Question for a lawyer: How does it happen that the Justice Department can subpoena web search records from Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN, when the request is not pursuant to a criminal investigation, and the companies are not themselves a party to the suit?
Note that the legal case in question is an ACLU challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law (the "Child Online Protection Act", a law to regulate pornography on the Internet). Could Attorney General Gonzalez subpoena my own personal web cache in order to defend his favorite anti-pornography legislation, too? (Just asking.)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Bush a two-time lawbreaker
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (NYT story).
We all know that Bush has been in flagrant violation of FISA - which requires a warrant from the FISA court for every domestic wiretap by the NSA. The President has cheerfully admitted that he has been existing in a world of his own, a world where that restriction has magically evaporated, for three years now. No one believes the excuses he, the Veep, Condi, and Alberto Gonzalez have since put forward to "legalize" this behavior. Moreover, the fact that the President & Co. kept even their own Justice Department in the dark about what they were up to makes it pretty clear they knew it was illegal, themselves.
However, as Bob pointed out in this post below, the President has also been in violation of the NSA Act, which established the NSA and tasked the Congress with oversight of its operations. Telling the party-hack committee chair that you have kept the NSA busy violating the rights of thousands of citizens, on a daily basis, for the last 3 years - without informing anyone else of this activity - is apparently not really consistent with that oversight function. Or so the CRS has ruled.
Two more reasons to impeach the President.
We all know that Bush has been in flagrant violation of FISA - which requires a warrant from the FISA court for every domestic wiretap by the NSA. The President has cheerfully admitted that he has been existing in a world of his own, a world where that restriction has magically evaporated, for three years now. No one believes the excuses he, the Veep, Condi, and Alberto Gonzalez have since put forward to "legalize" this behavior. Moreover, the fact that the President & Co. kept even their own Justice Department in the dark about what they were up to makes it pretty clear they knew it was illegal, themselves.
However, as Bob pointed out in this post below, the President has also been in violation of the NSA Act, which established the NSA and tasked the Congress with oversight of its operations. Telling the party-hack committee chair that you have kept the NSA busy violating the rights of thousands of citizens, on a daily basis, for the last 3 years - without informing anyone else of this activity - is apparently not really consistent with that oversight function. Or so the CRS has ruled.
Two more reasons to impeach the President.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Gore Calls for Government of Laws
Washington Post has the transcript (thanks to Josh Marshall for pointing this out).
In the meantime, Bush has responded, stating that he, for one, is just fine with a government of men. (Joke! You tell me whether you laughed or cried.)
Actually, Erica watched "All the President's Men" last night... her take-away? "Oh my gosh, all of that fuss over a few dirty tricks. What we have going on right now is much worse."
In the meantime, Bush has responded, stating that he, for one, is just fine with a government of men. (Joke! You tell me whether you laughed or cried.)
Actually, Erica watched "All the President's Men" last night... her take-away? "Oh my gosh, all of that fuss over a few dirty tricks. What we have going on right now is much worse."
Monday, January 09, 2006
Did You Hear Cheney Went To The Hospital with Shortness of Breath?
Apparently, somebody told him his daughter was a lesbian.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Republican House Intelligence Committee Chair Pushes Back
Republican NYTimes. Yesterday, Jane Harmon, in a letter to Bush, accused him of a second major legal violation: The National Security Act of 1947, which says that the administration must completely and currently brief the House and Senate committees on Intelligence.
The importance of Harmon's statement is that it is: (1) it is far easier to prove violation than that of FISA.
The Chair of the Senate committee on intelligence has been totally silent on this issue, not saying a single word on what was or was not told to him or members of his committee.
However, today the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee implies that Bush was in compliance. Actually, that's not what he says, he says that the Briefings that Bush did provide to the Committee leadership were in compliance. Well, sure, but my walking down the street is in compliance with the National Security Act, too. The question is whether Bush's briefings were sufficient to satisfy the National Security act. Based on Democrats' public statments, the answer would seem to be no.
The importance of Harmon's statement is that it is: (1) it is far easier to prove violation than that of FISA.
The Chair of the Senate committee on intelligence has been totally silent on this issue, not saying a single word on what was or was not told to him or members of his committee.
However, today the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee implies that Bush was in compliance. Actually, that's not what he says, he says that the Briefings that Bush did provide to the Committee leadership were in compliance. Well, sure, but my walking down the street is in compliance with the National Security Act, too. The question is whether Bush's briefings were sufficient to satisfy the National Security act. Based on Democrats' public statments, the answer would seem to be no.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Scandal Has a Name!
WaTimes: Russ Tice, an NSA employee, wants to testify to the Congress about Bush's illegal wiretapping. No doubt, this is an extremely brave choice.
As importantly, Mr. Tice's letters to the Intelligence Committee reveal what the Bush administration called these illegal wiretappings: The Special Access Program.
So, the scandal now has a name: it is the SAP-Scandal.
As importantly, Mr. Tice's letters to the Intelligence Committee reveal what the Bush administration called these illegal wiretappings: The Special Access Program.
So, the scandal now has a name: it is the SAP-Scandal.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Keeping Score
From my wish-list, number 1 of 7 has just happened: Abramoff has turned states evidence (Jan 3, goal was Jan 15).
So, that's 1 of 7.
Number 2: "DeLay convicted by Feb 1" doesn't look like it's going to happen; it appears he won't get a trial date in January.
So, that's 1 of 7.
Number 2: "DeLay convicted by Feb 1" doesn't look like it's going to happen; it appears he won't get a trial date in January.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Pearls before Swine people!
I'm just pointing out to y'all that today, I did a diary post over at DKos. Right now it's the most commented article all day, with 142 comments (after 5 hrs); and for most of the afternoon, it was the second most highly recommended article, behind one by Cindy Sheehan.
Impeachment Watch: Day 17
NYTimes
quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) saying Bush acted within the constitution, and that the focus now should be on hunting down the whistleblower.
Of interest: McConnell thinks hearings should be in the Intelligence committee (it's Chair, Sen. Roberts, has been defensive about how his committee has given "oversight" to the program) wherey can be secret, rather than on Spector's Judiciary committee, where they would not. Judiciary is the proper venue, because at issue is the Executive's compliance with FISA, requiring its reporting to the Judicial branch.
For: 3 (Feingold, Feinstein, Spector)
Against: 2 (McCain, McConnell)
Uncertain: 95
quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) saying Bush acted within the constitution, and that the focus now should be on hunting down the whistleblower.
Of interest: McConnell thinks hearings should be in the Intelligence committee (it's Chair, Sen. Roberts, has been defensive about how his committee has given "oversight" to the program) wherey can be secret, rather than on Spector's Judiciary committee, where they would not. Judiciary is the proper venue, because at issue is the Executive's compliance with FISA, requiring its reporting to the Judicial branch.
For: 3 (Feingold, Feinstein, Spector)
Against: 2 (McCain, McConnell)
Uncertain: 95
Bush to Assert the Ice-9 of Presidential Powers
George Bush is preparing a broad public push to assert that his illegal wiretapping -- in violation of the FISA act -- is permitted due to his war-powers. Specifically, in a time of war, a President can do what he needs to defend the country.
This claimed power is the Ice-9 of all claimed powers. With it, he can violate any of the Bill of rights, any Congressional law -- there is no limitation to what he could do.
The Senate, in its oversight obligation, has a job to do: (1) continue to point out that the wiretapping continues to be illegal under the FISA act; (2) require that the President immediately end to all activities which violate the FISA act; (3) pass legislation which requires that all previous domestic wiretaps which have not been approved by the FISA court be presented to the FISA court for approval; and (4) because innocent Americans should not be victimized by the US Government, all wiretaps not approved by the FISA court be provided in transcript to the American citizens affected.
Otherwise, if Congress does not check Bush's power, he and members of his administration will abuse it.
De
This claimed power is the Ice-9 of all claimed powers. With it, he can violate any of the Bill of rights, any Congressional law -- there is no limitation to what he could do.
The Senate, in its oversight obligation, has a job to do: (1) continue to point out that the wiretapping continues to be illegal under the FISA act; (2) require that the President immediately end to all activities which violate the FISA act; (3) pass legislation which requires that all previous domestic wiretaps which have not been approved by the FISA court be presented to the FISA court for approval; and (4) because innocent Americans should not be victimized by the US Government, all wiretaps not approved by the FISA court be provided in transcript to the American citizens affected.
Otherwise, if Congress does not check Bush's power, he and members of his administration will abuse it.
De
Sunday, January 01, 2006
The End of the Wiretapping Scandal
Just where is this all leading? one might ask. Prima facie, the President violated an important law, the 1978 FISA act, which says he can't spy on Americans on American soil. The act was passed to counter Nixon's abuses, to keep the President from using easily assumed powers as a tool of political oppression.
Bush has indeed re-assumed the "spying on Americans" power. But that power itself is not an evil, though it is onerous. The evil of it comes when that power is abused to be a tool for political oppression -- such as sending off-bankroll folks to break into the psychiatrist's office of one of your chief critics, in an attempt to get some career-ending dirt on them.
So did Bush use his capriciously assumed wiretapping power as a tool for political oppression -- for example, spying on journalists, politicians, innocent Americans in an attempt to collect information which is irrelevant to Bush's War on Terror, but might prove useful in other contexts?
Nobody knows. He certainly had the capability to do this, which, actually, he's not supposed to; it's the role of the FISA court, had he bothered to make his requests properly, to ensure that Bush's spying ability is not used as a tool of oppression, but Bush did not keep them informed of when and how he was using this power.
Neither did Bush inform congress -- unless they're not telling us something -- of the specific instances (we're told, over 500 such wiretaps, ordered by NSA shift supervisors and unreviewed by their superiors, running at any given time for the past 3 years).
To bring Bush back in compliance, Congress should pass a law requiring that each and every single FISA violation now be brought for the court's review; and every instance which is not approved retroactively, the corresponding transcripts should be given to the affected party.
The most important part of this process is to make the other two branches of government fully aware of Bush's spying activities, so that it can be determined if he did abuse his power. And he might have abused it. This is the administration that the Vice President's office used secret information leaked to the press to silence a critic, taking that information from CIA insiders, to the Vice President's office, and then to their political arm in the person of Karl Rove, who then coordinated that leaking with the Vice President's office (Scooter Libby) and the NSA (Stephen Hadley). So, it's kind of far from given that abuses have not taken place.
If abuses did take place, we then have an oppressive KGB-insider for a President. I should think that would be sufficient to bother Republican lawmakers to remove him from office.
But, on the other hand, if all Bush did with this power is listen to direct phone calls between Osama Bin Laden and his his totally hot niece who was born in California , then it is our unfortunate situation that Democrats are intellectually consistent enough and Republicans self-interested enough to not see this as a threat to the Republic, and to simply to let the matter drop. Sure, it would be nice that law and order rule the day.
Bush has indeed re-assumed the "spying on Americans" power. But that power itself is not an evil, though it is onerous. The evil of it comes when that power is abused to be a tool for political oppression -- such as sending off-bankroll folks to break into the psychiatrist's office of one of your chief critics, in an attempt to get some career-ending dirt on them.
So did Bush use his capriciously assumed wiretapping power as a tool for political oppression -- for example, spying on journalists, politicians, innocent Americans in an attempt to collect information which is irrelevant to Bush's War on Terror, but might prove useful in other contexts?
Nobody knows. He certainly had the capability to do this, which, actually, he's not supposed to; it's the role of the FISA court, had he bothered to make his requests properly, to ensure that Bush's spying ability is not used as a tool of oppression, but Bush did not keep them informed of when and how he was using this power.
Neither did Bush inform congress -- unless they're not telling us something -- of the specific instances (we're told, over 500 such wiretaps, ordered by NSA shift supervisors and unreviewed by their superiors, running at any given time for the past 3 years).
To bring Bush back in compliance, Congress should pass a law requiring that each and every single FISA violation now be brought for the court's review; and every instance which is not approved retroactively, the corresponding transcripts should be given to the affected party.
The most important part of this process is to make the other two branches of government fully aware of Bush's spying activities, so that it can be determined if he did abuse his power. And he might have abused it. This is the administration that the Vice President's office used secret information leaked to the press to silence a critic, taking that information from CIA insiders, to the Vice President's office, and then to their political arm in the person of Karl Rove, who then coordinated that leaking with the Vice President's office (Scooter Libby) and the NSA (Stephen Hadley). So, it's kind of far from given that abuses have not taken place.
If abuses did take place, we then have an oppressive KGB-insider for a President. I should think that would be sufficient to bother Republican lawmakers to remove him from office.
But, on the other hand, if all Bush did with this power is listen to direct phone calls between Osama Bin Laden and his his totally hot niece who was born in California , then it is our unfortunate situation that Democrats are intellectually consistent enough and Republicans self-interested enough to not see this as a threat to the Republic, and to simply to let the matter drop. Sure, it would be nice that law and order rule the day.
Stop the Yammering!
Seriously people, could the left please stop engaging in the argument "Is Bush's warrantless wiretapping illegal?" Of course it is illegal.
The questions now are:
Also, Democratic Senators should immediately introduce a bill to stop these violations of FISA, and to correct the violations that have occurred. Specifically, the Congress should direct the President that he does not have the power to violate FISA under the statute he claims; that all previous wiretaps must now be presented to the FISA court for approval, and that the subjects of wiretaps that the FISA court declines to be approved be alerted to the existence of the wiretaps and given full transcripts of what was taken down.
The questions now are:
- Is Bush abusing this power to substantially violate the rights that FISA is meant to protect? Such as freedom of the press, and freedom of political activity? So, who did Bush spy on? Journalists? Members of Congress? Senators? any Judges? Prominent members or donors to the Democratic part?
- Was any of this information used to violate the rights meant to be protected by FISA? Did they politically go after journalists they got information on? Did they go after Members of congress they got information on? Was any information passed around to anyone outside the NSA, like to the FBI? Or to the political folks, like Karl Rove?
Also, Democratic Senators should immediately introduce a bill to stop these violations of FISA, and to correct the violations that have occurred. Specifically, the Congress should direct the President that he does not have the power to violate FISA under the statute he claims; that all previous wiretaps must now be presented to the FISA court for approval, and that the subjects of wiretaps that the FISA court declines to be approved be alerted to the existence of the wiretaps and given full transcripts of what was taken down.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Yummy! Crispy!
Remember the savory bites you'd get at communion? Now you can grab a bag at the store! Communion wafers newest Quebec snack craze
Thursday, December 22, 2005
"Nothing."
WaPost:
At a private White House meeting in November 2004, President Bush thanked his Press Secretary Scott McClellan for his help in Bush's re-election:
"Is Scotty here? Where's Scotty?" Bush asked, half-grinning, according to two people who were in the meeting but asked not to be quoted by name because they were discussing a private event. Bush scanned the room for Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.
"I want to especially thank Scotty," the president said, looking at his aide. "I want to thank Scotty for saying" -- and he paused for effect. . . .
" Nothing ."
At which point everyone laughed and the president left the room.
They Couldn't Dream One Up
WaPost:
In other words, the administration regularly spies on Americans in a complete fishing expedition.
This is the worst of all possible worlds.
"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.
'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.'"
In other words, the administration regularly spies on Americans in a complete fishing expedition.
This is the worst of all possible worlds.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Bob's Wish List 2006
What do I wish for in the coming year?
In short. A return to law and order.
- Abramoff turns state's evidence by Jan 15 2006
- DeLay convicted by Feb 1 2006
- Indictment of Karl Rove by Feb 15 2006
- Impeachment hearings begin in the House by May 1 2006
- Indictment of Dick Cheney by June 1 2006
- Bush Convicted in the Senate by July 1 2006
- Nov 2006: Democrats re-take the House, Senate.
In short. A return to law and order.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
First Comments from the Man Charged with Congressional Oversight: Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Bush has said that he had congressional oversight, and the Senate Committee charged with this is the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), who has been silent until now.
Here he is, mocking Senator Rockefeller's handwritten protestation to Dick Cheney that the strictures Cheney placed on the few Senators briefed on the warrantless spying program (under threats of violating national security laws) made it impossible for him to give oversight:
AP:
This is very disappointing. My question for Roberts: is he prepeared to assert that his committee gave oversight to this program -- oversight which resulted in direct violation of congressional laws (FISA)? Because oversight which permits violation of congressional laws is not oversight at all, it's incompetence.
Cheney notified Roberts in July 2003 that the Bush administration was regularly violating the FISA act. Why did he not report this to the Senate?
Here he is, mocking Senator Rockefeller's handwritten protestation to Dick Cheney that the strictures Cheney placed on the few Senators briefed on the warrantless spying program (under threats of violating national security laws) made it impossible for him to give oversight:
AP:
"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., pushed back Tuesday, saying that if Rockefeller had concerns about the program, he could have used the tools he has to wield influence, such as requesting committee or legislative action. 'Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools,' Roberts said."
This is very disappointing. My question for Roberts: is he prepeared to assert that his committee gave oversight to this program -- oversight which resulted in direct violation of congressional laws (FISA)? Because oversight which permits violation of congressional laws is not oversight at all, it's incompetence.
Cheney notified Roberts in July 2003 that the Bush administration was regularly violating the FISA act. Why did he not report this to the Senate?
George Bush on Court Ordered Wiretaps
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
-- President George Bush, April 20th 2004, by which time Bush had authorized wiretaps circumventing court orders for more than five 45-day periods, in violation of the FISA act.
Big. Fat. Anti-constitutional. Liar.
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
-- President George Bush, April 20th 2004, by which time Bush had authorized wiretaps circumventing court orders for more than five 45-day periods, in violation of the FISA act.
Big. Fat. Anti-constitutional. Liar.
Impeachment Watch Day 3: Two Conservative Scholars Chime In
Think Progress: Two conservative constitutional scholars argue that Bush has committed impeachable crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)