent the sole word of Petraeus,” writing that “The general is expected to elaborate on that progress in a report to Congress.”

One million dollars. That’s how much it cost the Defense Department to ship two 19-cent washers after a South Carolina small supplies shipping company exploited an automated shipping system designed to quickly get supplies to American troops. Charlene Corley, the owner of C&D Distributors LLC, pleaded guilty yesterday to wire fraud and money laundering when she and her late sister Darlene Wooten overcharged the government by over $20 million through a loophole in the automated system. (AP)

FISA Court Rules NSA Taps Illegal - Twice

Just as we saw in Bush's mad dash to have the MCA passed after receiving the massive WWE judicial smack-down of Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the push to have the new FISA Bill passed before August recess had to do with the fact the not one, but two judges on the FISA court told the Bush Admin that their program was flat out illegal.

A federal intelligence court judge earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration's wiretapping efforts illegal, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by congressional lawmakers this week to expand the president's spying powers.

So naturally what they decided to do about it, rather than y'know perhaps abide by the law they've been ignoring for the last several years, was instead - to change it

Following defeats in twin lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation against the administrations attempts to bypass the FISA court in conducting telephonic surveillance the Administration decided that they would actually start using the court after one of it's judges agreed to approve the program this past January.

I am writing to inform you that as of January 10, 2007 a Judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into and out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of Al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.

As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," [Alberto] Gonzales wrote [in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee], a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.

As a side note there is some suspicion (on Thinkprogress) that the Judge who authorized the program to function under the FISA court may have been John D. Bates who replaced the Judge who had resigned from the court in protest of the TSP.

Bates is a staunch conservative, who had previously ruled that the President could sign legislation into law that had not passed both houses of congress. He dismissed a suit against Dick Cheney requiring him to disclose the members of his 2001 Energy Task Force. And although he had previously served as Deputy Counsel in Ken Starr's Office during the Whitewater investigation and attempted Impeachment of President Bill Clinton, he dismissed the Plame Suit arguing that "such efforts (to rebut criticizm of their policies by disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative) are a natural part of the officials' job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability."

If anyone on the FISA is likely to have been the one to give Bush the green light to spy on international calls without a specific warrant - this is probably the guy.

Fortunately the court isn't completely chock full of wingnuts like this one. Just two months after the program had been moved under the umbrella of the FISC, it was tossed back out in the rain again - not just once, but a second time in May.

In May, a judge on the same court went further, telling the administration flatly that the law's wording required the government to get a warrant whenever a fixed wire is involved.

The rulings — which were not disclosed publicly until the congressional debate this month — represented an unusual rift between the court and the U.S. intelligence community. They led top intelligence officials to conclude, a senior official said, that "you can’t tell what this court is going to do" and helped provoke the White House to insist that Congress essentially strip the court of any jurisdiction over U.S. surveillance of communications between foreigners.

"All of a sudden, the world flipped upside down," said a senior administration official familiar with the rulings.

Yeah, all of a sudden the rubber stamp court said they had to get a warrant for each and every wiretap. Heaven forfend - all that paperwork!? Oh, the cruel Zumanity.

So much for this program being "Very Limited in Nature". And it's not like all that surveillance might have been of completely innocent people causing thousands of man-hours to be wasted on wild goose chases, or anything. And it's not like every plot they've claimed was stopped via this program, were actually stopped via other means.

Uh huh.

Anywho...

The decisions had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber on U.S. soil, a task so time-consuming that a backlog developed. "We shoved a lot of warrants at the court" but still could not keep up, the official said. "We needed thousands of warrants, but the most we could do was hundreds." The official depicted it as an especially "big problem" by the end of May, in which the NSA was "losing capability."

Hey man, if you really need "thousands of warrants" I don't think your doing this right. Do we really have thousands of members of Al Qeada making phone calls into the U.S.? According to the General Abizaid there are only about a thousand members of al Qaeda in Iraq, are they all calling at once?

And brother, they must sure have a ton of cell and satelite phones in those Pakistani caves and mountains. Just how do they get decent reception up there anyway? Think they've got Verizon?

"Yeah, you bet We can Hear you NOW!"

Personally, I think only being able to do hundreds of warrants is probably a good thing, it might help these guys focus on the important stuff rather than mess around with knuckle-heads like the Liberty City Seven.

Congress at first resisted changing FISA, until they pulled the old oogey-boogey trick that we were in imminent danger of an attack... .

A critical moment for the Democrats came on July 24, when McConnell met in a closed session with senators from both parties to ask for urgent approval of a slimmed-down version of his bill. Armed with new details about terrorist activity and an alarming decline in U.S. eavesdropping capabilities, he argued that Congress had days, not weeks, to act.

"Everybody who heard him speak recognized the absolute, compelling necessity to move," Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the intelligence panel, said later of the closed session.

Democrats agreed. "At that time, the discussion changed to 'What can we do to close the gap during the August recess?' " said a senior Democratic aide who declined to be identified because the meetings were classified. As delivered by McConnell, the warnings were seen as fully credible. "He's pushing this because he thinks we're in a high-threat environment," the senior aide said.

Following this afternoon Fright Night feature enough spineless Dems backed down from their objections to hand Bush his Blank Spying Check. But hey, didn't we go this before with Colin Powell at the UN with the mobile labs, and the aluminum tubes with the anondyne coating?

All of it, every allegation and assertion - dead wrong.

Yeah, thought so.

This entire process seems very interesting to me since Bush so often declared that we couldn't amended the FISA laws (even though it already had been amended) because it would "Show the enemy our playbook") Yeah, right.

So Al Qaeda has experts in American Constitutional Law, the FISA Act and USSID 18 on the payroll now? Do tell.

Oh, and let just remember this golden oldie from Arlen of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?

SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.

At this point we've had three judges, two on the FISA Court as well as Federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor who have all declared that Bush's Domestic Spying Program is illegal and unconstitutional!, not to mention an an additional lawsuit filed by the Gitmo Attorneys. The fact is that this New FISA Bill is an act of desperation so blatant that it almost explains why Gonzo is so willing to lie his face off before Congress.

It's not about fighting terrorism, not with more and more Conservatives saying "We Need Another 9/11" (So they can make this country even more Fascist than it already is) it's about Bush legally covering his well exposed ass.

Not a pleasant image to end a diary on, but talking politics and protecting our freedoms are often dirty jobs. They could have a show on the Discovery Channel called "Dirty Politics."

"I'm Mike Rowe, and this is how you pass a bill through the colon of Congress..."

Oh wait, that's everything on Faux isn't it?

Vyan

Gitmo Lawyers Challenge FISA Bill in Court

Today From Thinkprogress.

Yesterday, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees asked a federal judge in San Francisco to invalidate the recently-passed FISA law that lets the Bush administration conduct warrantless surveillance on suspected terrorists without first getting court-approved warrants.

"We are asking your honor, as swiftly as possible, to declare this statute unconstitutional," said Michael Avery, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. ... "Neither Congress nor the president has the power to repeal the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements," Avery said.

Oh boy, it's on now.

In full disclosure, I have to say that this new court move doesn't necessarily surprise me. I even wondered if this might have been part of the rationale for some Dems, when you look at what happened the last time Congress completely rolled over with the Military Commissions Act less than a year ago.

Yeah, ok, maybe that is just wishful thinking.

But following their defeat on the Hamdan V Rumsfeld case, the MCA was rushed through Congress and since then the administration has lost a major decision concerning "right " to hold someone indefinitely without charges before the 4th Circuit Appeals Court, and then two separate Military Judges ruled that the commissions have no jurisdiction to try detainees.

That's Game, Set and Match on the MCA.

So I would say that the overall track record of the Gitmo Attorneys is pretty good despite the fact the ACLU's own FISA case was thrown out since the petitioners couldn't "Prove that they had been illegally spied" upon.

Even though the plaintiffs alleged a well-founded fear that their communications were subject to illegal surveillance, the court dismissed the case because plaintiffs could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.

BTW how exactly do you prove that a secret government program is specifically spying on you? If they are breaking the law and hiding behind "National Security" how exactly do you catch them without committing "treason?"

But that issue isn't really a problem for the Gitmo attorney's.

In CCR v. Bush, the Center is arguing that the government’s surveillance jeopardizes its ability to represent Gitmo clients. CCR reports that it has engaged in thousands of telephone calls and e-mails with people outside the United States in the course of its representation.

The Center writes, "Given that the government has accused many of CCR’s overseas clients of being associated with Al Qaeda or of being of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys fall within the likely range of victims of the NSA Surveillance Program."

In their case, it's not a matter of thinking their clients "might" be associated with al Qaeda - they already have been.

Anthony Coppolino, a special counsel to the Justice Department, refused to rebut the challenge to the new law. Copppolino offered this defense: "It’s possible that their clients were and it’s possible that their clients were not" spied on.

With the previous decision by Federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor that the NSA program as it existed was clearly and obviously illegal and violated the 1st and 4th Amendments already on the books, this decision shouldn't be a difficult one. And Judge Taylor wasn't alone.

A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the courts could not hear the case due to a "state secrets" privilege.

Taken together these previous decisions lay a road map that just might not take that long for DC Circuit Federal Judge Vaughn Walker to navigate and immediately bring the implementation of this new FISA law to a screeching halt.

But then again, it might take some time. Either way, I'm optimistic - very optimistic.

The right wing will of course attempt to spin this into Dems "Not having the stomach to fight the war on Terror" but we have to push back and point out that this isn't about not wanting to listen to terrorists, it's about protecting innocent people from having their lives intruded upon and being mistakenly caught up in the terror web as people such as Maher Arar and Abu Omar have. Both of whom were innocent, yet mistakenly detained, then rendered to foreign a government where they were tortured. Or AP photographer Bilal Hussein whose been held by U.S. Forces in Iraq for months without explanation or charges just like the other 14,000 people that the U.S. is holding worldwide as "Security Threats."

If they are guilty of something - charge them and prove it in a regularly convened court - otherwise let 'em go.

Although Mitt Romney might be unaware of it, surprise - surprise, we already have been going into friendly countries without their permission and knowledge and snatching people up. (That's what happened to Omar and the Italian government now has warrants issued for 19 members of the CIA "Grab Team" who did it) At a certain point we really need to make sure these are the right people, and that the wrong people - the rest of us - are reasonable protected from being illegally and unconstitutionally spied upon or mistakenly suffering this fate.

Vyan

Conservatives Refuse to Defend Gonzo on Faux

Newt Gingrich appearing on Fox News Sunday today stated that it appears that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have perjured himself. Hm, Ya think?

Youtube Video

Gingrich: Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.

But Gingrich isn't the only, every prominent Conservative that Fox asked to give "Gonzo's Side" of the story refused to do it.

Chris Wallace: “By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.”

Frankly people, that is stunning. I didn't think I'd see the day when the cabal of Neo-ConArtist inside the Beltway would actually put down Bush's water, but it seems they just might have finally done it.

More from Thinkprogress.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), appearing on ABC’s This Week, said “of course” Gonzales has a credibility problem. On MSNBC’s Hardball on Friday, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, squirmed when asked by host Chris Matthews if he thought Gonzales “is a good attorney general?” Cannon refused to answer the question, offering instead, “He’s a good guy.”

National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, a reliable partisan defender of the Bush administration, admitted on Thursday that the evidence against Gonzales is compelling. “I think Gonzales has long, long, long outserved whatever usefulness he might once have had,” wrote Goldberg. “And — hey — maybe he actually did perjure himself.”

But it's not a total shutout, riding high where all Republicans Now Fear to Tread you can count on the New York Times to come to Gonzo's rescue.

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation.

Y'see, strategic leaks from the Bush Admin indicate that the dispute between Gonzo and the Senate was simply about the "Data Mining" program which is an extention or portion of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". Rather than tracking international phone calls without a warrant as the NSA does, this is a process used to track international/domestic e-mail traffic using various telecom providers such as AT&T Bellsouth and Verizon, not to mention millions of terabytes of personal information about American Citizens which the FBI has simply gone out and bought.

Right, it's a completely different program of warrantless eavesdropping on American Citizens that Comey, Ashcroft and over 30 DOJ officials were going to resign over. This one doesn't violate FISA, it just violates the Telecom Act of 1996 which states that private information about suscribers can not be shared with the government without a warrant.

Problem solved, right?

Urm, not quite as Glenn Greenwald points out.

This leak would be arguably exculpatory for Gonzales only if it reported that data mining was the only source of the Comey/Ashcroft objections, not merely one of the sources. But both articles explicitly states that there were other grounds for those objections besides data mining, leaving open -- rather than resolving -- the only relevant questions: did those objections, contrary to Gonzales' sworn testimony, relate to the "TSP's" warrantless eavesdropping?

Of course there is one person who continues to defend Gonzo, and that of course would be ole' Snowjob.

Following extremely damaging testimony by FBI Direct Meuller indicating that it was the same program that Comey described, Tony Snow said that Gonzales “was speaking consistently.”

Snow has also stated when asked about Gonzo's credibility problems.

QUESTION: But has it reached the point for the attorney general to — he’s lost his effectiveness and his credibility?

SNOW: Well, you know, what’s interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the attorney general and yet nobody’s really laid a glove on him. [...] At this point, we have hundreds of hearings that have produced bupkis.

"Bupkis"? Really Mr. Bahgdad... er. Snow?

You might get some strenuous disagreement to that in some surprising places. Like the NYTimes, showing that they haven't completely swallowed the Kool-aid today, with this editorial that calls for Gonzo's Impeachment.

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Amen to that.

Vyan