Dubya's Super-Secret Spytime and Wiretapping Funzone

At all events, the bottom line is that if the Government is going to keep doing what we should hope it will keep doing, it had better come up with some better legal arguments, or comply with FISA, or get FISA repealed or amended.

Oh yeah, and one of the FISA judges quit yesterday to directly protest this.

I would love to see ANY other branch of the government take a swing at this, frankly. I imagine even the FBI would have an axe to grind in this.

(as for the Supreme Court, what can I say, I'm a cynic - I have no faith at all in their non-partisanship at this point).

Im fine with just sitting back and playing the "Dubya knows best" dice roll.

Obviously, I could be talking through my tin-foil hat here.

Also, the language in the Authorization to use force in Iraq that Bush claims makes his actions legitimate is NOT legally binding (i.e. it's one of those funny 'Whereas' clauses.)

In my mind, it sure has. When you have really low expectations, as I do with humanity in general, you're rarely shocked or dissapointed.

I call it evolution. The gradual numbing of my brain is a survival tactic forced by the 21st century.

Resigned FISA Judge a Committed Clintonista

Damn Clinton, still fucking things up 5 years later

FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html

abstract, ahistorical bullshit. or if you prefer "it's much more complicated than" that.

Remember how long the outcry over Echelon lasted? Not to mention that in this case, it's much more complicated than simply, "BUSH SPIED/PEOPLE DIED."
-- don weiner (dandydonweine...), December 21st, 2005.

so, so complicated.

explain yourself.

This is really a much more simple case than all the apologists are trying to make it. The law is clear, and was put in place specifically to put a check on executive authority. The executive branch deliberately ignored and violated the law. They knew what they were doing was illegal -- that's why they didn't want anyone to know about it. These retroactive arguments about how it was really legal because of this, that or the other thing are just standard ass-covering. There is no real question that what they did (and are apparently continuing to do) is actually illegal. The only question is whether anyone will be able to stop them.

And Don, I can't imagine any kind of Libertarian even beginning to go along with this stuff. This is straight-up Big Government Big Brother badness.

It is not a minor scandal in my view, but it will bubble along in any event -- and even if the Democrats take back the Senate there isn't enough gumption among them to start impeachment. If the Democrats take both the House and the Senate in '06, then there will no doubt be some bold talk of impeachment that the Dem leadership will do their best to quash. Sad but true, I think.

The framers of the Constitution added impeachment as an escape hatch to be used in case of dire emergency, and then made it all but impossible to open. They figured the legislative branch would dominate the executive so much that easier impeachment would lead to the total emasculation of the Presidency.

That much said, if the Democrats do take back the House or Senate, then that result alone will provide a fairly strong rebuke to Bush and limit his power in meaningful ways. It is far better to rely on an electoral solution to this mess than to waste time and hope on impeachment. Elect Bush's opponents and they'll use their power to hedge him in -- now that we're stuck with the bastard until Jan. 2009.

I'm just pointing out that there are other reasonable perspectives that can't be dismissed necessarily as talking points (wrong as they may be.) I interpret the Schmidt article (which I don't consider conssumately debunked by "Judd") to mean that there are people in Democratic administrations who would have greenlit this kind of intel.

If the law was and is so clear, then let's see what happens. Let's see Reid call for impeachment. Personally, I'm not optimistic that anyone will face any negative consequences. And to my larger point I made earlier (echoed slightly by Aimless), there is so much citizen apathy towards issues like this that there will be no significant political pressure to change anything.

ha, so the defense moves from "Clinton did it too" to "Clinton prolly woulda done it too" -- man, the GOP talking-points machine is running on fumes. But you're right, it doesn't seem likely that this one thing is going to resonate where others have failed to. I do think there's a sense of Evil Overload, like, "Yes, we know these guys are the Dark Lords, we're tired of hearing about it, wake us up when it's time to vote again." Plus also the somewhat reassuring fact that they're even more incompetent than they are evil, which sometimes mitigates their ability to do the Really Bad Things they'd like to do.

they watch what they want when they wanna

"A paranoid is someone who knows the facts"

The Justice Dept is going to investigate how the leak was made.

Not necessarily if/how the program is illegal, mind you, just how anybody else got wind of it.

so we have about 3 years of suck left.

By Thanksgiving '07, GWB is a lame duck, theoretically. Whether this will 'liberate' his gang to act with FURTHER fascistic impunity, especially if by then it looks like a Dem or his quasi-enemy McCain is the next prez, who can say?

McCain will never make it to the White House. And I fear for the Dems nominating process (ie, lots of fighting about Hillary, another run from dumbfuck Kerry, etc.)

...shredding is to Ollie North.

"Bush in 2004 telling he will never violate the constitution and always will get a court order before doing a wire-tap"

it's good to actually watch him say it

how can he disgrace the office that way etc etc

As this writer notes, this would be a great explanation for why the guy's never vetoed a single bill, since he figures he can just go around it when the time comes.

Why?

In a letter to Hinchey, the New York Democrat who has been the most dogged Congressional advocate for investigation of the spying program, OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett explained that he had closed the Justice Department probe on Tuesday, May 9, because his office's requests for security clearances to conduct the investigation had been denied.

'I am writing to inform you that we have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program,' Jarrett explained in his letter to Hinchey. 'Beginning in January 2006, this Office made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation.'

...The security clearances were blocked by the NSA, which has taken its direction on the spying program from the White House."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=83135

"I don't know, did we?"

"Can I--"

"No."

¯\(º_o)/¯

that was the EXACT reason for why I was denied when I asked for a lock on my bedroom door when I was 13

That is no longer true. Interested parties should note that they have now moved to Kzwhatsitsfacestan.

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

"A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"'It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,' the source told us in an in-person conversation.

"ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

"Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation."

...etc etc. Read the whole article.

My mom also used the 'those who have nothing to hide don't need to hide stuff' argument.

However DUD = people who live thousands of miles from "terror targets" or actual incidents whining about the possible CODE RED blowup of their local mall because it's so fucking strategic or significant.

I hope Studs isn't too above-it-all pipedreamer for ya.

The Wiretap This Time
By STUDS TERKEL

EARLIER this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the White House agreed to allow the executive branch to conduct dragnet interceptions of the electronic communications of people in the United States. They also agreed to “immunize” American telephone companies from lawsuits charging that after 9/11 some companies collaborated with the government to violate the Constitution and existing federal law. I am a plaintiff in one of those lawsuits, and I hope Congress thinks carefully before denying me, and millions of other Americans, our day in court.

During my lifetime, there has been a sea change in the way that politically active Americans view their relationship with government. In 1920, during my youth, I recall the Palmer raids in which more than 10,000 people were rounded up, most because they were members of particular labor unions or belonged to groups that advocated change in American domestic or foreign policy. Unrestrained surveillance was used to further the investigations leading to these detentions, and the Bureau of Investigation — the forerunner to the F.B.I. — eventually created a database on the activities of individuals. This activity continued through the Red Scare of the period.

In the 1950s, during the sad period known as the McCarthy era, one’s political beliefs again served as a rationale for government monitoring. Individual corporations and entire industries were coerced by government leaders into informing on individuals and barring their ability to earn a living.

I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them. I had signed on in opposition to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and in favor of rent control and pacifism. Because the petitions were thought to be Communist-inspired, I lost my ability to work in television and radio after refusing to say that I had been “duped” into signing my name to these causes.

By the 1960s, the inequities in civil rights and the debate over the Vietnam war spurred social justice movements. The government’s response? More surveillance. In the name of national security, the F.B.I. conducted warrantless wiretaps of political activists, journalists, former White House staff members and even a member of Congress.

Then things changed. In 1975, the hearings led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho revealed the scope of government surveillance of private citizens and lawful organizations. As Americans saw the damage, they reached a consensus that this unrestrained surveillance had a corrosive impact on us all.

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which placed national security investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect, but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of electronic communications.

The Bush administration, however, tore apart that carefully devised legal structure and social compact. To make matters worse, after its intrusive programs were exposed, the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a bill that legitimized blanket wiretapping without individual warrants. The legislation directly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, requiring the government to obtain a warrant before reading the e-mail messages or listening to the telephone calls of its citizens, and to state with particularity where it intends to search and what it expects to find.

Compounding these wrongs, Congress is moving in a haphazard fashion to provide a “get out of jail free card” to the telephone companies that violated the rights of their subscribers. Some in Congress argue that this law-breaking is forgivable because it was done to help the government in a time of crisis. But it’s impossible for Congress to know the motivations of these companies or to know how the government will use the private information it received from them.

And it is not as though the telecommunications companies did not know that their actions were illegal. Judge Vaughn Walker of federal district court in San Francisco, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, noted that in an opinion in one of the immunity provision lawsuits the “very action in question has previously been held unlawful.”

I have observed and written about American life for some time. In truth, nothing much surprises me anymore. But I always feel uplifted by this: Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing. By revealing the truth in a public forum, the American people will have the facts to play their historic, heroic role in putting our nation back on the path toward freedom. That is why we deserve our day in court.

Studs Terkel is the author of the forthcoming “Touch and Go: A Memoir.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Given the facts and an opportunity to act

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/39/99/23209939.jpg

Yeah, that's the IF ONLY heartbreaker.

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511973377523845.html

The budget for the NSA's data-sifting effort is classified, but one official estimated it surpasses $1 billion. The FBI is requesting to nearly double the budget for the Digital Collection System in 2009, compared with last year, requesting $42 million. "Not only do demands for information continue to increase, but also the requirement to facilitate information sharing does," says a budget justification document, noting an "expansion of electronic surveillance activity in frequency, sophistication, and linguistic needs."

good times

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8VCRM1G0

House to Close Its Doors for Spying Bill

By PAMELA HESS – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leaders agreed Thursday to a rare closed-door session — the first in 25 years — to debate surveillance legislation.

Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

(...)

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/30/conartist-convinces.html

"Bill Jakob, a former trucking company owner with law enforcement experience, spent 'several months' pretending to be a federal agent in the town of Gerald, MO. Jakob apparently spent his time aggressively busting drug suspects, with the complicity of the local police department, claiming 'he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.'"

When the call was placed, a woman — whose identity is unknown — answered with the words “multijurisdictional task force,” and said that the city’s request for federal services was under review, the mayor said. Mr. Schulte said he now suspects that Mr. Jakob adapted the nonexistent task force name from the “Beverly Hills Cop” movies starring Eddie Murphy.

I smell a Chuck Norris movie in the works already.

^^^Jack Bauer'll prolly get there first. Why? Because nobody crosses Jack Bauer.
Also does it even matter that Dubya's done it, the fact that he didn't deny it just shows how much less politicians are interested in putting up a front. One day they're just gonna come out and say 'yeah I'm a total fucking bastard and why? Fuck you thats why!'
Or so I imagine.

My mom also used the 'those who have nothing to hide don't need to hide stuff' argument.

-- suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 16 May 2006 09:35 (2 years ago) Bookmark Link
Yeah I'm sick of this kind of thinking too.

From Nat Hentoff, celebrated free-speech wingnut and constitutionalist:

What Obama doesn't know

I keep remembering a dark warning to the successors of the Bush-Cheney legacy in a January 3 letter to The New York Times by Arthur Gunther of Blauvelt, New York: "Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have so deeply embedded tacit approval for illegal acts in government agencies that wrongdoing by their philosophical sympathizers will continue in shadow operations for years to come."

...Back at home, will President Obama order the countermanding of the FBI's return to the unbounded surveillance practices of J. Edgar Hoover? In an order implemented as recently as this December—-by FBI Director Robert Mueller (who says he'd like to stay on) and Attorney General Michael Mukasey—-the FBI can start an investigation without requiring any evidence of wrongdoing.....

Of all our intelligence agencies, the most unabashedly un-American is the NSA, because it has the continually expanding technological resources to make George Orwell's Big Brother look like a cantankerous infant. No American president has come close to reining in the NSA, let alone bringing its officials up on charges of murdering our Fourth Amendment privacy rights....

I hope President Obama reads James Bamford's The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America (Doubleday) and demands that his intelligence directors also plumb it and give him their reactions—or better yet, their confessions of complicity with NSA.