Just wanted to apologize for being away; I should make a proper return very soon, perhaps even tonight. My financial situation took a turn for the worst and my heath took a turn for the even worser. It's difficult to read the news -- let alone comment on it -- when one's ankle feels like it is in a bear trap.
Sleep is difficult, the pain pills are running low, and suddenly I understand why Rush did it. If I had a connection, I would soon end up like him -- stone deaf, insensible and shouting Goo goo ga joob into the nearest microphone. But we would still have very different political outlooks.
(Cue Homer Simpson impression): "Mmm! Yellow matter custard!"
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Votergate 2000, and a few other brief notes...
First, let me confess that I did not expect to see the backside of Gonzo in August, even though doc elsewhere had cofindently predicted his departure before the end of the month. I was wrong and she was right. Huzzah!
Second: I recommend this Brad Blog piece on the new revelations concerning the year 2000 vote scandal which inflicted the current disaster on us. Brad uses the Clint Curtis case (go here for a summary) as his touchstone:
We shall return to this subject.
In the meantime: I wish dr. elsewhere the best, and I hope she will return to these pages ASAP. I will attempt to resume my usual position of Annoyance In Chief, although the state of my vertebrae still makes sitting uncomfortable.
I did manage to sit upright through an entire film the other day. Although I had my heart set on Shoot 'em Up, my estrogen-laden partner insisted on Becoming Jane, the origin-of-Austen biopic. I must admit, albeit with much crimson in cheek, that the film is excellent. No, really. Afterward, I had to buy some Midol and chocolate because I was feeling all bloated.
(Add Ann Hathaway to the list of Ladies Worthy of a Crush.)
Second: I recommend this Brad Blog piece on the new revelations concerning the year 2000 vote scandal which inflicted the current disaster on us. Brad uses the Clint Curtis case (go here for a summary) as his touchstone:
One of the main criticisms of Curtis' striking allegations was that "nobody was even thinking about touch-screen voting systems in Florida prior to the 2000 Presidential Election debacle."Larry Kolb's book Overworld reminds us of an oft-forgotten fact concerning the 2000 Florida vote: Therese LePore, the designer of the infamous "butterfly ballots," worked for Saudi wheeler-dealer Adnan Khashoggi. Kolb hints, but does not state, that the relationship was quite a bit closer than is indicated by this entry on LePore. This old Slate story on the LePore "conspiracy theory" rewards latter-day study
Dan Rather's remarkable investigative report, however, would seem to indicate otherwise: seven Sequoia company whistleblowers reveal on camera that, despite their objections, they were forced to use poor quality paper for the punchcards to be used in Florida in 2000. They also revealed that they had been instructed to deliberately misalign the chads for ballots going to Palm Beach County, FL only
Khashoggi has close ties, from Iran-Contra and elsewhere, to the Republicans, and vaguely defined ties to Dubya's father. (In a 1990 court case, Khashoggi's phone records revealed that Khashoggi had spoken at least twice with George Bush's vice-presidential office during 1985 and 1986.) LePore worked for Khashoggi during the 1980s, when, according to her official biography, she was chief deputy supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County, a job she held until 1996, when she was elected supervisor of elections. Ergo, LePore has been working as a Khashoggi asset to elect the son of Khashoggi's old comrade-in-arms, George Bush!The concept seemed unforgivably paranoid back in 2000, when those words were first written. And nowadays...? Nowadays, we are living in times which help us to understand Lily Tomlin's dictum: "No matter how paranoid you get, you can't keep up."
We shall return to this subject.
In the meantime: I wish dr. elsewhere the best, and I hope she will return to these pages ASAP. I will attempt to resume my usual position of Annoyance In Chief, although the state of my vertebrae still makes sitting uncomfortable.
I did manage to sit upright through an entire film the other day. Although I had my heart set on Shoot 'em Up, my estrogen-laden partner insisted on Becoming Jane, the origin-of-Austen biopic. I must admit, albeit with much crimson in cheek, that the film is excellent. No, really. Afterward, I had to buy some Midol and chocolate because I was feeling all bloated.
(Add Ann Hathaway to the list of Ladies Worthy of a Crush.)
Monday, August 27, 2007
GONZO RESIGNS!!
dr. elsewhere here
Well, folks,....
ALBERTO GONZOLEZ RESIGNS!!
Just under a month ago, I predicted that Gonzo would resign in August, and that Bush would recess appoint someone in his place so as to avoid the Senate confirmation process. So far, we are right on track; rumor is that Chertoff will replace him, and there are numerous reasons to suspect he would have a hard time getting confirmed. Well,.... we'll see....
Meanwhile, a little housekeeping. It appears both Joseph the Cannon and myself are just completely indisposed for our respective reasons. Our deepest apologies, especially at this exciting time, but there is simply no getting around it. So we hope you will forgive our absence and not take it as abandonment, and keep looking for us to return, certainly within the week.
Take this opportunity to discuss amongst yourselves this fascinating moment in our history; yet another top-ranking Bush official has resigned, and resigned in disgrace. Lots of meat there, so have a good time. Share whatever stuff you might run across, as well. You're undoubtedly some of the most resourceful readers going. See you soon.
Well, folks,....
ALBERTO GONZOLEZ RESIGNS!!
Just under a month ago, I predicted that Gonzo would resign in August, and that Bush would recess appoint someone in his place so as to avoid the Senate confirmation process. So far, we are right on track; rumor is that Chertoff will replace him, and there are numerous reasons to suspect he would have a hard time getting confirmed. Well,.... we'll see....
Meanwhile, a little housekeeping. It appears both Joseph the Cannon and myself are just completely indisposed for our respective reasons. Our deepest apologies, especially at this exciting time, but there is simply no getting around it. So we hope you will forgive our absence and not take it as abandonment, and keep looking for us to return, certainly within the week.
Take this opportunity to discuss amongst yourselves this fascinating moment in our history; yet another top-ranking Bush official has resigned, and resigned in disgrace. Lots of meat there, so have a good time. Share whatever stuff you might run across, as well. You're undoubtedly some of the most resourceful readers going. See you soon.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Yes, a few more words on FISA
I am still on retreat, and I am immensely grateful to doc elsewhere for picking up the slack. However, I am going to attempt a post on a huge subject. I just came back from ye olde accupuncture shop, and I'm curious to see if that art can keep me sitting upright for a full hour.
Where were we? Oh yes. The FISA update. The topic which made me so hated. The law you all know so much more about than I do, even though you refuse to read it. Shall I link to it one last time, for your non-reading pleasure? But of course. After all, we have certain rituals around here. It's a Lucy-and-the-football kind of thang. Oh, and here is my original piece.
I've finally found someone else out there willing to do more than to parrot what he or she has read in the New York Times or the Washington Post. When you want nitty-gritty details, Marcy Wheeler will deliver up the nittiest and grittiest. At last, she talks about the minimization procedures, the built-in Fourth Amendmen protections.
Cannon's rule: Any piece that discusses FISA without using the word "minimization" is inadequate. Marcy has given us a piece that is way more than adequate -- in fact, it is bloody great. She even titles it Minimization.
Did you know that the President's lawyer's argue that he can sidestep all minimization procedures -- and thereby sidestep the Fourth Amendment?
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Before we deal with this potential assault on the Bill of Rights, let me give thanks unto Marcy three more times for her heroic attempt to deal with the minimization procedures as they existed in the alternative versions of the bill.
I would only point out that the minimization procedures are the same as they always were; they have not been redefined. I think this is what the emphasized words in that final afore-quoted paragraph come to.
However, I have made these points from the beginning:
1. Minimization must be strengthened. The real flaws are in the original bill, and they have been with us since 1978.
2. Oversight must much stronger. This, I believe, is Marcy's main point.
Perhaps now that the wonderful Wheeler has finally come to conclusions which mirror, in essence, what the cantankerous Cannon has said from the beginning, my readers will be kind enough to pay some attention to what I actually wrote, as opposed to what they think I wrote. Hell, a few of you might even be inspired to read the law.
(I pause for laughter.)
And now, on to the case of Dubya v. The Fourth Amendment.
Quite a few of you were justifiably bothered and outraged by a paragraph in a recent NYT story which revealed that the President views this law as advisory, not mandatory. Few people understand that Bush takes this outrageous position vis-a-vis the original FISA law, not just the update.
The news gets worse -- and it goes way beyond FISA.
The President takes a similar attitude toward all legislation that would restrict the power of the executive branch. In his view, or at least in the view of his lawyers, Article II of the Constitution grants the President such sweeping authority that no congressional scribblings can bridle his behavior -- not unless he agrees to be bridled.
This was also the argument posed by Anonymous Liberal, an unnamed litigator with whom I sparred over on Crooks and Liars. (You'll have to pan way, way down for the good stuff.) I thought AnonLib's position on Article II was goofy. I still think so. And yet his position is the position of the All the President's Lawyers.
What does that position come to? This: Most laws affecting the executive branch take the form of saying "The executive branch may do thus-and-such if certain conditions are met." (As in: The AG may scoop up foreign/domestic chats if minimization procedures are recognized.)
Now, you and I and our congressfolk understand the "may-if" formula in a straighforward "plain English" fashion. When you tell your kid "You may watch TV if you do your homework," he understands that no homework = no TV. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you that you may live if you start singing a Beatles tune, you won't argue over the wording; you'll start belting Hey Jude.
But that's not how some lawyers view the "may/if" phrasing.
AnonLib argued, in essence, that "may" is amorphous. The word means "Here is one way the President can snoop on foreign chats. He may choose the method recommended by Congress. Conversely, he may choose to do it another way -- a way unmentioned by Congress. He may choose to avoid those nasty congressional restrictions altogether. It's all up to the Prez. Does he feel like observing the law today?"
In other words, the "may/if" formula does not mean "may/if-and-only-if."
I'm not kidding. The President's lawyers really do believe in this bizarre misuse of the English language. And that is why they argue -- have always argued -- that the original FISA law applies to Dubya only at his whim.
Concocting a law that the President cannot escape thus becomes a very difficult matter. Remember that episode of the X-Files where Mulder has to phrase his wish in such an ultra-careful fashion that the genie cannot turn it against him?
Does Congress accept this outrageously broad view of presidential power under Article II? I think not.
So why is Bush asserting such power? Obviously, he must have stepped way outside the boundaries of FISA regulations -- and I'm talking about any and all iterations of FISA.
"Such as...?" you ask.
I don't know, but here's my guess: Spying on political opponents.
Enough writing; enough sitting. The sciatica's acting up again. Don't know when I'll be able to return to the Captain's chair, but I hope the hiatus won't last too long. I miss being (as opposed to having) a pain in the butt.
Where were we? Oh yes. The FISA update. The topic which made me so hated. The law you all know so much more about than I do, even though you refuse to read it. Shall I link to it one last time, for your non-reading pleasure? But of course. After all, we have certain rituals around here. It's a Lucy-and-the-football kind of thang. Oh, and here is my original piece.
I've finally found someone else out there willing to do more than to parrot what he or she has read in the New York Times or the Washington Post. When you want nitty-gritty details, Marcy Wheeler will deliver up the nittiest and grittiest. At last, she talks about the minimization procedures, the built-in Fourth Amendmen protections.
Cannon's rule: Any piece that discusses FISA without using the word "minimization" is inadequate. Marcy has given us a piece that is way more than adequate -- in fact, it is bloody great. She even titles it Minimization.
As I understand it, S1927 (I'm working with the version that passed--I haven't checked whether the requirements for minimization changed in the three versions of the bill)--requires very little in the way of minimization requirements. The government must only certify that its program meets the existing definition of minimization procedures, and that any collection accord with those minimization procedures. There is no requirement that the government reveal its minimization procedures, nor that someone--the judge or Congress--review them.Thank you, thank you, thank you Marcy. But matters go far beyond that.
It requires the government to certify thatthe minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).An acquisition under this section may be conducted only in accordance with the certification of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General.[my emphasis]
It requires any collection of information to meet the Attorney General's minimization procedures.
Did you know that the President's lawyer's argue that he can sidestep all minimization procedures -- and thereby sidestep the Fourth Amendment?
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Before we deal with this potential assault on the Bill of Rights, let me give thanks unto Marcy three more times for her heroic attempt to deal with the minimization procedures as they existed in the alternative versions of the bill.
I would only point out that the minimization procedures are the same as they always were; they have not been redefined. I think this is what the emphasized words in that final afore-quoted paragraph come to.
However, I have made these points from the beginning:
1. Minimization must be strengthened. The real flaws are in the original bill, and they have been with us since 1978.
2. Oversight must much stronger. This, I believe, is Marcy's main point.
Perhaps now that the wonderful Wheeler has finally come to conclusions which mirror, in essence, what the cantankerous Cannon has said from the beginning, my readers will be kind enough to pay some attention to what I actually wrote, as opposed to what they think I wrote. Hell, a few of you might even be inspired to read the law.
(I pause for laughter.)
And now, on to the case of Dubya v. The Fourth Amendment.
Quite a few of you were justifiably bothered and outraged by a paragraph in a recent NYT story which revealed that the President views this law as advisory, not mandatory. Few people understand that Bush takes this outrageous position vis-a-vis the original FISA law, not just the update.
The news gets worse -- and it goes way beyond FISA.
The President takes a similar attitude toward all legislation that would restrict the power of the executive branch. In his view, or at least in the view of his lawyers, Article II of the Constitution grants the President such sweeping authority that no congressional scribblings can bridle his behavior -- not unless he agrees to be bridled.
This was also the argument posed by Anonymous Liberal, an unnamed litigator with whom I sparred over on Crooks and Liars. (You'll have to pan way, way down for the good stuff.) I thought AnonLib's position on Article II was goofy. I still think so. And yet his position is the position of the All the President's Lawyers.
What does that position come to? This: Most laws affecting the executive branch take the form of saying "The executive branch may do thus-and-such if certain conditions are met." (As in: The AG may scoop up foreign/domestic chats if minimization procedures are recognized.)
Now, you and I and our congressfolk understand the "may-if" formula in a straighforward "plain English" fashion. When you tell your kid "You may watch TV if you do your homework," he understands that no homework = no TV. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you that you may live if you start singing a Beatles tune, you won't argue over the wording; you'll start belting Hey Jude.
But that's not how some lawyers view the "may/if" phrasing.
AnonLib argued, in essence, that "may" is amorphous. The word means "Here is one way the President can snoop on foreign chats. He may choose the method recommended by Congress. Conversely, he may choose to do it another way -- a way unmentioned by Congress. He may choose to avoid those nasty congressional restrictions altogether. It's all up to the Prez. Does he feel like observing the law today?"
In other words, the "may/if" formula does not mean "may/if-and-only-if."
I'm not kidding. The President's lawyers really do believe in this bizarre misuse of the English language. And that is why they argue -- have always argued -- that the original FISA law applies to Dubya only at his whim.
Concocting a law that the President cannot escape thus becomes a very difficult matter. Remember that episode of the X-Files where Mulder has to phrase his wish in such an ultra-careful fashion that the genie cannot turn it against him?
Does Congress accept this outrageously broad view of presidential power under Article II? I think not.
So why is Bush asserting such power? Obviously, he must have stepped way outside the boundaries of FISA regulations -- and I'm talking about any and all iterations of FISA.
"Such as...?" you ask.
I don't know, but here's my guess: Spying on political opponents.
Enough writing; enough sitting. The sciatica's acting up again. Don't know when I'll be able to return to the Captain's chair, but I hope the hiatus won't last too long. I miss being (as opposed to having) a pain in the butt.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Impeachment: Comments on the Concept
dr. elsewhere here
Aah, what utterly splendid commentary! It's just so true; the readership here is wicked sophisticated.
I agree with most of you that the process needs to begin with Gonzo; he's committed enough crimes (no one ever talks about the torture business anymore) to keep hearings up and running for decades. Then Cheney (thankfully Kucinich submitted those articles last winter), and only then, Bush.
And yeah, kudos to the Dem leadership. I suppose those insiders in the know who understand more of the maneuvering that must be navigated on The Hill might be able to claim a better strategy. But right now, I agree we need to be letting them know we appreciate their hard work and encouraging them to do more of it. Lots more of it.
And yeah; ignore Faux Snooz.
All that being said, I have to respectfully (in the fullest sense, as your input is always so valuable) disagree with Sofia regarding the down side of impeachment, and for several reasons. First, that attitude would get us nowhere in law enforcement, to our great peril. Ah, we'll never get a conviction in this town, so why bother? I know that happens all the time, but is that the zeitgeist we wish to promote here?? To my mind, we need the courage to stand up to that zeitgeist, the courage to follow our convictions on this matter, and the courage to uphold the Constitution.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Sofia, if you have not seen that Moyers interview with John Nichols and Bruce Fein, do not miss it. I predict you'll be convinced, especially after hearing from Fein, who drafted the articles of impeachment against Clinton. To Fein, that was quite simple; Clinton lied under oath, and that is a crime. It was a stupid issue to be pursuing, as it had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton's ability to govern, but it exposed the craven desperation on the part of the Republicans to get anything on Bill they could possibly dig up. Tabloid oversight, if you will.
But listen to Fein make the comparisons; it's a real rallying cry to hear the guy who wrote Clinton's impeachment papers note just how much worse this administration has been, and specifically in terms of governance, which is what really matters.
I do not mean to pick on you, Sofia, as I know you give a lot of thought to all your comments. However, you and everyone else should know the reasons why I'm so charged up about this point. One reason is that I got into the exact same debate with an old friend last weekend, and was surprised because he and I have rarely disagreed on any political issue we've discussed. My position is this: Impeachment is our duty in situations such as we now find ourselves.
The other reason is that another old friend of mine (well, at this point it's likely best to say "acquaintance," as so many many years have passed), Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) is actually working with Bruce Fein to draw up articles of impeachment against Gonzalez. I'm pretty excited about this, and right proud of ol' Steve for seeing impeachment as a duty to the country and the Constitution.
But back to my list of reasons why impeachment is such a good idea and why we can't take a defeatist attitude toward it. My second reason has to do with that duty thing; to act (or not) on the defeatist concerns is a political position, whereas we need to be taking a principled position. The political position is precisely where Rove has taken politics, although he's had a lot of historical help along the way; it's a human inclination to be so manipulative, but we should always strive to overcome it. When the Democratic party starts deferring to the more politically expedient position in matters of such grave consequence as these, when we allow ourselves to become more concerned with winning than in holding to our integrity, then we will have succumbed to their level. I say we should resist this inclination with every fiber in our bodies (without being utterly foolish, of course).
Yet another reason we should avoid the defeatist attitude about impeachment is that we really do not know what kind of numbers we'd have after the hearing starts up. If you're too young to know or remember, the polls for impeachment of Nixon were very low early on in the hearings. It was only after more and more evidence kept turning up that not even the Republican loyalists could risk staying with Tricky Dick. If you look at the polls since all these recent hearings started up - and I remind you, that was only seven months ago - more and more people are getting the message, and it is decidedly not good for Bush. If the numbers continue to rise as more damning evidence pours in, the politicians will have to rethink their position, just as they've had to do with their stance on our occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, impeachment is successful if the House votes to impeach, and that would seem even at this early stage to be a fait accompli. The vote for removal is another matter, of course, but I hardly think that we should be using the public backfire and reversal of fortune we saw with Clinton as a predictor for what might happen with Bush. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that, should the Senate vote not to remove him, it is those Senators casting nay votes who will suffer, not the ones who vote yea, the opposite of what happened with Clinton.
Finally (at least for now), I'm frankly undeterred by an acquittal in the Senate, in that there are so damn many crimes on which we could pursue an impeachment, we can always move on to the next one. This will be especially possible if there is a huge public outcry if the Senate does not vote to remove from office. And this goes for the lot of 'em, and there will of course be plenty of crimes left after the processes are spent to enable trials within the court system.
In other words, impeachment does not have to stand for the address of each and every violation of Bush's oath of office, or Cheney's or Gonzo's. These hoodlums have committed so many crimes they'll keep the courts busy for a long while to come. Provided, of course, the international courts don't hang them first.
So this is good, right; start small, work our way up, nail Gonzo first, then Cheney, then Bush, build each case, keep it narrow and clean, don't try to pull in every hangnail and parking ticket, just target the most egregious. And do our duty:
Aah, what utterly splendid commentary! It's just so true; the readership here is wicked sophisticated.
I agree with most of you that the process needs to begin with Gonzo; he's committed enough crimes (no one ever talks about the torture business anymore) to keep hearings up and running for decades. Then Cheney (thankfully Kucinich submitted those articles last winter), and only then, Bush.
And yeah, kudos to the Dem leadership. I suppose those insiders in the know who understand more of the maneuvering that must be navigated on The Hill might be able to claim a better strategy. But right now, I agree we need to be letting them know we appreciate their hard work and encouraging them to do more of it. Lots more of it.
And yeah; ignore Faux Snooz.
All that being said, I have to respectfully (in the fullest sense, as your input is always so valuable) disagree with Sofia regarding the down side of impeachment, and for several reasons. First, that attitude would get us nowhere in law enforcement, to our great peril. Ah, we'll never get a conviction in this town, so why bother? I know that happens all the time, but is that the zeitgeist we wish to promote here?? To my mind, we need the courage to stand up to that zeitgeist, the courage to follow our convictions on this matter, and the courage to uphold the Constitution.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Sofia, if you have not seen that Moyers interview with John Nichols and Bruce Fein, do not miss it. I predict you'll be convinced, especially after hearing from Fein, who drafted the articles of impeachment against Clinton. To Fein, that was quite simple; Clinton lied under oath, and that is a crime. It was a stupid issue to be pursuing, as it had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton's ability to govern, but it exposed the craven desperation on the part of the Republicans to get anything on Bill they could possibly dig up. Tabloid oversight, if you will.
But listen to Fein make the comparisons; it's a real rallying cry to hear the guy who wrote Clinton's impeachment papers note just how much worse this administration has been, and specifically in terms of governance, which is what really matters.
I do not mean to pick on you, Sofia, as I know you give a lot of thought to all your comments. However, you and everyone else should know the reasons why I'm so charged up about this point. One reason is that I got into the exact same debate with an old friend last weekend, and was surprised because he and I have rarely disagreed on any political issue we've discussed. My position is this: Impeachment is our duty in situations such as we now find ourselves.
The other reason is that another old friend of mine (well, at this point it's likely best to say "acquaintance," as so many many years have passed), Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) is actually working with Bruce Fein to draw up articles of impeachment against Gonzalez. I'm pretty excited about this, and right proud of ol' Steve for seeing impeachment as a duty to the country and the Constitution.
But back to my list of reasons why impeachment is such a good idea and why we can't take a defeatist attitude toward it. My second reason has to do with that duty thing; to act (or not) on the defeatist concerns is a political position, whereas we need to be taking a principled position. The political position is precisely where Rove has taken politics, although he's had a lot of historical help along the way; it's a human inclination to be so manipulative, but we should always strive to overcome it. When the Democratic party starts deferring to the more politically expedient position in matters of such grave consequence as these, when we allow ourselves to become more concerned with winning than in holding to our integrity, then we will have succumbed to their level. I say we should resist this inclination with every fiber in our bodies (without being utterly foolish, of course).
Yet another reason we should avoid the defeatist attitude about impeachment is that we really do not know what kind of numbers we'd have after the hearing starts up. If you're too young to know or remember, the polls for impeachment of Nixon were very low early on in the hearings. It was only after more and more evidence kept turning up that not even the Republican loyalists could risk staying with Tricky Dick. If you look at the polls since all these recent hearings started up - and I remind you, that was only seven months ago - more and more people are getting the message, and it is decidedly not good for Bush. If the numbers continue to rise as more damning evidence pours in, the politicians will have to rethink their position, just as they've had to do with their stance on our occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, impeachment is successful if the House votes to impeach, and that would seem even at this early stage to be a fait accompli. The vote for removal is another matter, of course, but I hardly think that we should be using the public backfire and reversal of fortune we saw with Clinton as a predictor for what might happen with Bush. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that, should the Senate vote not to remove him, it is those Senators casting nay votes who will suffer, not the ones who vote yea, the opposite of what happened with Clinton.
Finally (at least for now), I'm frankly undeterred by an acquittal in the Senate, in that there are so damn many crimes on which we could pursue an impeachment, we can always move on to the next one. This will be especially possible if there is a huge public outcry if the Senate does not vote to remove from office. And this goes for the lot of 'em, and there will of course be plenty of crimes left after the processes are spent to enable trials within the court system.
In other words, impeachment does not have to stand for the address of each and every violation of Bush's oath of office, or Cheney's or Gonzo's. These hoodlums have committed so many crimes they'll keep the courts busy for a long while to come. Provided, of course, the international courts don't hang them first.
So this is good, right; start small, work our way up, nail Gonzo first, then Cheney, then Bush, build each case, keep it narrow and clean, don't try to pull in every hangnail and parking ticket, just target the most egregious. And do our duty:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. (emphasis mine)Most important, keep calling your reps to let them know where you stand and to show your appreciation of their work. Call early, call often, and point out only one heinous crime at a time so you can spread your outrage around. If the duty of the Congress is to impeach for these crimes, then it is our duty as citizens to make our voices heard.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Rest for the Weary
dr. elsewhere here
Been gone so long looks like new to me.
I refuse to bore any of you with the perils of Pauline here, but I do want to say that I have both missed you all, and not. I have both missed feeding my obsession with over-saturation from all things political and analytical, and not.
We all need a break from the insanity after a time, for a time.
But who would have guessed both Joseph and I would be forced into breaks at the same time, for entirely different reasons?
Because this blog is so personal, I feel the need to be honest. But also because this blog is so personal, I also feel the need to be private. Which is, in itself, honest.
Truth is, we are each tending to our own needs just now; Joe has just commenced his "retreat," and I am trying to collect myself for ending my own. The past couple of days, our absences have overlapped, and so I want to extend an apology on behalf of Joe for the lack of new postings of late.
My own apologies have been scolded in the past, but despite my deep desires to opine and wax ...well, arrogant if not eloquent... upon the astounding tragicomedy that is our current government, my own world has been too much with me.
All that being said, Joe may be off line for a short while, and I will do my best to keep something posted on a semi-regular basis. Now more than ever I am intimated by the task, and know I could never fill his shoes, but I will try to bring a few notions and observations to your attention, hopefully provoking thought and not ire.
Consistent with Joe's position, I am not terribly interested in fielding anguish or nastiness; such commentary will be summarily dismissed. Sorry, but I learned this in kindergarten, and if you didn't, well then, that is just sad for you, not just here, but in your life.
However, Joe recently noted that, after spending some time on other blogs with their commenters, the readership here is pretty darn sophisticated, on the whole. In fact, the readers were always the luscious icing on this rich and unique cake that is cannonfire, the blog, and also a large reason I was so excited when Joe invited me to contribute.
So, I am inviting all of you - especially the regulars (you know who you are) - to tilt your heads at a novel angle and consider first some very concrete suggestions about how we can create some kind of megaphone effect in getting Congress to impeach this administration. Like, NOW.
I mean, do we not have enough information yet? Are we doomed to simply and fretfully record all the myriad reasons why this gang of thugs and traitors is criminally anti-Constitutional? Or can we act to save our government, and what should that look like?
And please do not interpret this to mean that I am one of the angry Democrats who is turning on our own. Like Joe, I believe the Dem leadership is doing about as well as anyone of us could expect to do. But I also believe that they will act with greater confidence and conviction when our voices are loud, and certainly when they are deafening. So... any ideas?? And let's be both principled and practical, shall we?
And while your heads are tilted just so, I'd also like you to consider just what a remarkable gift we have all experienced in this blogmeister that is Joseph. Don't worry; his life is not in any danger, and he will be fine. In fact, he is fine, quite fine, as we all know. But - and I know this may come as a shock to some - he is human, and he needs this break, and he's taking it.
I have needed mine, and it sure would be a bit more perfect if the timing were better and my break were fully over so that your reading pleasure would be minimally disturbed. But life isn't perfect, so here we are. We'll get through this best we can.
And like most crises, major and minor, we'll be the better for it, especially insofar as we are forgiving.
Thanks so much, and I'll get back with you later tomorrow, after a day of traveling.
Been gone so long looks like new to me.
I refuse to bore any of you with the perils of Pauline here, but I do want to say that I have both missed you all, and not. I have both missed feeding my obsession with over-saturation from all things political and analytical, and not.
We all need a break from the insanity after a time, for a time.
But who would have guessed both Joseph and I would be forced into breaks at the same time, for entirely different reasons?
Because this blog is so personal, I feel the need to be honest. But also because this blog is so personal, I also feel the need to be private. Which is, in itself, honest.
Truth is, we are each tending to our own needs just now; Joe has just commenced his "retreat," and I am trying to collect myself for ending my own. The past couple of days, our absences have overlapped, and so I want to extend an apology on behalf of Joe for the lack of new postings of late.
My own apologies have been scolded in the past, but despite my deep desires to opine and wax ...well, arrogant if not eloquent... upon the astounding tragicomedy that is our current government, my own world has been too much with me.
All that being said, Joe may be off line for a short while, and I will do my best to keep something posted on a semi-regular basis. Now more than ever I am intimated by the task, and know I could never fill his shoes, but I will try to bring a few notions and observations to your attention, hopefully provoking thought and not ire.
Consistent with Joe's position, I am not terribly interested in fielding anguish or nastiness; such commentary will be summarily dismissed. Sorry, but I learned this in kindergarten, and if you didn't, well then, that is just sad for you, not just here, but in your life.
However, Joe recently noted that, after spending some time on other blogs with their commenters, the readership here is pretty darn sophisticated, on the whole. In fact, the readers were always the luscious icing on this rich and unique cake that is cannonfire, the blog, and also a large reason I was so excited when Joe invited me to contribute.
So, I am inviting all of you - especially the regulars (you know who you are) - to tilt your heads at a novel angle and consider first some very concrete suggestions about how we can create some kind of megaphone effect in getting Congress to impeach this administration. Like, NOW.
I mean, do we not have enough information yet? Are we doomed to simply and fretfully record all the myriad reasons why this gang of thugs and traitors is criminally anti-Constitutional? Or can we act to save our government, and what should that look like?
And please do not interpret this to mean that I am one of the angry Democrats who is turning on our own. Like Joe, I believe the Dem leadership is doing about as well as anyone of us could expect to do. But I also believe that they will act with greater confidence and conviction when our voices are loud, and certainly when they are deafening. So... any ideas?? And let's be both principled and practical, shall we?
And while your heads are tilted just so, I'd also like you to consider just what a remarkable gift we have all experienced in this blogmeister that is Joseph. Don't worry; his life is not in any danger, and he will be fine. In fact, he is fine, quite fine, as we all know. But - and I know this may come as a shock to some - he is human, and he needs this break, and he's taking it.
I have needed mine, and it sure would be a bit more perfect if the timing were better and my break were fully over so that your reading pleasure would be minimally disturbed. But life isn't perfect, so here we are. We'll get through this best we can.
And like most crises, major and minor, we'll be the better for it, especially insofar as we are forgiving.
Thanks so much, and I'll get back with you later tomorrow, after a day of traveling.
Monday, August 20, 2007
More on Larry Kolb, "Overworld," Muhammad Ali, and Al Sharpton
A few posts down, I discussed Larry Kolb's book Overworld, which details his history with Adnan Khashoggi, Muhammad Ali, and the CIA. Espionage runs in the family: Kolb's father Lewis Kolb was, we are told, a senior counterintelligence officer operating out of the Philippines.
Frankly, I had come to believe that the family name was something other than Kolb, since no-one by that name appears in any CIA history known to me, and Google does not link to any independent source confirming that there once was a spy named Lewis Kolb. But son Larry assures me that the man did exist, and he has provided evidence to that effect. I reproduce, with permission, a photograph of Lewis Kolb, as well as a relevant section from a WWII-era document. (Kolb retains copyright on these images, so don't reproduce them without permission.)
Well, now I feel silly for ever suspecting that Ed Lansdale's kid became part of Muhammad Ali's posse.
Another correction: In my original post, I said that L. Fletcher Prouty had identified Lansdale as one of the three "mystery tramps" photographed in Dealey Plaza on you-know-which date. In fact, Prouty identified as Lansdale another man who seemed to be signaling the tramps while passing. Daniel Ellsberg, who also knew Lansdale well, disputes this idea.
The book contains all sort of juicy information. One tidbit I wanted to pass along here concerns Al Sharpton, who -- according to Overworld -- was forever trying to ingratiate himself into Ali's entourage.
Kolb does not mention when he first disclosed his CIA connection to Ali -- a connection which puts Sharpton's "spying" into perspective. Ali must have learned about Kolb's history at some point. A later episode in the book pictures Ali and Kolb receiving a direct request from (then) Vice President George H.W. Bush to participate in efforts to free the hostages in Lebanon -- which Ali went on to do, at no small personal risk. Unfortunately, he was able to secure the release of but one hostage.
Interestingly, this passage of Kolb's book portrays the elder Bush as the real power within the Reagan administration, much as Cheney seems to be the real power in the current administration.
Frankly, I had come to believe that the family name was something other than Kolb, since no-one by that name appears in any CIA history known to me, and Google does not link to any independent source confirming that there once was a spy named Lewis Kolb. But son Larry assures me that the man did exist, and he has provided evidence to that effect. I reproduce, with permission, a photograph of Lewis Kolb, as well as a relevant section from a WWII-era document. (Kolb retains copyright on these images, so don't reproduce them without permission.)Well, now I feel silly for ever suspecting that Ed Lansdale's kid became part of Muhammad Ali's posse.
Another correction: In my original post, I said that L. Fletcher Prouty had identified Lansdale as one of the three "mystery tramps" photographed in Dealey Plaza on you-know-which date. In fact, Prouty identified as Lansdale another man who seemed to be signaling the tramps while passing. Daniel Ellsberg, who also knew Lansdale well, disputes this idea.
The book contains all sort of juicy information. One tidbit I wanted to pass along here concerns Al Sharpton, who -- according to Overworld -- was forever trying to ingratiate himself into Ali's entourage.
Reverend Al was just Reverend Al. Around so much of the time, and usually so quiet you barely even noticed when he was there and when he wasn't.Not exactly the way I'd phrase it. But I do think this story belongs on the internet record somewhere, since Wikipedia's entry on Sharpton makes no mention of this Newsday interview. Kolb goes on to say that the feds had compromised Sharpton during a cocaine bust, which Sharpton claims was a set-up.
Then one afternoon I was in the Soup Burg on Madison Avenue at 73rd...reading the sports section of New York Newsday I'd found on my stool when I sat down. And when I finished with the sports and flipped the paper over tot he front page, there was a big black-and-white photograph of Reverend Al looking shifty and a huge headline: THE MINISTER AND THE FEDS.
Under that, I read: "For the last five years, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jr., one of the city's most vocal and visible black activists, has been secretly supplying federal law enforcement agencies with information on boxing promoter Don King, reputed organized crime leaders and black leaders and elected officials, according to sources. And in a two-hour, wide-ranging interview with New York Newsday, Sharpton, 33, said he carried concealed microphones in briefcases and accompanied undercover federal agents wearing body recorders to meetings with various subjects of federal investigations. He also allowed the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York to install a tapped telephone in his Brooklyn home."
Al Fuckin' Sharpton, I thought in surprise as I stared into his face. I should've known. Al Sharpton! Muhammad had always said the government had someone spying on him or, as he liked to put it, that there was a "nigger in the woodpile."
Kolb does not mention when he first disclosed his CIA connection to Ali -- a connection which puts Sharpton's "spying" into perspective. Ali must have learned about Kolb's history at some point. A later episode in the book pictures Ali and Kolb receiving a direct request from (then) Vice President George H.W. Bush to participate in efforts to free the hostages in Lebanon -- which Ali went on to do, at no small personal risk. Unfortunately, he was able to secure the release of but one hostage.
Interestingly, this passage of Kolb's book portrays the elder Bush as the real power within the Reagan administration, much as Cheney seems to be the real power in the current administration.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Karl Rove's big gay dad liked to put needles in his wee-wee
WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS AN EXPLICIT IMAGE.
IF YOU ARE AT WORK OR IN MIXED COMPANY, YOU MAY WANT TO THINK TWICE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN.
We have known for a while now that Karl Rove's adoptive father was homosexual. Despite his labors on behalf of an anti-gay administration, the younger Rove always spoke of his father with "fierce admiration, love, and loyalty."
Only recently have we learned about the elder Rove's fondness for piercing his penis: See here and here. (Thanks to a reader for bringing these pieces to my attention.)
The rather explicit image below comes to us by way of BMEzine. (The "BM" stands for Body Modification.) That esteemed periodical presumably acquired the image from an old issue of PFIQ.
Originally, I balked at reproducing this picture. Some of you may be at work, while others may be not find this photograph the most pleasant thing to look at while eating Post Toasties.
But I feel that the public has a right to know the truth about the Rove family. After all, Karl has long used "family values" as a cudgel against Democrats. John Kerry would be president today if fear of sexual "deviance" had not mobilized the religious right.
Let me also stress that what bothers me here has nothing to do with either sexual identity or body modification. A few girlfriends back, I used to know a lady with pierced nipples, which I found rather sexy, especially when she wore those rings with the little black skulls. (Okay, so the goth thing is one of my weaknesses.) I'm hardly in a position to be judgmental about personal choices of this sort.
What bugs me about Rove is the hypocrisy. We all know how he would use such photographs against a political enemy. Turnabout is fair play.
So without further ado....
....herrrrrrrrrre's Louie!
IF YOU ARE AT WORK OR IN MIXED COMPANY, YOU MAY WANT TO THINK TWICE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN.
We have known for a while now that Karl Rove's adoptive father was homosexual. Despite his labors on behalf of an anti-gay administration, the younger Rove always spoke of his father with "fierce admiration, love, and loyalty."
Only recently have we learned about the elder Rove's fondness for piercing his penis: See here and here. (Thanks to a reader for bringing these pieces to my attention.)
"Karl Rove's father was not only gay, but a part of the early body piercing scene and a regular at 70s piercing parties...Karl's dad -- his name was Louie -- was a cover model for a journal called PFIQ -- Piercing Fans International Quarterly.
The rather explicit image below comes to us by way of BMEzine. (The "BM" stands for Body Modification.) That esteemed periodical presumably acquired the image from an old issue of PFIQ.
Originally, I balked at reproducing this picture. Some of you may be at work, while others may be not find this photograph the most pleasant thing to look at while eating Post Toasties.
But I feel that the public has a right to know the truth about the Rove family. After all, Karl has long used "family values" as a cudgel against Democrats. John Kerry would be president today if fear of sexual "deviance" had not mobilized the religious right.
Let me also stress that what bothers me here has nothing to do with either sexual identity or body modification. A few girlfriends back, I used to know a lady with pierced nipples, which I found rather sexy, especially when she wore those rings with the little black skulls. (Okay, so the goth thing is one of my weaknesses.) I'm hardly in a position to be judgmental about personal choices of this sort.
What bugs me about Rove is the hypocrisy. We all know how he would use such photographs against a political enemy. Turnabout is fair play.
So without further ado....
....herrrrrrrrrre's Louie!
Mueller, Ashcroft, the NSA
Chris Matthews annoys me, but the above segment is worth watching. Everything we've learned is, in my opinion, consistent with the theory that Ashcroft and Comey refused to sign off on using the NSA for domestic spying purposes
Check out what Kagro X has to say over at the Next Hurrah. First, this section from the Washington Post's coverage:
In his notes, Mueller recounts Comey's statement that Ashcroft complained to Gonzales and Card at the hospital about being "barred" from obtaining "the advice he needed" about the NSA program because of "strict compartmentalization rules" set by the White House. Although Ashcroft, as attorney general, had been fully briefed about the program, many of his senior legal advisers were not allowed to know about it, officials said.As Kagro X summarizes, "they kept the AG purposefully underinformed, even as they pointed to his "authorization" as proof of legality."
We also learn the the Office of Professional Responsibility, charged with investigating the program, was denied clearance to do so.
Why would Bushco systematically destroy all oversight? To hide a serious violation of the law -- or so I suspect.
Only Congress can get have any hope of learning what NSA was and is up to. I think we have clues -- not proof, but clues -- which would buttress the suggestion that the NSA's "vacuum cleaner" approach was used to scoop up information on Bush's political enemies in an election year.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Spy stuff: Plots against Kerry and Kennedy
I'm trying to figure out Larry Kolb.He is a "former" CIA man, confidant of Muhammad Ali and son-in-law to Adnan Khashoggi. Kolb's name came up during the 2004 election, when he claimed that a crooked Republican party operative named Richard Hirschfeld had worked out a scheme to concoct a false tie between Al Qaeda and the Kerry/Edwards campaign. The plot didn't pan out.
In 2005, Hirschfeld was found dead in a prison cell. According to Kolb, he had attempted to blackmail Bush.
A couple of days ago, I picked up Kolb's autobiographical Overworld. I'm trying to make up my mind as to what to think about it. This work has genuine literary merit; I don't think I've ever encountered a better-written book by a spy. But the author makes clear that he cannot or will not tell the full truth -- which means that any reader must prepare himself for a rather substantial frustration factor.
Kolb identifies his father as a "senior United States intelligence official," yet I've never heard of a man named Kolb who would fit this description. I suspect that any truly senior CIA man of that first generation would have received some mention in the literature by this point. Alas, the only Kolb to appear in Namebase is a WWII Army intelligence officer named Eugene, who does not appear to be the same man. A Google search turns up goose eggs, except for those links which lead us back to Larry Kolb's own writings.
Of his father, Larry writes:
There was Lewis Jackson Kolb and there was Jack Cobb. My father was both of them and neither of them...This passage hints that the man's real name was quite different. But why would Larry Kolb hide his father's identity while giving the real names of so many other figures?
The resume of "Lewis Kolb" reminds me of the remarkable career of Ed Lansdale. Both did service in the Philippines, and both had homes in Colorado. But the physical descriptions, birthplaces and the years of death do not match. Larry Kolb may have altered those details to make matters difficult for guys like me.
Another possibility: Perhaps Kolb is of Jewish heritage. He may wish to hide his ancestry from his father-in-law's associates.
Overworld, which I have not yet finished, is filled with fascinating anecdotes, a few of which I will relate at a later time. But one bit at the end (yes, I skipped ahead) struck me as particularly intriguing.
Having made rather too many enemies in the clandestine world, Kolbe finds himself in a safe house in Florida. He spends a number of pages indicating that this small town functions as a sort of retirement village for spooks. (In much the same way, old carnies would retire to Gibtown, also in Florida.) Faded spies are everywhere. Even the guy who bags his groceries is an old KGB defector -- literally a bag-man.
And guess who else happens to live in Spook Central?
There was also John Forrester Gedney. Mr. Gedney retired recently after more than twenty years as a code inspector, inspecting houses, like mine, for compliance with building codes. You may have heard his name in the movie J.F.K., or read it in a book. For, as Mr. Gedney announced, and proved, last year [2003], he was one of the three railway tramps arrested behind the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He was the tall one in the grainy, mysterious photograph used so often by conspiracy theorists as evidence that the CIA and other dark forces were behind the assassination of our president.Actually, Gedney is not mentioned in Oliver Stone's 1991 film; he had not "come out" at that time.
Gedny shared a cell block with Lee Harvey Oswald. Unlike Oswald, Gedney made it out alive...
The film does reference the identification made by the late CIA/Air Force liaison L. Fletcher Prouty -- who felt that the "tramp" in question was none other than Edward Lansdale, with whom Prouty worked closely. (Lansdale later said that he considered Prouty too paranoid!) The photographic identification was seconded by Lt. General Victor Krulak., who also knew Lansdale well.As noted earlier, I suspect that Larry Kolb may be the son of Ed Lansdale.
And even if he is not, we can still safely presume that "Lewis Kolb" worked closely with Lansdale in the Philippines. The man Prouty believed was in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 was either Larry's Dad or one of his many spooky "Uncles."
Also worth noting: Larry Kolb mentions, in his acknowledgments, that he asked Oliver Stone to read the manuscript of his book. How did Kolb come to know Stone? I have heard previously that Stone made an attempt to contact Lansdale's family.
Is Kolb hinting that we should take another look at the Gedney story? While fingerprint evidence does place Gedney in the Dallas jail that day, such evidence can be, as the spies say, "backstopped." We really only have Gedney's word for it that he was a vagabond and a tramp at that point in his life.
One can easily comprehend why the Agency would want to place one of their own contacts near Oswald in that jail.
Gedney lives in Melbourne, Florida. Presumably, this was the location of Kolb's safe house -- and of all those other "former" intelligence officers, including the KGB guy turned bag-man. (The name of the town is not mentioned in Overworld.) Melbourne also happens to be the home town of two private "spooked up" airlines run by the notorious Blackwater corporation.
If you happen to pass through that burg, and if you run into either John Gedney or Larry Kolb, tell 'em I said "Hi."
Friday, August 17, 2007
A quick note on Padilla
The Padilla case contains many outrageous details. The one I find most intriguing concerned the so-called Al Qaeda terrorist training "application form":
In an earlier post, I argued that Padilla -- a gang member doing time for a murder committed as a juvenile -- made a deal in which he was agreed to do undercover work in exchange for being allowed to go free. I am hardly the only person to consider this theory, which would go some ways toward explaining the government's fixation on this man.
A covert CIA officer -- who testified in disguise at Padilla's trial -- said he was given the form in Afghanistan, and a fingerprint expert found Padilla's prints on the form, prosecutors said.Tricking a mentally incapacitated man into handling a document doesn't strike me as a difficult task. Even so, I believe that there are ways to transfer a fingerprint onto a page without direct contact.
"The al Qaeda application virtually sealed his fate," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. He compared the document's value as evidence to "putting a duffle bag with severed heads on the table."
But Michael Caruso, Padilla's defense attorney, said the prints on the form were not consistent with someone who filled out the document.
"Jose at some point handled the document, but did not fill out the form," Caruso said.
In an earlier post, I argued that Padilla -- a gang member doing time for a murder committed as a juvenile -- made a deal in which he was agreed to do undercover work in exchange for being allowed to go free. I am hardly the only person to consider this theory, which would go some ways toward explaining the government's fixation on this man.
Bush: President for life
Dubya's remaining supporters keep finding new ways to go mad. Submitted for your disapproval: The case of Phil Atkinson -- author, philosopher, and leading member of a group called Family Security Matters. I can't improve on Gary Buell's summary:
I checked out Atkinson's site, and discovered his methodology for determining whether a society is in decline:
Atkinson also believes that the following claims are "popular delusions," completely lacking in merit or evidence:
Someone should ask Dick Cheney why he pals around with a guy who scoffs at the very notion of democracy. (See here.) Perhaps John Edwards should have mentioned Family Security Matters during his debate with Cheney.
By the way, Phil: If you intend to lecture others on the proper use of the English language, you may want to double-check your own grammar and punctuation. You write like a kid.
Last week I posted a book review of William Smatt's book The Messiah in which he argues that George W. Bush is the Messiah. But William Smatt has nothing on Phillip Atkinson--he recently published a piece on the website of Family Security Matters in which he argues that Bush should name himself President-for-Life and then use whatever means necessary, including genocide, to defend Western Civilization. The Family Security Matters website quickly deleted the piece but the google cache is still available.Dick Cheney has joined a select club represented by a man who supports the idea of Dubya as President for life. Would that make Dick the Veep for life? As for Woolsey -- well, I think he has finally surpassed Richard Helms in the "wackiest DCI ever" competition.
Mr. Atkinson is described as a philosopher and the author of A Study of Our Decline. Family Security Matters, according to Cliff Schecter, has on its board "Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and...drum roll...Dick Cheney."
I checked out Atkinson's site, and discovered his methodology for determining whether a society is in decline:
An undeniable symptom of the malaise is the deliberate use of more words than necessary, such as invoking "at this moment in time" instead of "now", or "the state of the art" instead of "latest".Now you know why George Bush must become President For Life. Only he can restore the English language.
Atkinson also believes that the following claims are "popular delusions," completely lacking in merit or evidence:
# AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease caused by the HIV virus.Only a fool would believe such nonsense.
# CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) cause a hole in the Ozone layer so their use must be banned.
# Corpulence is the result of eating too much.
# Democracy is good government
# DDT, (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane ) must be banned to avoid a 'Silent Spring'
# Eating beef from cattle afflicted by Mad Cow Disease will cause a brain rotting disease.
# Global Warming is a threat to human existence.
# Jobs for all are essential for economic prosperity.
Someone should ask Dick Cheney why he pals around with a guy who scoffs at the very notion of democracy. (See here.) Perhaps John Edwards should have mentioned Family Security Matters during his debate with Cheney.
By the way, Phil: If you intend to lecture others on the proper use of the English language, you may want to double-check your own grammar and punctuation. You write like a kid.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Pain
(Non-political posts occasionally appear on weekends. This isn't the weekend. I don't care.)
Why are doctors so loathe to prescribe pain medications these days?
Twelve years ago, after a molar flare-up, I had to wait two days for oral surgery. The dentist gave me a prescrition for some codeine. A very similar situation occurred a year or so ago -- but this time, the dentist told me to take acetaminophin.
For some time now, a bout of sciatica has kept me away from the computer -- away, in fact, from any activity requiring me to maintain a non-horizontal position for more than ten minutes. This fact has somewhat soured my famously sweet disposition. (So has sparring with stubborn folk who pretend to be experts on a law they refuse to read. But that’s an issue for another time.)
Sciatica occurs when a herniated disk pinches the main nerve running through the leg. The resultant sensation feels as though one has thousands of tiny goblins lodged inside the thigh and calf muscles, using knives to stab their way out.
My mother had the same affliction. In her case, it signaled the presence of the lung cancer which killed her little more than a year later. (The cancer had metastasized to her vertebrae.) Trannies and Dem-haters will be sorry to learn that I do not smoke, and will therefore probably remain around to annoy people for some years to come.
Normally, nothing short of alien abduction could ever get me to enter a doctor’s office, but when sitting down becomes impossible, earning money becomes impossible. The doctor did all the usual unnecessary things -- checking blood pressure, measuring height -- then shot an unnamed “pain reliever” into my butt. She also gave me a bottle of the same pain reliever.
After hobbling home, I read the label and discovered that this “pain reliever” was Naproxin -- sold over the counter as Alleve. Infuriated, I called the doctor.
“You charged me $210 for that visit,” I reminded her in an other-than-sweet tone of voice. “And all I got was the same stuff I bought at the pharmacy two days ago for $3.99. It doesn’t work.”
“This is a stronger dose,” she explained.
“It’s equivalent to two pills of the $3.99 stuff!” I answered. “So what’s the difference?” Actually, I already knew the difference: $206.01. “Look, did you honestly think I was malingering?”
“Oh no,” she answered. “I’m sure you have sciatica. It can be very painful.”
“So how painful does it have to be before you give me some real pain relief?”
“Like what?”
Like what? I was ready to drop-kick the phone. She’s the doctor, and I have to tell her?
Imagine the following words delivered in a note-perfect imitation of John Cleese returning the dead parrot:
“Like CODEINE! Vicodin! Morphine! Demarol! Tylenol 3! I don’t care if you give me Bin Laden-brand smack smuggled in from the back streets of Kandahar. Next time I place a pill down my throat, I want to know that a poppy was involved in its manufacture!”
After another few minutes of high-decibel “sweet talking,” I finally convinced her that the Norwegian Blue had gone to join the choir invisible. In other words, she filled out the damned scrip.
For chrissakes, I don’t take pills to get goofy. This ain’t about fun. All I want is to be able to sit down to earn money to pay rent.
Doctors used to be in business of pain relief. What changed?
On the other hand:
A small taste of chronic pain has many virtues.
Pain allows one to see through new eyes. Look over here: The earthquake victims in Peru. Look over there: The massacre of the Yezidis. Look at the suffering masses in Darfur and Palestine and a hundred other places -- not to mention the cancer ward or emergency room at your local hospital.
Right now, American soldiers labor under a blazingly hot Iraqi sun, undergoing unimaginable stresses as they do their duty in this obscene, misbegotten war. Too many of those soldiers will come home with spinal cord injuries or missing limbs.
America’s best are dealing with problems worse than I’ve ever had to face, and too many of them will confront their challenges for the rest of their lives. My sciatica will clear up within a month, probably sooner. A temporary loss of mobility, however inconvenient, has taught me a lesson I hope never to forget.
I’m one lucky son of a bitch.
Why are doctors so loathe to prescribe pain medications these days?
Twelve years ago, after a molar flare-up, I had to wait two days for oral surgery. The dentist gave me a prescrition for some codeine. A very similar situation occurred a year or so ago -- but this time, the dentist told me to take acetaminophin.
For some time now, a bout of sciatica has kept me away from the computer -- away, in fact, from any activity requiring me to maintain a non-horizontal position for more than ten minutes. This fact has somewhat soured my famously sweet disposition. (So has sparring with stubborn folk who pretend to be experts on a law they refuse to read. But that’s an issue for another time.)
Sciatica occurs when a herniated disk pinches the main nerve running through the leg. The resultant sensation feels as though one has thousands of tiny goblins lodged inside the thigh and calf muscles, using knives to stab their way out.
My mother had the same affliction. In her case, it signaled the presence of the lung cancer which killed her little more than a year later. (The cancer had metastasized to her vertebrae.) Trannies and Dem-haters will be sorry to learn that I do not smoke, and will therefore probably remain around to annoy people for some years to come.
Normally, nothing short of alien abduction could ever get me to enter a doctor’s office, but when sitting down becomes impossible, earning money becomes impossible. The doctor did all the usual unnecessary things -- checking blood pressure, measuring height -- then shot an unnamed “pain reliever” into my butt. She also gave me a bottle of the same pain reliever.
After hobbling home, I read the label and discovered that this “pain reliever” was Naproxin -- sold over the counter as Alleve. Infuriated, I called the doctor.
“You charged me $210 for that visit,” I reminded her in an other-than-sweet tone of voice. “And all I got was the same stuff I bought at the pharmacy two days ago for $3.99. It doesn’t work.”
“This is a stronger dose,” she explained.
“It’s equivalent to two pills of the $3.99 stuff!” I answered. “So what’s the difference?” Actually, I already knew the difference: $206.01. “Look, did you honestly think I was malingering?”
“Oh no,” she answered. “I’m sure you have sciatica. It can be very painful.”
“So how painful does it have to be before you give me some real pain relief?”
“Like what?”
Like what? I was ready to drop-kick the phone. She’s the doctor, and I have to tell her?
Imagine the following words delivered in a note-perfect imitation of John Cleese returning the dead parrot:
“Like CODEINE! Vicodin! Morphine! Demarol! Tylenol 3! I don’t care if you give me Bin Laden-brand smack smuggled in from the back streets of Kandahar. Next time I place a pill down my throat, I want to know that a poppy was involved in its manufacture!”
After another few minutes of high-decibel “sweet talking,” I finally convinced her that the Norwegian Blue had gone to join the choir invisible. In other words, she filled out the damned scrip.
For chrissakes, I don’t take pills to get goofy. This ain’t about fun. All I want is to be able to sit down to earn money to pay rent.
Doctors used to be in business of pain relief. What changed?
On the other hand:
A small taste of chronic pain has many virtues.
Pain allows one to see through new eyes. Look over here: The earthquake victims in Peru. Look over there: The massacre of the Yezidis. Look at the suffering masses in Darfur and Palestine and a hundred other places -- not to mention the cancer ward or emergency room at your local hospital.
Right now, American soldiers labor under a blazingly hot Iraqi sun, undergoing unimaginable stresses as they do their duty in this obscene, misbegotten war. Too many of those soldiers will come home with spinal cord injuries or missing limbs.
America’s best are dealing with problems worse than I’ve ever had to face, and too many of them will confront their challenges for the rest of their lives. My sciatica will clear up within a month, probably sooner. A temporary loss of mobility, however inconvenient, has taught me a lesson I hope never to forget.
I’m one lucky son of a bitch.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The final word on Karl
Actually, part of the final word belongs to Josh Marshall:
Is it me or is the most remarkable thing about Karl Rove's resignation that it seems almost like a non-event? I had the feeling as the day wore on that all of us in the news and commentary business were trying to make it a big event. But somehow it just wasn't there.I would sugest that progressives now hate the Democratic party so much that they no longer care much about Karl Rove.
Three scenarios
Scenario 1: It’s 2009, and President Gore has appointed Calvin Cleancut to be his Attorney General.
Calvin receives an urgent intelligence briefing: Notorious arms dealer Viktor Bout has just sent a text message to an unknown party in Illinois, someone who may or may not be a U.S. citizen. The message reads:
“LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. A CONTACT TELLS ME THAT A BIG PARTY WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE SEARS TOWER TODAY.”
(I pick Bout because progressives will agree that he is a genuinely dangerous man whose rolodex is filled with the names all sort of really, really, really dangerous men.)
Scenario 2: It’s 2008, and I’m having hot IRC sex with a lady in France. (In real life, I wouldn’t do this. I don’t know any dirty words in French.)
Scenario 3: It’s August 2008, and after finishing hot phone sex with the same French lady, I tell her: “By the way, I’m working for the Gore campaign now. Here’s what he’s going to unveil in the next debate…”
Now, reasonable folks will agree that the AG should get the intercepted foreign/domestic communication in scenario 1. But the AG has no business seeing the messages in 2 and definitely not 3.
How should the FISA law read?
We should all make it our business to ponder that question, because there is likely to be debate in Congress when it resumes. I’ve offered my suggested improvements in previous posts. What are yours?
(I reserve the right to delete messages that do not address the question directly. That means no weird anti-Dem "drive-bys" or wacky references to Nazis or to Jesus. We've had quite enough of that nonsense lately.)
Calvin receives an urgent intelligence briefing: Notorious arms dealer Viktor Bout has just sent a text message to an unknown party in Illinois, someone who may or may not be a U.S. citizen. The message reads:
“LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. A CONTACT TELLS ME THAT A BIG PARTY WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE SEARS TOWER TODAY.”
(I pick Bout because progressives will agree that he is a genuinely dangerous man whose rolodex is filled with the names all sort of really, really, really dangerous men.)
Scenario 2: It’s 2008, and I’m having hot IRC sex with a lady in France. (In real life, I wouldn’t do this. I don’t know any dirty words in French.)
Scenario 3: It’s August 2008, and after finishing hot phone sex with the same French lady, I tell her: “By the way, I’m working for the Gore campaign now. Here’s what he’s going to unveil in the next debate…”
Now, reasonable folks will agree that the AG should get the intercepted foreign/domestic communication in scenario 1. But the AG has no business seeing the messages in 2 and definitely not 3.
How should the FISA law read?
We should all make it our business to ponder that question, because there is likely to be debate in Congress when it resumes. I’ve offered my suggested improvements in previous posts. What are yours?
(I reserve the right to delete messages that do not address the question directly. That means no weird anti-Dem "drive-bys" or wacky references to Nazis or to Jesus. We've had quite enough of that nonsense lately.)
Monday, August 13, 2007
Why Rove is resigning
"Why did you resign?" That was the key question in The Prisoner, and it's the question we'd all like to pose to Karl Rove. Ostensibly, he's quitting to -- wait for it -- spend more time with his family.
Obviously, there's more to it than that. But what? Staying in the administration (arguably) gave him somewhat better claim to executive privilege. So why would he leave?
My best guess: He wants to work on an upcoming campaign, so he can do the same dirty work within the next Republican administration. And it will be Republican, given the facts that 1. Most progressives now hate the Democratic party more than they hate the Republicans and 2. There will be a strong third-party run by Michael Bloomberg, who will tailor his message to appeal to progressives.
My prediction: Rove will help Bloomberg campaign -- overtly or covertly. When Karl understood that the Republicans cannot win in 2008 without a split in the Democratic vote, a scheme was born.
Obviously, there's more to it than that. But what? Staying in the administration (arguably) gave him somewhat better claim to executive privilege. So why would he leave?
My best guess: He wants to work on an upcoming campaign, so he can do the same dirty work within the next Republican administration. And it will be Republican, given the facts that 1. Most progressives now hate the Democratic party more than they hate the Republicans and 2. There will be a strong third-party run by Michael Bloomberg, who will tailor his message to appeal to progressives.
My prediction: Rove will help Bloomberg campaign -- overtly or covertly. When Karl understood that the Republicans cannot win in 2008 without a split in the Democratic vote, a scheme was born.
Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping...(Emphasis added.) Of course he expects it. He planned it. Or so I speculate.
Challenge to a liar
From Xymphora, who begins by quoting me:
Of course, Xymphora counseled his readers to vote Republican in 2006. Seems to me that living in whatever planet he calls home has made him go insane.
I suppose some of you are busy cobbling together strained rationalizations for that. Just as X will no doubt come up with some strained rationalization to "prove" that I said something I never said.
And I'll betcha that he is yet another jackass braying his opinion on a law he never read.
(I suppose I should note that I cleaned up a grammatical point or two when I reprinted my response above.)
“Bad things are happening in the ‘progressive’ community. Bad things. You may not be able to see the true scope of the danger yet, but you soon will.”Response:
This is in the context of the Cannonfire attempted defense of the indefensible Democratic Party support for the new unconstitutional FISA law. What’s on for next week – the case for torture? Being in an Empire truly makes people insane.
X, you're a fucking liar. Provably.By the way, if you scroll down, you'll see that the line he quotes was not connected to the FISA legislation. The reference was in response to the bizarre suggestion that the Democrats -- not the Republicans -- committed election fraud in Ohio.
1. I have repeatedly said that I would have voted against the FISA update, especially because it weakens oversight. If you can cite a single instance where I have said otherwise, I'll pay you a hundred bucks. If you can't, admit that you are a liar -- using that word.
2. The Democratic Party did not support the law. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress voted against it.
3. If the law is unconstitutional (a determination to be made by a court, not by you or me), it is so only to the degree that the original FISA legislation was unconstitutional. Nothing has changed.
The minimization procedures, designed to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of what the law calls "U.S. persons," apply to foreign-to-domestic communications. If you read those procedures, you will see that those communications were intercepted without warrant in 1978, not just in 2007. I know that you have often been told otherwise, but read the 1978 law and you will learn the truth. If foreign/domestic communications were not being intercepted back then, those procedures would not even have existed in the original legislation.
Do I think that those procedures are adequate? No. In my view, they should be strengthened. But the fault was in the 1978 legislation, not in the 2007 update.
Of course, Xymphora counseled his readers to vote Republican in 2006. Seems to me that living in whatever planet he calls home has made him go insane.
I suppose some of you are busy cobbling together strained rationalizations for that. Just as X will no doubt come up with some strained rationalization to "prove" that I said something I never said.
And I'll betcha that he is yet another jackass braying his opinion on a law he never read.
(I suppose I should note that I cleaned up a grammatical point or two when I reprinted my response above.)
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The triumph of Dem-hate
I've been having a fun debate on FISA with Anonymous Liberal over on Crooks and Liars. He's a litigator, but I think I'm holding my own. The other comments in that thread are pretty kooky, and one in particular stood out:
Damn those Dems! I hate 'em. And you know who else I hate? Martin Luther King. He had no business shooting at James Earl Ray.
Bad things are happening in the "progressive" community. Bad things. You may not be able to see the true scope of the danger yet, but you soon will.
Actually, the state of Ohio was stolen by Democratic fraud AND incompetence.Kerry got screwed by Democratic fraud?
Damn those Dems! I hate 'em. And you know who else I hate? Martin Luther King. He had no business shooting at James Earl Ray.
Bad things are happening in the "progressive" community. Bad things. You may not be able to see the true scope of the danger yet, but you soon will.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Back to Virginia Tech
(I post this to prove that I can still show some interest in something other than FISA.)
Turns out the Virginia Tech shooting still contains mysteries:
If I recall correctly, the police never ruled out an accomplice, although the news media jumped to the conclusion that Cho acted alone.
Turns out the Virginia Tech shooting still contains mysteries:
Two days before the Virginia Tech massacre, witnesses saw a suspicious man in a hooded sweat shirt and found at least one exit door chained shut in the building where Seung Hui Cho killed 30 people, police said Friday.And:
Cho chained most of the exits of Norris Hall before firing 174 rounds of ammunition in just more than nine minutes there, but investigators said they had no indication he was the person who had chained the exit the first time.
Investigators have not found the hard drive to Cho's computers, Flaherty said.The obvious suggestion is that he destroyed the hard drive to remove evidence linking him with an accomplice. Even when overwritten, a hard drive may contain telltale traces. I don't think Cho would have destroyed the cell phone for that reason -- phone records would still exist.
"That's a piece of evidence we would love to find, along with his cell phone and possibly some other documents," he said.
If I recall correctly, the police never ruled out an accomplice, although the news media jumped to the conclusion that Cho acted alone.
All is forgiven -- and please forgive ME!
As you know, I have previously considered many of my readers ninnies. However, I did not know the true depths of ninny-ism until I ventured into other sites.
See the exchange on Crooks and Liars here (starting at reply 73), where a certifiable idiot nicknamed Big Picture accuses me of not having read a law that I repeatedly cited and quoted. And then read my exchange over on Buzzflash with a youngster who thinks he can school me -- me! -- on the history of fascism.
(Did you know that Prescott Bush gave $50 million directly to Adolf in the early '20s? Me neither!)
My god. I did not realize just how bad it is out there. Compared to those dullards, you people are gold.
I hereby formally apologize for past insinuations that some of you have had carnal intercourse with your mothers. I beg forgiveness.
That apology does not extend to the CDers. They're still motherfuckers.
See the exchange on Crooks and Liars here (starting at reply 73), where a certifiable idiot nicknamed Big Picture accuses me of not having read a law that I repeatedly cited and quoted. And then read my exchange over on Buzzflash with a youngster who thinks he can school me -- me! -- on the history of fascism.
(Did you know that Prescott Bush gave $50 million directly to Adolf in the early '20s? Me neither!)
My god. I did not realize just how bad it is out there. Compared to those dullards, you people are gold.
I hereby formally apologize for past insinuations that some of you have had carnal intercourse with your mothers. I beg forgiveness.
That apology does not extend to the CDers. They're still motherfuckers.
Have we been played?
I swore I wouldn't post about the FISA update again, but when you gotta...
Earlier, I linked to this diary entry by a Kos poster named drational, even though I thought his overall point was dubious. He has noted the Democratic disunity created by the FISA argument, and he suspects that Rove engineered the whole thing as part of a master scheme.
My initial reaction: This theory is sheer paranoia. No need to blame a malign outside agency for intra-party problems. Progressive purists have always created problems like this, long before Karl Rove got into politics.
But the more I look at the actual text of the law -- and I keep urging you folks to look at it, and you keep refusing to do so -- the more it becomes clear: It's all a ruse.
I beg you people. Open your minds a bit. Just for a minute, as an intellectual exercise. Try to break free of the thought patterns to which you have become accustomed -- and do not presume to predict where I am going with this until I have gotten there. All I am asking is that you consider a new thought.
First: People who have never read the Act keep spreading the rumor that it allows Alberto Gonzales to listen in on all electronic communications without a warrant. That is simply not true. Virtually everyone, left or right, who has read the law will confirm this point.
But many people remain psychologically addicted to the myth. It's the left-wing version of "Saddam was responsible for 9/11."
Second: As I've mentioned twice -- and as a reader helpfully noted yet again -- the American intelligence community has a special relationship with the Brits. (And with the Aussies and the Canadians.) If our spooks want to eavesdrop on domestic groups, they simply trade information with the U.K.'s equivalent of the NSA.
There was no need to update FISA if domestic spying was the objective. So why did they update FISA?
Third: What many commentators (including "experts") have told you is in the law simply is not there.
The media has whipped up an hysterical reaction over an "update" that really updates very little, and which does not function as advertised.
Yes, I identified several problems with the FISA update in earlier posts. But to be truthful, those issues were, for the most part, already present in the 1978 legislation. A Democratic Congress sure did let us down -- three decades ago.
Yes, the new law does permit warrant-free eavesdropping on foreign-domestic conversations. But guess what? So did the 1978 law. (Read it carefully; that's why the miminization procedures were put in there.)
Yes, the update gives Gonzales the ability to initiate warrant-free wiretaps. But guess what? So did the 1978 law.
A hundred bloggers or more have told you that the law allows the AG to "data mine" foreign-to-domestic communications. But the update specifies that all warrantless wiretapping shall undergo the minimization procedures designed to protect the identities of people on the domestic end. Those same procedures were enacted in 1978, in order to keep FISA in line with the Fourth Amendment. Nothing has changed.
A hundred bloggers have said that this update violates the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps -- but only to the degree that the 1978 law did.
I have said that the minimization procedures should be more stringently worded, and updated in light of new technologies. But. Those same procedures existed in the 1978 law. Nothing has changed. If this update had never come to pass, the problem would be exactly the same!
Or take section 105A of the update. Lots of folks have breathlessly proclaimed (as did Balkinization) that this is the section that "simply exempts a huge amount of international communications from FISA altogether."
Oh really? Let's have a look:
"Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
A hundred bloggers used these words as their excuse to do the Chicken Little routine, and none of them took the obvious step of looking up the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) -- originally 1801(f).
Here it is. I know that you lazy buggers won't read it, but I wish to hell that you would. Because if you did, you would learn something rather jaw-dropping:
As of 1978, the definition of "electronic surveillance" did not apply to persons outside the United States. The wording is absolutely clear and unmistakable. (I won't reprint the relevant section because it is lengthy, but you can click on the link and see for yourself.)
So the section of the law that supposedly gives Gonzales all these horrifying new powers turns out to be an innocuous and unneeded restatement of the original law!
Others, including Balkinization, think that the definition of "foreign intelligence information" is too broad. I agree. But that definition is in the original law. Nothing has changed!
As far as I can see, the update makes only one major change. The original law specified that the AG had to get a warrant to eavesdrop on terrorists overseas. Now he doesn't. (The 1978 law was directed at spy-vs-spy stuff: CIA vs. KGB.)
Newsflash: The Constitution of the United States does not extend to non-U.S persons. No foreigner has Fourth Amendment rights.
I still think the update is bad law. But the more I look at it -- and by this point, I can't keep my eyes off of it -- all of the real problems go back to the original FISA legislation, which should never have hit the books. The entire Act needs a top-to-bottom rewrite.
In short: The major media have lied to you about the sweeping changes brought about by this law. The right-wing media have lied to you. The progressive media have lied to you. They've all conspired to make you think that the text of this law says something other than what it does.
You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok.
Thousands of people have become emotionally wedded to a fake scenario: The week-kneed Dems sold us out. They allowed Alberto Gonzales to tap all of our phones and read our email without a warrant. That's the story you people love, and you're sticking to it, regardless of the facts.
Was this situation brought about intentionally? Have we been played? Does the "ruse" theory explain the odd behavior of DNI McConnell in the formulation of S1927?
Could drational's "paranoid" thesis actually have merit?
Just look at the 600-plus comments to his post left by a horde of Dem-hating dullards and dimwits. NONE of them bothered to read the law, and therefore they could not follow his argument. Nearly every single one of his readers missed the point of his piece, even though he wrote in easily comprehensible English.
And I know damn well that many of you are so wedded to the fake scenario -- so wedded to your misplaced outrage -- that you will misunderstand the thesis that I have here tried to present.
Have I stupidly misinterpreted what the law says? If you can prove that I've read this text incorrectly, I will happily apologize and publish what you have to say. I would love -- love -- to print a truly informed rebuttal. BUT YOU MUST SHOW SOME EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE READ THE DAMNED LAW!
"You" means you. Quoting someone else doesn't cut the mustard. Let's have no excuses for laziness. I am just as busy as any of you people are, and I hate legal language, yet I've managed to plough through the thing. Once again: Your homework is here and here. You can't understand the amendments without reading the original.
Earlier, I linked to this diary entry by a Kos poster named drational, even though I thought his overall point was dubious. He has noted the Democratic disunity created by the FISA argument, and he suspects that Rove engineered the whole thing as part of a master scheme.
My initial reaction: This theory is sheer paranoia. No need to blame a malign outside agency for intra-party problems. Progressive purists have always created problems like this, long before Karl Rove got into politics.
But the more I look at the actual text of the law -- and I keep urging you folks to look at it, and you keep refusing to do so -- the more it becomes clear: It's all a ruse.
I beg you people. Open your minds a bit. Just for a minute, as an intellectual exercise. Try to break free of the thought patterns to which you have become accustomed -- and do not presume to predict where I am going with this until I have gotten there. All I am asking is that you consider a new thought.
First: People who have never read the Act keep spreading the rumor that it allows Alberto Gonzales to listen in on all electronic communications without a warrant. That is simply not true. Virtually everyone, left or right, who has read the law will confirm this point.
But many people remain psychologically addicted to the myth. It's the left-wing version of "Saddam was responsible for 9/11."
Second: As I've mentioned twice -- and as a reader helpfully noted yet again -- the American intelligence community has a special relationship with the Brits. (And with the Aussies and the Canadians.) If our spooks want to eavesdrop on domestic groups, they simply trade information with the U.K.'s equivalent of the NSA.
There was no need to update FISA if domestic spying was the objective. So why did they update FISA?
Third: What many commentators (including "experts") have told you is in the law simply is not there.
The media has whipped up an hysterical reaction over an "update" that really updates very little, and which does not function as advertised.
Yes, I identified several problems with the FISA update in earlier posts. But to be truthful, those issues were, for the most part, already present in the 1978 legislation. A Democratic Congress sure did let us down -- three decades ago.
Yes, the new law does permit warrant-free eavesdropping on foreign-domestic conversations. But guess what? So did the 1978 law. (Read it carefully; that's why the miminization procedures were put in there.)
Yes, the update gives Gonzales the ability to initiate warrant-free wiretaps. But guess what? So did the 1978 law.
A hundred bloggers or more have told you that the law allows the AG to "data mine" foreign-to-domestic communications. But the update specifies that all warrantless wiretapping shall undergo the minimization procedures designed to protect the identities of people on the domestic end. Those same procedures were enacted in 1978, in order to keep FISA in line with the Fourth Amendment. Nothing has changed.
A hundred bloggers have said that this update violates the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps -- but only to the degree that the 1978 law did.
I have said that the minimization procedures should be more stringently worded, and updated in light of new technologies. But. Those same procedures existed in the 1978 law. Nothing has changed. If this update had never come to pass, the problem would be exactly the same!
Or take section 105A of the update. Lots of folks have breathlessly proclaimed (as did Balkinization) that this is the section that "simply exempts a huge amount of international communications from FISA altogether."
Oh really? Let's have a look:
"Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
A hundred bloggers used these words as their excuse to do the Chicken Little routine, and none of them took the obvious step of looking up the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) -- originally 1801(f).
Here it is. I know that you lazy buggers won't read it, but I wish to hell that you would. Because if you did, you would learn something rather jaw-dropping:
As of 1978, the definition of "electronic surveillance" did not apply to persons outside the United States. The wording is absolutely clear and unmistakable. (I won't reprint the relevant section because it is lengthy, but you can click on the link and see for yourself.)
So the section of the law that supposedly gives Gonzales all these horrifying new powers turns out to be an innocuous and unneeded restatement of the original law!
Others, including Balkinization, think that the definition of "foreign intelligence information" is too broad. I agree. But that definition is in the original law. Nothing has changed!
As far as I can see, the update makes only one major change. The original law specified that the AG had to get a warrant to eavesdrop on terrorists overseas. Now he doesn't. (The 1978 law was directed at spy-vs-spy stuff: CIA vs. KGB.)
Newsflash: The Constitution of the United States does not extend to non-U.S persons. No foreigner has Fourth Amendment rights.
I still think the update is bad law. But the more I look at it -- and by this point, I can't keep my eyes off of it -- all of the real problems go back to the original FISA legislation, which should never have hit the books. The entire Act needs a top-to-bottom rewrite.
In short: The major media have lied to you about the sweeping changes brought about by this law. The right-wing media have lied to you. The progressive media have lied to you. They've all conspired to make you think that the text of this law says something other than what it does.
You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok.
Thousands of people have become emotionally wedded to a fake scenario: The week-kneed Dems sold us out. They allowed Alberto Gonzales to tap all of our phones and read our email without a warrant. That's the story you people love, and you're sticking to it, regardless of the facts.
Was this situation brought about intentionally? Have we been played? Does the "ruse" theory explain the odd behavior of DNI McConnell in the formulation of S1927?
Could drational's "paranoid" thesis actually have merit?
Just look at the 600-plus comments to his post left by a horde of Dem-hating dullards and dimwits. NONE of them bothered to read the law, and therefore they could not follow his argument. Nearly every single one of his readers missed the point of his piece, even though he wrote in easily comprehensible English.
And I know damn well that many of you are so wedded to the fake scenario -- so wedded to your misplaced outrage -- that you will misunderstand the thesis that I have here tried to present.
Have I stupidly misinterpreted what the law says? If you can prove that I've read this text incorrectly, I will happily apologize and publish what you have to say. I would love -- love -- to print a truly informed rebuttal. BUT YOU MUST SHOW SOME EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE READ THE DAMNED LAW!
"You" means you. Quoting someone else doesn't cut the mustard. Let's have no excuses for laziness. I am just as busy as any of you people are, and I hate legal language, yet I've managed to plough through the thing. Once again: Your homework is here and here. You can't understand the amendments without reading the original.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Daniel Ellsberg needs an intervention
Calling Dr. Fielding! Daniel Ellsberg, whom I admire -- or used to admire -- needs help. In his Cindy Sheehan endorsement speech, Ellsberg indicates that a head gasket may have burst in the machineries of his mind.
In the first place, he is supporting the candidacy of a fool who has no business in Congress. I am sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss, but she's a big girl with a big audience, and she must take responsibility the far-right crapola she has been peddling lately. She has given mouth service to false claims that the income tax is unconstitutional and that the Democrats started World Wars I and II. Not long ago, only John Birchers and neo-Nazis mouthed such ludicrous sentiments.
Speaking of ludicrous sentiments, let's take a closer look at what Ellsberg has to say:
"One essential demand is for Pelosi to encourage, rather than to block, Congressional investigations of past and ongoing Administration deception, unwisdom, illegality, and unconstitutionality in pursuing an aggressive war and in curtailing our rights."
Pelosi has blocked investigations? Gosh. I don't know where Ellsberg has been vacationing, but here on planet Earth, I've noted quite a few.
I want to see more, obviously. But let's face some uncomfortable facts: The Bush administration is making slow but sure headway with their repeated claim that Congress has spent too much time investigating and not enough time making law.
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll on the subject, 32% believe that there have been too many investigations, and 39% believe that there have been too few. The numbers still favor holding Bushco accountable -- thank God -- but I consider them too close for comfort. Things look grimmer in a Los Angeles Times poll which found that a whopping 63% of the public feel that Congressional investigations of Walter Reed and the U.S. Attorney scandal were conducted to gain political advantage, not for the good of the country.
Do I think investigations should stop? Hell no! I want more, more, more. And still more. I'm just pointing out that the ice beneath your feet is thinner than you think.
So just which investigation has Pelosi actively blocked? That was the word you used, Daniel. Care to humor us with a few specifics?
Then we have the comment about "outrageous legislation purporting to legalize warrantless wiretaps and data mining." Let me restate what I've proven in several long posts. S1927 was indeed bad legislation. I support Pelosi's expressed desire to fix the problems after the recess is over. But the minimization procedures built into the law forbid data mining on American citizens. I don't know what Ellsberg has been reading, but I'll bet that he hasn't fastened his eyeballs on a single text containing the words "minimization procedures." And I'll bet he has not read the actual law.
Okay, here is where it gets really loopy:
"If we can induce her to do that, then a year from now, Cindy Sheehan should be running for an open seat, or against a brand-new incumbent appointed by our Republican governor. Nancy Pelosi, third in line for succession when Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, will be in the White House. That will, as it happens, leave an open field for Cindy.
"So you see, it's nothing personal for us. After all, as representatives of big business go, Nancy Pelosi is better than most. We don't aim to kick her out of politics; we aim to kick her upstairs. And there's a bonus: President Pelosi as a write-in candidate in November."
In other words: We want Pelosi for Prez so much that we are going to run against her and weaken her politically.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The moment Pelosi says that she wants Dick-and-Dubya to leave town, the national storyline changes. Say goodbye to the script titled "Bush: Idiot in Charge." The new script will be "Nancy: Portrait of a Coup-Plotter." She'll be the butt of jokes on Leno and Letterman for months.
I've repeatedly asked the readers of my blog to tell me what Pelosi has done on impeachment that differs in any substantial way from what her predecessor Carl Albert did in 1974. The responses amounted to nothing more than evasions, subject-switching and puerile insult. Nobody has offered any historical answers to an historical question.
Daniel, you recall that history. You were there. You lived it. Maybe you might have a go at answering my question?
And maybe you could explain to Democrats why you support someone who says that FDR -- not Hitler or Tojo -- started WWII? Maybe you could explain to everyone why you support someone who spouts right-wing crap about the Federal Reserve and the "unconstitutional" federal income tax?
Let me tell you, Daniel -- if you really believe that nonsense, then -- well, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. You need a shrink.
In the first place, he is supporting the candidacy of a fool who has no business in Congress. I am sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss, but she's a big girl with a big audience, and she must take responsibility the far-right crapola she has been peddling lately. She has given mouth service to false claims that the income tax is unconstitutional and that the Democrats started World Wars I and II. Not long ago, only John Birchers and neo-Nazis mouthed such ludicrous sentiments.
Speaking of ludicrous sentiments, let's take a closer look at what Ellsberg has to say:
"One essential demand is for Pelosi to encourage, rather than to block, Congressional investigations of past and ongoing Administration deception, unwisdom, illegality, and unconstitutionality in pursuing an aggressive war and in curtailing our rights."
Pelosi has blocked investigations? Gosh. I don't know where Ellsberg has been vacationing, but here on planet Earth, I've noted quite a few.
I want to see more, obviously. But let's face some uncomfortable facts: The Bush administration is making slow but sure headway with their repeated claim that Congress has spent too much time investigating and not enough time making law.
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll on the subject, 32% believe that there have been too many investigations, and 39% believe that there have been too few. The numbers still favor holding Bushco accountable -- thank God -- but I consider them too close for comfort. Things look grimmer in a Los Angeles Times poll which found that a whopping 63% of the public feel that Congressional investigations of Walter Reed and the U.S. Attorney scandal were conducted to gain political advantage, not for the good of the country.
Do I think investigations should stop? Hell no! I want more, more, more. And still more. I'm just pointing out that the ice beneath your feet is thinner than you think.
So just which investigation has Pelosi actively blocked? That was the word you used, Daniel. Care to humor us with a few specifics?
Then we have the comment about "outrageous legislation purporting to legalize warrantless wiretaps and data mining." Let me restate what I've proven in several long posts. S1927 was indeed bad legislation. I support Pelosi's expressed desire to fix the problems after the recess is over. But the minimization procedures built into the law forbid data mining on American citizens. I don't know what Ellsberg has been reading, but I'll bet that he hasn't fastened his eyeballs on a single text containing the words "minimization procedures." And I'll bet he has not read the actual law.
Okay, here is where it gets really loopy:
"If we can induce her to do that, then a year from now, Cindy Sheehan should be running for an open seat, or against a brand-new incumbent appointed by our Republican governor. Nancy Pelosi, third in line for succession when Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, will be in the White House. That will, as it happens, leave an open field for Cindy.
"So you see, it's nothing personal for us. After all, as representatives of big business go, Nancy Pelosi is better than most. We don't aim to kick her out of politics; we aim to kick her upstairs. And there's a bonus: President Pelosi as a write-in candidate in November."
In other words: We want Pelosi for Prez so much that we are going to run against her and weaken her politically.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The moment Pelosi says that she wants Dick-and-Dubya to leave town, the national storyline changes. Say goodbye to the script titled "Bush: Idiot in Charge." The new script will be "Nancy: Portrait of a Coup-Plotter." She'll be the butt of jokes on Leno and Letterman for months.
I've repeatedly asked the readers of my blog to tell me what Pelosi has done on impeachment that differs in any substantial way from what her predecessor Carl Albert did in 1974. The responses amounted to nothing more than evasions, subject-switching and puerile insult. Nobody has offered any historical answers to an historical question.
Daniel, you recall that history. You were there. You lived it. Maybe you might have a go at answering my question?
And maybe you could explain to Democrats why you support someone who says that FDR -- not Hitler or Tojo -- started WWII? Maybe you could explain to everyone why you support someone who spouts right-wing crap about the Federal Reserve and the "unconstitutional" federal income tax?
Let me tell you, Daniel -- if you really believe that nonsense, then -- well, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. You need a shrink.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
FISA, fantasy and facts
All over the net, one sees hysteria and myth-mongering concerning the FISA bill. This is but one example, from a writer who -- I guarantee you -- has never read the so-called "Protect America Act":
I'll present the info in Q-and-A format. If you care to correct or add to my answers, by all means do so -- but do your homework first. (That means reading past the jump.)
1. Cannon, are you defending this damned law?
No. I have argued that it is bad legislation and should have been opposed. I outline my views of the problems and the potential fixes here.
2. Does the new amendment to the FISA law allow Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to spy on domestic conversations without warrant?
No.
3. Does the new amendment to the FISA law give the current AG new powers to initiate warrantless wiretaps?
The AG has had that power since 1978. What has changed is the range of potential overseas targets. In my view, that range is now far too broad.
Another change involves this wording:
4. Can the AG obtain records of conversations between foreigners and U.S. citizens?
Yes. And this presents us with a real problem. But contrary to what you have read, it is not a new problem.
5. You mean, that kind of eavesdropping has been going on since 1978, when the FISA law was passed?
Yep. The technology has changed, but the problem remains the same.
Now you know why a lot of people opposed FISA in 1978. The current solutions to this troubling issue -- the measures designed to make FISA constitutional -- are precisely the same as in the Carter era.
5. But if the administration can gather records on foreign-to-domestic communications without a warrant, can't the AG compile all sorts of data on American citizens?
No. No, no, NO.
At least, the AG cannot do so legally.
(His willingness to act illegally is another story, one which has no bearing on the wording of legislation.)
Here we must confront a rampant false impression. We hear repeatedly that Bushco can now listen in on your chats with anyone overseas. But no-one -- not even the "experts" -- have discussed the minimization procedures.
The new FISA bill specifies that these procedures will be in place every time the AG or the Director of National Intelligence interacts with a telecommunications company.
Why do pundits and "experts" ignore these procedures? The answer will be obvious to anyone who looks at the text of the amendment. "Minimization procedures" are mentioned, but not defined. For the definition, you have to go back to the original law -- which no commentators ever bother to do. And just to make matters worse, the numbering has changed -- 101(h) was originally 1801(h).
So nobody reads the damned thing.
You see, back in 1978, the same issue of foreign-domestic chats faced the framers of FISA. Then as now, eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant conflicted with the Fourth Amendment.
Thus, legislators gave us the all-important concept of "minimization" -- procedures designed to strip away information regarding those on the domestic side of the chat. All such domestic information is supposed to be discarded within three days, except if the intel reveals an imminent crime -- for example, if Ken in Kentucky tells Francine in France about a bomb in City Hall.
6. But we can't trust Gonzales to follow those procedures!
I would not trust Alberto Gonzales if he were to say "Hello, my name is Alberto Gonzales." But his deviousness is irrelevant.
We are talking about the wording of a law which applies to more than one administration. The "minimization" wording is not in the new legislation; it's in the original act. So over the past 29 years, both the AGs you have liked (if any) and the AGs you have not liked have had to play by the same rules.
Remember, at least half the country is going to mistrust anyone who sits in the AG's chair.
Also, the update does stipulate that the AG has to offer proof to the FISA court that what he is doing stays within the law. I have previously argued that oversight should be much more stringent.
7. So you're saying that everyone is yowling about what's in this new bill, when we should all be screaming about what's in the old bill?
Yep. Look, as stated earlier, the new bill is bad legislation. It contains serious problems which must be rectified ASAP. But in my view, the fundamental issues go back to 1978. They only seem new because people haven't been paying attention until now.
I believe we should have a top-to-bottom rewrite of FISA, in light of both hard experience and new technologies.
8. But doesn't this new bill legalize the FISA violations committed previously by the Bush administration?
No. That 's why the Bush administration has not dropped the specious and outrageous argument that FISA -- in all of its incarnations -- no longer applies.
9. This whole business of eavesdropping on foreign-to-domestic conversations -- isn't that what Ashcroft and Comey refused to countenance? Isn't that the issue at the heart of that 2004 "race to the hospital" story?
We still have conflicting reports concerning just what that strange affair was all about. We know it had some connection to the so-called "terrorist surveillance program" (an after-the-fact label concocted after exposure of the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping). And we know that eight Administration officials were willing to resign over a very troubling problem arising from that program.
Simple logic tells us that whatever bothered Ashcroft and the others in the election year of 2004 went beyond eavesdropping on foreign/domestic communications related to terrorism. After all, that sort of eavesdropping had occurred before and since, and no-one threatened to resign.
drational at Daily Kos gets it:
I admit that I am speculating. You may judge whether my speculation is fanciful or probable.
10. What do you mean, "new NSA technologies"?
Well, only the folks at NSA know what's really going on over there, and they ain't telling. But we have been graced with some vague, Delphic insights into the activities of the Never Say Anything crew. A key source is this oft-cited interview with former NSA man Russell Tice.
The NSA has rooms in various telecommunications hubs, where all (all) data is intercepted and routed to ultra-massive-super-humungous computers back at headquarters.
"All" means all. ALL.
Does this "vacuum cleaner" approach conflict with the Fourth Amendment? Many of you would say yes. The NSA says no -- as long as mere machinery looks at the data.
Once the data is scooped up, it is sifted. How? I don't know. Ask the NSA -- or Russell Tice, or James Bamford, or Michael Hayden. Only Congressfolk have a chance at getting a straight answer, and even they may not be able to penetrate the NSA.
Once the haystack is whittled down to that "shoebox full of straw," it becomes the job of the Attorney General to "make things legal" after the fact. Sort of like marrying the farmer's daughter after you've gotten her pregnant.
The new FISA update concerns this after-the-fact legalization process.
The above scenario outlines what I think is going on. Re-read what Tice has to say and tell me if I'm right or wrong.
11. But -- if that's true, the entire FISA law needs to be rewritten!
BINGO! That's what I've been trying to tell you!
12. Why should we trust your views of this FISA update, Cannon? You are not a lawyer.
That's why I'm going to print the actual text of the law, at least insofar as it applies to the main points above. If sharper, better-trained minds can show where I've gone wrong in my interpretations -- great. I'd love to publish what you have to say.
But you can't show me up unless you're willing to do your homework. So follow the jump. Don't be scared. HIT PERMALINK BELOW.
Here's the part of the FISA law relevant to what I've written in this post. I've boldfaced the minimization bit, so you can't miss it.
Would it be possible for those who listen-in on our phone conversations to gather non-terrorist related information, and pass it along to the appropriate parties?Many of you will respond with outrage to the points I'm about to make. You will probably do so without reading past the jump, where the evidence will appear. Nevertheless, I am going to attempt a rational discussion. After the outrage-junkies pillory me, they can amuse themselves by tearing out pages from Al Gore's book on Reason in order to create paper airplanes. They obviously don't intend to read the thing.
The first thing that comes to mind is health-related discussions...
I'll present the info in Q-and-A format. If you care to correct or add to my answers, by all means do so -- but do your homework first. (That means reading past the jump.)
1. Cannon, are you defending this damned law?
No. I have argued that it is bad legislation and should have been opposed. I outline my views of the problems and the potential fixes here.
2. Does the new amendment to the FISA law allow Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to spy on domestic conversations without warrant?
No.
3. Does the new amendment to the FISA law give the current AG new powers to initiate warrantless wiretaps?
The AG has had that power since 1978. What has changed is the range of potential overseas targets. In my view, that range is now far too broad.
Another change involves this wording:
...there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;However, the original law elsewhere recognizes that acquisition of such information was inevitable. (You'll see what I mean soon.) In other words, the FISA act has always been confusing on this point.
4. Can the AG obtain records of conversations between foreigners and U.S. citizens?
Yes. And this presents us with a real problem. But contrary to what you have read, it is not a new problem.
5. You mean, that kind of eavesdropping has been going on since 1978, when the FISA law was passed?
Yep. The technology has changed, but the problem remains the same.
Now you know why a lot of people opposed FISA in 1978. The current solutions to this troubling issue -- the measures designed to make FISA constitutional -- are precisely the same as in the Carter era.
5. But if the administration can gather records on foreign-to-domestic communications without a warrant, can't the AG compile all sorts of data on American citizens?
No. No, no, NO.
At least, the AG cannot do so legally.
(His willingness to act illegally is another story, one which has no bearing on the wording of legislation.)
Here we must confront a rampant false impression. We hear repeatedly that Bushco can now listen in on your chats with anyone overseas. But no-one -- not even the "experts" -- have discussed the minimization procedures.
The new FISA bill specifies that these procedures will be in place every time the AG or the Director of National Intelligence interacts with a telecommunications company.
Why do pundits and "experts" ignore these procedures? The answer will be obvious to anyone who looks at the text of the amendment. "Minimization procedures" are mentioned, but not defined. For the definition, you have to go back to the original law -- which no commentators ever bother to do. And just to make matters worse, the numbering has changed -- 101(h) was originally 1801(h).
So nobody reads the damned thing.
You see, back in 1978, the same issue of foreign-domestic chats faced the framers of FISA. Then as now, eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant conflicted with the Fourth Amendment.
Thus, legislators gave us the all-important concept of "minimization" -- procedures designed to strip away information regarding those on the domestic side of the chat. All such domestic information is supposed to be discarded within three days, except if the intel reveals an imminent crime -- for example, if Ken in Kentucky tells Francine in France about a bomb in City Hall.
6. But we can't trust Gonzales to follow those procedures!
I would not trust Alberto Gonzales if he were to say "Hello, my name is Alberto Gonzales." But his deviousness is irrelevant.
We are talking about the wording of a law which applies to more than one administration. The "minimization" wording is not in the new legislation; it's in the original act. So over the past 29 years, both the AGs you have liked (if any) and the AGs you have not liked have had to play by the same rules.
Remember, at least half the country is going to mistrust anyone who sits in the AG's chair.
Also, the update does stipulate that the AG has to offer proof to the FISA court that what he is doing stays within the law. I have previously argued that oversight should be much more stringent.
7. So you're saying that everyone is yowling about what's in this new bill, when we should all be screaming about what's in the old bill?
Yep. Look, as stated earlier, the new bill is bad legislation. It contains serious problems which must be rectified ASAP. But in my view, the fundamental issues go back to 1978. They only seem new because people haven't been paying attention until now.
I believe we should have a top-to-bottom rewrite of FISA, in light of both hard experience and new technologies.
8. But doesn't this new bill legalize the FISA violations committed previously by the Bush administration?
No. That 's why the Bush administration has not dropped the specious and outrageous argument that FISA -- in all of its incarnations -- no longer applies.
9. This whole business of eavesdropping on foreign-to-domestic conversations -- isn't that what Ashcroft and Comey refused to countenance? Isn't that the issue at the heart of that 2004 "race to the hospital" story?
We still have conflicting reports concerning just what that strange affair was all about. We know it had some connection to the so-called "terrorist surveillance program" (an after-the-fact label concocted after exposure of the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping). And we know that eight Administration officials were willing to resign over a very troubling problem arising from that program.
Simple logic tells us that whatever bothered Ashcroft and the others in the election year of 2004 went beyond eavesdropping on foreign/domestic communications related to terrorism. After all, that sort of eavesdropping had occurred before and since, and no-one threatened to resign.
drational at Daily Kos gets it:
Importantly the FISA update does not make purely domestic spying legal- the FISA update, along with the selectively declassified "TSP", involves warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens only when they are communicating with foreigners. Thus, the update almost certainly does not legalize the illegality Comey et al were prepared to resign over.(Emphasis added.) I have argued previously that the same (relatively) new NSA technologies which make the so-called TSP possible were being used in 2004 to intercept purely domestic communications. Bushco may even have scooped up election-related data.
I admit that I am speculating. You may judge whether my speculation is fanciful or probable.
10. What do you mean, "new NSA technologies"?
Well, only the folks at NSA know what's really going on over there, and they ain't telling. But we have been graced with some vague, Delphic insights into the activities of the Never Say Anything crew. A key source is this oft-cited interview with former NSA man Russell Tice.
We're finding out that NSA conducted surveillance on U.S. citizens. And FISA could have been used but wasn't, was sidestepped. No one even made the attempt to see if they had a problem they could have fixed through FISA.Here is my best guess as to what is going on:
That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"
I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them—then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work. What you come out with from a haystack is a shoebox full of straw. Once you have that, you have people that can look at it.
Now here's an interesting question: If this approach was used, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of communications were processed in that manner, and then if and when the truth ever came out, a lawyer—and I think lawyers are going to be arguing semantics in this case—the argument could be made, well, if a machine was doing the looking and the sucking in, it doesn't matter because that's not monitoring until a human looks at it.
The NSA has rooms in various telecommunications hubs, where all (all) data is intercepted and routed to ultra-massive-super-humungous computers back at headquarters.
"All" means all. ALL.
Does this "vacuum cleaner" approach conflict with the Fourth Amendment? Many of you would say yes. The NSA says no -- as long as mere machinery looks at the data.
Once the data is scooped up, it is sifted. How? I don't know. Ask the NSA -- or Russell Tice, or James Bamford, or Michael Hayden. Only Congressfolk have a chance at getting a straight answer, and even they may not be able to penetrate the NSA.
Once the haystack is whittled down to that "shoebox full of straw," it becomes the job of the Attorney General to "make things legal" after the fact. Sort of like marrying the farmer's daughter after you've gotten her pregnant.
The new FISA update concerns this after-the-fact legalization process.
The above scenario outlines what I think is going on. Re-read what Tice has to say and tell me if I'm right or wrong.
11. But -- if that's true, the entire FISA law needs to be rewritten!
BINGO! That's what I've been trying to tell you!
12. Why should we trust your views of this FISA update, Cannon? You are not a lawyer.
That's why I'm going to print the actual text of the law, at least insofar as it applies to the main points above. If sharper, better-trained minds can show where I've gone wrong in my interpretations -- great. I'd love to publish what you have to say.
But you can't show me up unless you're willing to do your homework. So follow the jump. Don't be scared. HIT PERMALINK BELOW.
Here's the part of the FISA law relevant to what I've written in this post. I've boldfaced the minimization bit, so you can't miss it.
ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATESAnd here are the minimization procedures from the original Act. This is the all-important material that the progressive bloggers have not bothered to read.
* `Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
*
o `(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;
*
o `(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;
*
o `(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;
*
o `(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
*
o `(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).
(h) "Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means -Here is the proof that the original 1978 law gave the AG the same power to conduct warrant-free surveillance of foreign targets.
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person's consent, unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—And just for jolly, here's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Do the minimization procedures outlined above make the FISA act (old version, new version) all hunky-dory, Constitution-wise? You tell me...
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Dem-hate in action
Let's have one more look at the FISA controversy to demonstrate why the Republicans will win Congress and the presidency in 2008. You don't need to go over to Democratic Underground to see the mob mentality at work. Head on over to TPM, run by Josh Marshall, widely considered a mainstream kind-of-guy. Go here and feast upon a platter filled with ill-informed commentary from Josh's readers.
Here are some snippets:
Here's one from an alleged lawyer (or law student) who at least seems to have read the thing:
Those fixating on section 105A -- which is indeed badly worded, and which must be re-written -- are ignoring the other sections of the law. I bet not a one of you bothered to look up the minimization business mentioned in section 105B(5).
Yes, I think this Act was bad law. I would have voted against it. But it doesn't do what so many of you think it does. It does not allow Gonzales to spy on Americans without a warrant.
I outline my suggested fixes in yesterdays' post, and some of you may have other suggestions. Nancy Pelosi wants to have a second go at the thing a month from now. Frankly, the entire issue of FISA needs a top-to-bottom review, in light of both new technical developments and the Bush administration's history of flouting the law.
But many of you clowns would rather form a third party -- in other words, you would rather hand the White House over to Guiliani or Thompson. More bombs, more torture, more economic ruin, but at least you get to maintain your precious purity.
And I will blame you. You -- not the Democratic leadership -- are the ones in collusion with the Republicans.
Here are some snippets:
Analysis of this sort assumes that the majority of Democratic Congressmen have any problem with spying on US citizens and/or violating laws intended to preserve civil rights. To me the evidence is strongly trending toward this not being the case and the majority of Democrats being essentially in line with Cheney's thinking in this area.The majority of Dems voted against the bill. And anyone who has read the actual Act (as this commenter obviously did not) will know that it does not sanctify spying on U.S. citizens. Even those who did read it probably did not bother to look up the meaning of the "minimization" passage. (See my post from yesterday.)
I wonder if people are aware of the magnitude of the congress' collapse on the fisa matter. they have in essence ex post facto legalized a half-decade of lawbreaking by the bushies -- law-breaking of such magnitude that rightists like ascroft and comey were opposed.They did no such thing. And we still do not have firm details regarding what Ashcroft and Comey were opposed to. Let's keep proof and presumption separate.
This site's and other rah-rah dem sites' attempts to distinguish the dems and the repubs allows for a lot of discussion but fails to highlight that no real differences exists between the two parties.Ah, the Standard Issue Both Parties Are the Same Lecture. The one I've been hearing for thirty years. Let's reiterate: Clinton = peace and prosperity. Bush = war and want.
If I were a diplomat, Democrat, or lawyer for any Gitmo prisoners, I wouldn't use a cell phone, email, or fax machine for the next 6 months....Another dolt who thinks that the FISA bill legalizes spying on domestic dissidents. Another dolt who does not read.
It might be time for all of us to turn off and tune out."Yes!" says Karl Rove. "Great idea! Maybe we should distribute some really cheap, high-quality acid to the anti-war crowd..."
Forget the slim majority claim. There comes a time when you stand up for what is right. Bending over on torture and FISA has left me disillusioned. I still read the posts but they are tempered by the fact that the Dems are not the ones to stop Bush and Cheney."I know, boys and girls! Let's form a third party! That trick ALWAYS works!"
Democratic leadership is full of punks and nothing else. If they hadn't gotten the opportunity to be congress men and women they would have been coward gang members in the hood. Let's kick out democrats and elect repukelicans.He means it, too. Dem-hate always evolves into an embrace of Republicanism.
Yes the Dems are not goose-stepping Repugs, but you know what, if they are soo against the FISA bill they should have twisted everyone one of the Dems that agreed to it to make them change their votes. They didn't because they wanted this bill to pass! The Dems are so much worse than the Repugs because they know and do nothing!You could have twisted a Blue Dog's arms clean off, and it would not have done much good. He won't want to go home to Turdville, Arkansas and explain why he voted against something called the Protect America Act.
The GOPers are right; the Democrat party is a party of weaklings. They are scared of their own shadows and concerned more about securing power than the constitution.At first, people thought I was crazy when I said that the Impeachment cult had ceased being anti-Republican and had turned into an anti-Democratic movement. Now, a few other people are beginning to see what I mean. This comment marks the transition spot where "progressive" anti-Democratic sentiment segues into pro-Republican propaganda. Call it the "Mort Sahl" moment -- or perhaps the Hitchens switcheroo.
Here's one from an alleged lawyer (or law student) who at least seems to have read the thing:
“Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”Oh, come off it. The law does not allow spying on San Franciscans.
While to most that language is clear, there is an open question as what does ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States’ mean in the eyes of those charged with administering this Act?
For example, those pulling Gonzo’s strings believe that the San Francisco Bay Area, indeed most of Blue America, is not the real United States and thus communications to persons located there would be exempt from scrutiny.
Those fixating on section 105A -- which is indeed badly worded, and which must be re-written -- are ignoring the other sections of the law. I bet not a one of you bothered to look up the minimization business mentioned in section 105B(5).
Who filibustered? Feingold?A pointless exercise. With recess coming and a majority favoring the bill, a filibuster could have been overcome.
Yes, I think this Act was bad law. I would have voted against it. But it doesn't do what so many of you think it does. It does not allow Gonzales to spy on Americans without a warrant.
I outline my suggested fixes in yesterdays' post, and some of you may have other suggestions. Nancy Pelosi wants to have a second go at the thing a month from now. Frankly, the entire issue of FISA needs a top-to-bottom review, in light of both new technical developments and the Bush administration's history of flouting the law.
But many of you clowns would rather form a third party -- in other words, you would rather hand the White House over to Guiliani or Thompson. More bombs, more torture, more economic ruin, but at least you get to maintain your precious purity.
And I will blame you. You -- not the Democratic leadership -- are the ones in collusion with the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)