World Forums

Stephen Bainbridge

Harriet Who?

Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:

She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.

She has no judicial experience.

She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?

She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).

Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.

Why is the leader of a party that supposedly about merit and against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?

And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?

This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.

Update: What he said, with bells on:

Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

While cautioning that "the president deserves the benefit of a doubt," Miranda added, "Something has been left unachieved by the Miers nomination. A Republican president has yet to erase the stigma of the (1987) Robert Bork hearings and the David Souter nomination. The nomination of Harriet Miers has not rid us of the repugnant situation that a jurist with a clear and distinguished record will not be nominated for higher service. The nomination did not rid us of the apprehension of stealth nominees."

And what he said too:

Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal. ... and now she's going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines. ...

Keep in mind that we're talking about a woman who has donated to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, & the Democratic National Committee before. You want a candidate who has "Souter" written all over her?

And especially what Michelle Malkin said:

It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste.

Mark Levin

Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.


David Bernstein

My initial reaction is that it's unfortunate (but not surprising) that for both Supreme Court nominations, the president has chosen well-connected insiders with ties to the executive branch, rather than individuals who are more likely to bring a more "independent" perspective to issues of government and especially presidential power. And appointing his "personal lawyer" from Texas seems very Lyndon Johnsonish, and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism.

Ramesh Ponnuru

It's an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.


Ed Morrissey

I find this pick mystifying. Miers just turned 60 years old, not exactly ready to retire but potentially giving up at least a decade for the Bush legacy on the Supreme Court. Other women with judicial experience and/or a stronger track record of conservatism could have been found. She didn't graduate from a top-drawer legal school (SMU), and she didn't clerk for a highly influential jurist (US District Judge Joe Estes).

Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor's Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?

Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

A Wolfie in Sheep's Clothing
by Maureen Dowd
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/opinion/01dowd.html&OQ=Q26emcQ3Deta1&OP=341714dfQ2F4okQ3F4Q7Ey5JJQ7E42Q20Q20x4hQ204Q20h4Jg0e0Je4Q20hOJoOGnQ7EVY
Paul Wolfowitz is having fun.

"It's fun to have the chance to be a retail politician again," he told Andrew Balls of The Financial Times on a recent trip to India. It was an economic odyssey designed to warm up his image by tipping off the press to record his shirt-sleeve visit to a slum and his street dancing with children in Andhra Pradesh.

When the reporter noted that Mr. Wolfowitz's role as No. 2 at the Pentagon must seem distant, he agreed, saying, "Yes, it does seem like a long time ago."



A lot has changed for this architect of the Iraq war since he left the scene of the accident. Following the lead of that other wooly-headed war theoretician, Robert McNamara, Wolfie scuttled to the World Bank, where he changed the subject from bollixing up Iraq to fixing up Africa.

Unlike the Powell maxim "If you break it, you own it," the Wolfowitz philosophy is "If you break it, walk away from it."

Where on earth are those who egged on the Iraq civil war? The neoconservatives have moved on to debates about China and Iran. Richard Perle has dropped out of sight, except to pop up, as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual meeting in May, to urge a military raid on Iran if it's "on the verge of a nuclear weapon."

The president and his generals are still offering gauzy assessments of our fight against an insurgency that grows ever more vicious, and dishing out loopy justifications for the war.

Before Mr. Bush was dragged out of Crawford this summer, he was making the case that we had to keep killing in Iraq to honor troops killed there. This week, Gen. Richard Myers offered more circular logic, warning that a U.S. defeat would invite another 9/11. The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq and now says it can't leave for fear of spurring another 9/11.

Wolfie and fellow hawks turned Iraq into a harbor for Al Qaeda with an invasion they justified by falsely calling Iraq a harbor for Al Qaeda. General Myers said that America couldn't leave and allow Al Qaeda to dominate Iraq because "then in my view we would have lost, and the next 9/11 would be right around the corner, absolutely."

Here's the weirdest perversion: First Rummy, as President Reagan's Mideast envoy, was photographed with Saddam, supporting him in the war against Iran. Then Rummy and other hawks rushed the U.S. into war against Saddam and ended up turning Iraq over to Shiites intertwined with Iran. And now Richard Perle thinks we might have to bomb Iran.

The president spent years saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, and Rummy spent years saying we just had to finish off a few Saddam "dead enders." But four years after Mr. Bush promised to get "the people who knocked these buildings down," they are finally talking about Al Qaeda as a threat again.

Perhaps they have no choice, now that Al Qaeda has supposedly started its own weekly newscast on the Internet, "The Voice of the Caliphate," with an anchorman wearing a ski mask and an ammunition belt, and props like a Koran and a rifle pointed at the camera. Its top story was joy over Katrina damage.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid called Al Qaeda "the main threat we face" in Iraq, citing its 400 suicide bombers deployed worldwide. So, when W. says if we fight them there we won't have to fight them here, that's just nutty.

Though the Bushie gang has maintained that it would be hard for Al Qaeda to operate on the run, General Abizaid noted that the group is "empowered by modern communications, expertly using the virtual world for planning, recruiting, fund-raising, indoctrination and exploiting the mass media" to break the U.S. will and try to form a haven in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is exploiting tribal tensions intensified by the bungled U.S. occupation. Mr. Wolfowitz's assumption that America could conquer Baghdad and install the Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis, with bouquets thrown, in a religious war that has been going on for centuries, was naïve and dangerous.

The rest of us may be glued to the gruesome pileup of bodies in Iraq, but Wolfie has moved on. He told The Financial Times that he still thought the U.S. and the British did "the right thing" for "the right reasons," and "hopefully, it's going to turn out the right way."

He said that wherever he travels, from Burkina Faso to Bosnia, Iraq rarely comes up. How fortunate for him.

The Last Thing Iraq Needs Now is the Passing of its Draft Constitution - The West has embraced a radical pro-Iranian elite and created a festering wound with the Sunnis
by Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1002-24.htm
Regardless of the result of the Iraqi people's vote on the constitution on 15 October, the reality is that it is a failed document, reflective of a failed process. A rejection would, in fact, represent a liberating moment for the decision-makers in Washington and London, enabling them to chart a new course free from the past.

Many observers, including some senior US and British military officers, concede that the presence of American and British troops is having a negative effect on Iraq's domestic situation, and the sooner they are withdrawn, the better. The issue is how to manage such a withdrawal without setting off a chain of events leading to even more chaos. Many feel that the adoption of the draft constitution represents such a circumstance, but this is a false hope. There are forces at play in Iraq that cannot be ignored and which, if the draft constitution passes, will be outside the control of either the US or Britain.

First and foremost is the radical, pro-Iranian elite governing Iraq today. Iraq's President, Jalal Talabani, is decidedly pro-Iranian, having fought on the side of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Ibrahim al-Jafaari, the Prime Minister, is the leader of the Dawa Party, which was based in Iran and had a strong tendency to embrace the tactics and tools of terror. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, one of the strongest behind-the-scenes players, heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), as well as its military arm, the Badr Brigade, all organized, equipped, paid for and directed by Iran. This clique, mostly radical Islamic in nature, does not represent the will of the Iraqi people, even of the Shia, but rather the vision of its masters in Tehran. A positive vote for the draft constitution will only empower it, a result that will guarantee civil war.



There are other powers to be reckoned with. The fall of Saddam Hussein, combined with the West's embrace of the pro-Iranian elite, has disenfranchised the Sunni minority. De-Baathification policies, combined with aggressive military actions against Sunni tribal areas, have created a situation in which a once pro-West, largely secular group has shifted towards radical Wahhabism, the form of virulent anti-Western Islam preached by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. Moreover, the Sunni believe the draft constitution gives them a raw deal, seeing its federal nature as an arrangement that will cut their access to important natural resources. If it is passed, the situation with the Sunni will worsen, creating a festering wound that will feed future generations of terrorists.

There is a viable exit strategy: the gradual withdrawal of US and British troops, with a policy to re-enfranchise the Sunni population, strengthen the hand of the Kurds and Shia outside the sphere of influence exerted by Iran, and disenfranchise the pro-Iran elite. There will, of course, need to be a guiding hand, which cannot be American or British. The European Union, Arab League and United Nations could all play a role in this, an effort each would support if only the US and Britain would let them. To date, these two nations, and more so the United States, have been loath to allow other parties to trespass on issues pertaining to Iraq. Only these countries, so the thinking went in Washington and London, had earned the right - through sacrifice, in removing Saddam and dealing with the occupation - to be involved.

Now that this sacrifice is no longer deemed a price worth paying, perhaps the time has come for other nations to become involved in Iraq's future.

Eugene

Did you actually pay $49.99 for the Select New York Times? Say it ain't so, I sincerely hope you hacked Maureen, Paul and Co:)

Actually, the hacking was done for me by an AM radio talk show. Can you blame me?

Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping
Order 'consistent' with 'constitutional responsibilities'
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/ ... index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.

Sources have told CNN that Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others in the United States who are communicating with people overseas. The story was first reported Friday in The New York Times.

During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (Watch Bush discuss eavesdropping, the Patriot Act -- 7:51)

"This is highly classified program crucial to our national security" and "its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Bush said.

"The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly given to news organizations," Bush said. "Unauthorized disclosure damages our national security and puts our nation at risk.

"Revealing this information is illegal." (Transcript)

The NSA eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide. Although the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The court is set up specifically to issue warrants allowing wiretapping on domestic soil.

'Sad day'
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there's an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

Feingold said "it's a sad day" in light of what he heard Bush say.

"He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it," Feingold said. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that's just absurd."

Bush said two of the September 11 hijackers -- Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- who flew the plane into the Pentagon "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here until it was too late."

He said the authorizations have made it "more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time and the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times" since the September 11, 2001, attacks and "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups," he said.

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN on Friday that Bush signed the secret order in 2002. The sources refused to be identified because the program is classified.

During an interview Friday for PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Bush said he understood that people want him to confirm or deny the Times report, but he couldn't discuss specifics because "it would compromise our ability to protect the people," according to a transcript of the program.

The New York Times report said the NSA has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants during the past three years as part of its war on terror.

Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, said in a statement that the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request as editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.

But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.

"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," Keller said. "It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."
CNN has not confirmed the exact wording of the president's order.

Effect on Patriot Act vote
However, senators contemplating a vote Friday on whether to renew some controversial portions of the Patriot Act used The New York Times' report as evidence that the government could not be trusted with the broad powers laid out in the act. (Read about the Patriot Act vote)

In particular, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote.

"Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful -- very careful."

One of Schumer's GOP colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, seemed troubled by Friday's news and said that the revelation, if true, was "very problemsome, if not devastating" to getting the Patriot Act renewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added that his committee would immediately begin investigating the matter and that such behavior "can't be condoned."

Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, concurred with Schumer, saying, "Presidents have to conform to the law. All of the agencies of the government have to conform to the law."

Great Victory for America
Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate
GOP fights to save provisions before end-of-year deadline
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12 ... index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Friday rejected efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, dealing a major blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership.

Senators on both sides of the aisle argued that some of the act's provisions infringe on civil rights. The bipartisan group proposed a three-month extension to continue debate and amend certain provisions, but the Senate also rejected that proposal Friday.

The Senate needed 60 votes to override a filibuster and end debate, which is called "invoking cloture." Cloture would have brought the Patriot Act to a final vote, allowing the Senate to renew it by a simple majority.

But only 52 senators voted to cut off debate; 47 voted against cloture.

The move lays the groundwork for a high-stakes showdown.

Bush has said he would veto a three-month extension, arguing it would be inadequate. But without an extension, 16 provisions could expire at the end of the year. There's also the possibility the Senate could still manage to bring the Patriot Act to a vote before the December 31 deadline.

The Bush administration had lobbied intensely for making the provisions permanent. Top officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had called lawmakers in hopes of swaying them to the administration's position. (Read what Bush has to say)

In a statement after the Senate's vote, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the provisions "are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse."

The act, created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, allows the government broad authority to investigate people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical, and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses.

Secret authorization?
As the Senate gathered Friday to debate whether the government had abused its authority, a major news story played a critical role.

The New York Times reported Friday that Bush, months after the September 11 attacks, "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN the report is accurate.

The report was "very, very (problematic), if not devastating" to the renewal effort, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who helped negotiate a compromise with House leaders on extending the provisions.

During Friday's session, senators held up copies of the New York Times report as a sign that the government could not be trusted with all the broad powers laid out in the Patriot Act. (Read about the report)

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he had been unsure the night before how he would vote. "Today's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote," he said. "Today's revelation makes it very clear that we have to be very careful. Very careful."

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who voted against the original Patriot Act and led efforts to filibuster the current version, said, "I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power."

When it comes to discussion of the Patriot Act, Feingold said lawmakers must "come together" to simultaneously give the government the authority it needs "and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens."

"We are a democracy -- let's have checks and balances," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in an impassioned speech. "Let us have a government of checks and balances."

Republicans who voted against cloture included Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Lisa Murkowski, and Larry Craig.

"I urge calm and sensitivity to the fundamental civil liberties of our country," said Craig.

Sununu said the government had provided no "substantive" material to show how proposed changes to some of the provisions could in any way undermine or weaken the government's ability to fight terrorism.

Kyl: 'No Middle Ground'
But Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona argued that the government has not abused its powers and that the Patriot Act should be renewed.

"You either vote yes to reauthorize or no not to reauthorize -- there is no middle ground," he said.

Citing Bush's threat to veto a three-month extension, Kyl added, "If you voted against cloture you are voting to allow the Patriot Act to expire.".

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, during his daily briefing Friday, was asked why the administration would oppose an extension.

"We've expressed our views how we believe the provisions should be permanent," he said. "And I think what's happening now is that some people are playing politics with this legislation."

Bush has called the act "essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again."

Among the staunchest supporters of reauthorizing the provisions was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who argued that voting against immediate reauthorization "amounts to defeat and retreat at home."

But due to the complexity of Senate rules, Frist ultimately voted against cloture. The vote allows him to try to bring the act up for another vote.

This week, the House of Representatives voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions, after striking a compromise that altered some of them

Some senators don't oppose the act in general, but would like to see some changes, this seems to be the reason for the proposed three-months extension.

Will Senate approve the bill as is in time, or reject it, and if they reject it, will the President really veto the three-months extension? That does not yet seem to be decided, so to call "Victory for America" is somewhat premature IMO.

Liberals are NOT confused:

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Liberals are NOT confused II

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon - GOOD

President Bush uses eaves dropping on suspected foreign terrorists in the USA - BAD

surnami wrote:Liberals are NOT confused II

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon - GOOD

President Bush uses eaves dropping on suspected foreign terrorists in the USA - BAD

And, thus, comes the biggest problem conservatives in this country don't seem to realize: No matter who authorized what, IT IS WRONG AND IS THREATENING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES TO EAVESDROP ON WHOEVER.

Felix K wrote:Some senators don't oppose the act in general, but would like to see some changes, this seems to be the reason for the proposed three-months extension.

Will Senate approve the bill as is in time, or reject it, and if they reject it, will the President really veto the three-months extension? That does not yet seem to be decided, so to call "Victory for America" is somewhat premature IMO.

Felix some of the aspects of the PAtriot's Act are very useful. Not everything should be abandoned. Some things, especially those that do not impede our privacy could be kept

The victory is the fact that Senate had told the president that what he has got is not enough. One can not just run amok removing people's personal freedoms. This was the idea of the two originators of the action, one - Feingold, a democrat from Wisconsin, and the republican from Nebraska

Felix some of the aspects of the PAtriot's Act are very useful. Not everything should be abandoned. Some things, especially those that do not impede our privacy could be kept

Such as? (I'm asking out of ignorance, I don't know much about the less controversial parts of the Patriot Act)

Eavesdropping on Arab terrorist suspects residing in the United States is bad.
Pretending they don't exist, which directly led to the 9/11 - good.

Surnami

Good analysis...never mind it makes any sane man sick. I of course knew it a long time ago, but only now I clearly see how the Vietnam War was lost and who exactly lost it.

Felix K wrote:

Felix some of the aspects of the PAtriot's Act are very useful. Not everything should be abandoned. Some things, especially those that do not impede our privacy could be kept

Such as? (I'm asking out of ignorance, I don't know much about the less controversial parts of the Patriot Act)

There are provisions for a faster process of generating a search warrant for terrorist cases, for example. This process already exists as a weapon in the failing war on drugs.

There must be others but I am not really equipped on discussing them.

To expand a little on the Surnami's post:

Leaking Valerie Plame's identity (irrelevant person, as far as the United States' security is concerned) - bad.

Leaking the National Security Agency's classified information - good.

Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger, you're a true patriot.

Power Line

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 798) prohibits the disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information, specifically including classified information regarding communications intelligence:

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

***

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

***

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

The following subsection (b) makes clear the applicability of the act to the informants and information related to the Times story:
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

Despite the vague insinuations of Times story, it is at best unclear whether the described NSA program violated any law. It is, on the other hand, altogether too clear that the Times story itself involved an epidemic of lawbreaking among current and former government officials. Here is a scandal hiding in plain sight, though it is not a scandal that the Times chooses to report. Who will blow the whistle and demand that the malefactors be brought to account?

Well, good!

So, why doesn't Bush have Rove serve time? All the signs point to him. Bush has promissed to punish the responsible for Plame's outing to fullest extent. So, why is he protecting Rove?

Oh, I remember, White House is beyond raproach.

Because Mr.Fitzgerald didn't find any proof of Karl Rove's guilt. And even if he did, he would be guilty of what exactly? What information did he leak, allegedly pertaining to the United States' national security?

As far as I recall, nowhere did special prosecutor state that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent. Tough luck for donkeys - she wasn't:)

"Bush has promissed to punish the responsible for Plame's outing to fullest extent"

Oh Lord...where one should begin, commenting on the above pathetic ignorance... George Bush cannot and doesn't "punish", law enforcement and investigation aren't among his job duties:)

By the way, she was "outed" for the right reason. People working for the federal government, especially for the CIA, should serve interests of the American nation, not conduct political vendettas against the current administration. Alas, that is exactly what too many folks at Langley are doing - fighting unvercover wars against George Bush and leaking, leaking, leaking. Conveniently, they find plenty of willing collaborators at the Walter Duranty Times.

Whether or not she was an uncercover agent is irrelevant. She was working at CIA and CIA themselves believe that her status should be protected. Oh no, the rightwing wackjobs don't realize that an agent behind the desk may actually be a better find for the terrorists than the undercover one. She has enough information to destroy a whole ring of undercover agents.

Furthermore, Fitzgerald has already come out stating that someone is destroying information of Karl Rove's role in outing Plame.

Stop defending guilty parties. The whole White House is a guilty party here. Some for outing Plame, other for covering the guilty ones up.

Vendettas? If anything, Bush's White House was acting vindictively by outing Plame when Wilson came out with correct and damning critique of White House's ridiculuos attempt at "African evidence".

"Whether or not she was an uncercover agent is irrelevant."

It's more that just relevant, it's of absolute import. Otherwise, there would be no investigation in the first place. Because the applicable U.S.laws specifically refer to willingly disclosing identities of undercover agents. More, the identity of Valerie Plame was known among Washington D.C. pundits long before the latest circus was unveiled.

More, the identity of Valerie Plame was known among Washington D.C. pundits long before the latest circus was unveiled.

Simply untrue.

It's more that just relevant, it's of absolute import. Otherwise, there would be no investigation in the first place.

She was not a field agent. But her identity as a CIA agent was not known.

CIA is furious about her outing.

CNS columnist is suspended
by Finlay Lewis
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/poli ... olumn.html
The Copley News Service announced yesterday it is suspending syndicated columnist Doug Bandow while it investigates Bandow's acceptance of payments to write favorably about some of the clients of indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In a statement issued in San Diego, Glenda Winders, vice president and editor of CNS, said, "We are suspending Doug Bandow's column immediately. We want to make sure we have all the facts before we take final action, but it has never been our policy to distribute work paid for by third parties whose role is not disclosed by the columnist."

CNS acted after an article by BusinessWeek Online disclosed Bandow's arrangement with Abramoff, who faces a January trial in Florida on wire-fraud charges connected to his purchase of a casino-boat firm. A number of prominent lawmakers have become entangled with Abramoff including Reps. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Bob Ney, R-Ohio.



Bandow resigned on Thursday from the Cato Institute after confirming the report by BusinessWeek Online that he received payments from Abramoff for writing between a dozen and 24 articles over nearly a decade. Among the Abramoff clients who received favorable treatment from Bandow were the Mississippi Choctaws, an Indian tribe, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Attempts to reach Bandow were unsuccessful.

The BusinessWeek Online posting said that Bandow admitted accepting payments from Abramoff, and is quoted as saying, "It was a lapse of judgment on my part and I take full responsibility for it."

Winders said that Bandow has been writing his column for CNS since 1983, and that his op-ed pieces have been widely used by Copley newspapers, including The San Diego Union-Tribune.

She said that the news service has not yet determined how many of Bandow's columns may have been covered by his arrangement with Abramoff and that a final determination of his status with CNS will be made after a fuller investigation.

"We want to give him every chance to tell his side of the story," Winders said.

Cato Communications Director Jamie Dettmer said the libertarian think tank launched its own investigation after a query from BusinessWeek Online and that Bandow submitted his resignation 48 hours later.

"We established to our satisfaction that there had been a series of op-eds over several years where he received payments from an Abramoff entity," Dettmer said. "Doug admitted this was the case and acknowledged it was a serious lapse of judgment."

In another matter involving Abramoff, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said yesterday that he would return about $150,000 in donations from the lobbyist and his clients and associates.

According to The Associated Press, Burns met on at least eight occasions with Abramoff and his lobbying team in 2001. The report said he pocketed about $12,000 in donations at about the same time he took steps favorable to the Northern Mariana Islands.

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
by Eric Lichtblau
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html
Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.



But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.

"Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.

"The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said. "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."

A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

"It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

"You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology."

The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests.

In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."

In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage.

When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division.

But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations.

"The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that."

Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files.

"It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism."

"Simply untrue. "

Simply you're ignorant, not that it's a shocking revelation. Comes naturally to the Sulzberger gullible audience:)

Ignorance is all yours. And, so is demagoguery. Nothing new.

Oh, Of course, Karl Rove knew! And Scooter did too. Perhaps even Cheney!

Dems deny approving Bush's spying on Americans
by Katherine Shrader
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7854.shtml
Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop _ without warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.



The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

Bush, accused of acting above the law, on Monday issued a forceful defense of the program he first authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His senior aides have stressed the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. And Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media.

He bristled at the suggestion at a White House news conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.

"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."

Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were just now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.

The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush's handling of the war on terror. It follows allegations of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and of torture and other mistreatment of detainees, and an American death toll in Iraq that has exceeded 2,150.

The eavesdropping program was operated out of the NSA, the nation's largest and perhaps most secretive spy operation. Employees there appreciate their nicknames: No Such Agency or Never Say Anything.

Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.

"The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced," said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.

Since the program was disclosed last week by The New York Times, current and former Congress members have been liberated to weigh in.

Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who was part of the Intelligence Committee's leadership after the 9/11 attacks, recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance, but does not remember being told of a program snooping on individuals in the United States.

"It seemed fairly mechanical," Graham said. "It was not a major shift in policy."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., received several briefings and raised concerns, including in a classified letter, her spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program.

Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal autho