Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

• Lynndie England burned in freak kitchen accident...
• Satan has his own brand of jeans...
• Farris Hassan is on his way home to Florida...
• Fed up pilot maroons drunken passenger on desert island...
• Oil prices up, Dow down for year's end... but energy stocks are AOK...
• Chalabi gets one hell of a boobie prize, at least for the next 30 days...
• Psst!! The NSA's cookie tracking was illegal, too (though I'm sure the righties will find some vague "Constitutional power" authorizing that, too...
• Good news! Looks like the kidnapped Brits have been sprung in Gaza...
• Bush's threat of vetoing anything short of a full extension of the Patriot Act and anything with that horrid McCain torture amendment in it proves to be as good as his word on basically everything else...
• According to Rawstory, Illinois governor Blagoyevich has written to Rummy to protest the U.S. refusal to stop doing business with companies involved in human trafficking. Nice...
• The White House thinks we can't figure out that they're behind the JD leak probe...
• ...Maybe they could start a war with Iran and make all this fuss just go away...
• John Hinckley gets seven get out of jail free cards...
• And Jack Abramoff is close to cutting a deal. Tick... tick... tick...

The National Security Agency / Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is the largest United States government intelligence agency. It is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and for the security of US government communications against similar agencies elsewhere. Established by a U.S. presidential executive order, the NSA works closely with the Department of Defense and is typically directed by a military officer...

Do you people not understand that different agencies operate under different statutes? If Mr. Bush had some probable cause to conduct a domestic law enforcement operation via the FBI, he STILL would have needed a warrant... We're talking NSA here -- essentially a component of Bush's military enterprise (which is probably why he used it instead of the FBI, to shield himself under the John Yoo cloak of "wartime powers") As for the Truong case -- the supposed legal precedent cited by Curt, Powerline and other desperate wingers in defense of Mr. Bush, ThinkProgress debunks this particular myth better than I could:

The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, "Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute. So the right is citing caselaw that predates the law in question ...

More relevant is the Katz case, which seems to be the prevailing caselaw relevant to our current mess, having been decided in 1980, two years after FISA became law:

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance.--In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard.157

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The left is planning to impail themselves on the question of whether or not we should be monitoring our enemies in order to stop their efforts to kill us. And they will use as the core of their argument their unbridled partisan hate to rationalize why we should not protect ourselves and take down Bush. Every 1oth grader knows FISA cannot trump the constitution, and decades of court precedence backing up the constitutional claims just seals the case.

"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law."

"To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation. Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated."

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

• The Rasmussen boobie poll
• Go ahead and spy on me (the right loses its collective mind)
• Kill the 'Clinton and Carter did it too' meme
• Capitol Hill Blues
• Why spy
• In case you missed it -- Barrons to Congress: consider impeachment...

Tags: politics, News, Bush, national security, NSA, government, spying, president

"The religious right's position on embryonic stem cell research is clear: consign Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers to death on the off chance that a blastocyst will crawl out of the garbage pail to work the breakfast shift at Burger King." - Jerry And Joe Long, at Huffblog.

Ann Coulter and Icabod Crane...


... Coulter definitely was in the running for quote of the year with this gem from a recent column:

Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo. ...

Thanks, Ann. Thanks for being completely psychotic. ... Anyway, this year, we chose the following separated at birth all-stars:

Honerable mention: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and "the Iranian hostage taker guy" ...

Runner up: Judge Sam Alito and Niles from "Frasier"...


And our winner: Karl Rove and Egghead Jr.

...But can he play baseball... Happy New Year!!!

Update: You know, sometimes when there's more to give, you give. Here are a few more honorable mentions for this year.

For best duo whose public policy positions are abhorrent but whose voices could make the phone book funny: Henry Kissinger and Ben Stein...

For best odd couple with leather bar moustaches: John Bolton and the dad from "American Chopper"...

For doing a heck of a job on both sides of the Bush spectrum: Mary Mapes and Michael "Brownie" Brown...

For best possible match-up from the present and the hereafter: Pope Benedict XVI and the late Agatha Christie...

For most frightening: The greedy Orc from "Lord of the Rings" and Dick Cheney...

(Honorable mention for scariest duo: Our good friends Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, and their fellow alien/human coupling, Lilo and Stitch)...

Once again, Happy New Year!

The Foreign Office has had the draft of Craig's book for clearance for over 3 months now, and they are doing everything they can to try and prevent him from publishing his side of the story. Their latest attempt to cover their own backs was to inform him, the night before Christmas Eve, that these two documents cannot be published, and that he was to return or destroy all copies immediately.

I am in discussion with the FCO over what I am and am not allowed to publish in my book. The FCO is seeking to gut the book of all evidence of complicity with the Uzbek regime.

With Bliar cornered on extraordinary rendition, they are particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence from Uzbek torture.

In particular, they have demanded I do not publish the attached documents, and that I hand over all copies of them.

The obvious answer to this is to post these documents as widely on the web as possible. This is also potentially very valuable in establishing that I am not attempting to make money from these documents - you don't have to buy my book to see them, they are freely available. If you buy the book, you are only paying for the added value of my thoughts.

This will only work if we can get the [documents] very widely posted, including on sites in the US and elsewhere outside the UK … there is a chance that those who … post this stuff will get threatened under the Official Secrets Act.

• Blair complicit in torture, too?

In interviews with a number of reservists home for the holidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon’s propaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contact their local news media outlets to offer interviews about the war. A detailed set of talking points encourages them to:

--Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission;

--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration;

--Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working;

--Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the “job is finished.”

--Talk about how “things are better” now in Iraq.

"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations."

The administration contends it is still acting in self-defense after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the battlefield is worldwide, and that everything it has approved is consistent with the demands made by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, when it passed a resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."

"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act," said one official who was briefed on the CIA's original cover program and who is skeptical of its legal underpinnings. "It's an amazing legal justification that allows them to do anything," said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.

The interpretation undergirds the administration's determination not to waver under public protests or the threat of legislative action. For example, after The Washington Post disclosed the existence of secret prisons in several Eastern European democracies, the CIA closed them down because of an uproar in Europe. But the detainees were moved elsewhere to similar CIA prisons, referred to as "black sites" in classified documents.

The CIA has stuck with its overall approaches, defending and in some cases refining them. The agency is working to establish procedures in the event a prisoner dies in custody. One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body, according to two sources.

"The executive branch will not pull back unless it has to," said a former Justice Department lawyer involved in the initial discussions on executive power. "Because if it pulls back unilaterally and another attack occurs, it will get blamed."

Which was just the conclusion I drew in this post. It may sometimes seem that GWB is mentally out to lunch, and in a lot of ways I think he is (particularly his childish glee at the grisly business of war, torture and nasty means of intelligence gathering,) but make no mistake, this guy was willing to do anything, violate any law, ignore any court and do whatever he had to do not to have a second 9/11 on his watch.

But isn't that what we want, you might ask? To be safe from terrorism at all costs? My answer would be "no." I'd rather have my country and its values and Constitution intact. I have enough faith in our armed forces and career intelligence professionals that they could follow the rules, clean up the problems in their operating procedures, and not get 9/11'ed again without turning the president into a king and the intelligence agencies and military into his secret police. I'm not the only one -- and not all of those who agree with me are Democrats (unless Phyllis Shclaffley and Bob Barr have suddenly changed sides.) Let's let conservative pundit Larry Sabato phrase it, shall we:

“The lesson is obvious, Mr. President: You're a lot closer to Nixon than you are to Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. And that's not where you want to be. Nixon's second term ended rather badly, as you will recall.”

U.S. Defends Conduct in Padilla Case
Supreme Court Asked To Overrule 4th Circuit

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A04

A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." Padilla was held for more than three years by the military before he was indicted last month in Miami on separate criminal terrorism charges.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. The Bush administration took strong issue yesterday with the Richmond-based court's decision and appealed it to the Supreme Court.

It was another remarkable turn in Padilla's case, which has evolved into a legal spat between the executive and judicial branches of government. The dispute is especially unusual because it involves the 4th Circuit, which has been the administration's venue of choice for high-profile terrorism cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The 4th Circuit has given the government extraordinary latitude on national security matters, ruling for prosecutors in the cases of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi and Padilla are the two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants as part of the government's campaign against terror since Sept. 11.

The Justice Department brief said the 4th Circuit had mischaracterized the events of Padilla's incarceration and engaged in "an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion." Prosecutors accused the court of going so far as to "usurp" Bush's authority as the nation's commander-in-chief and his government's "prosecutorial discretion."

In Padilla's case, the same three-judge panel that is now drawing the government's ire strongly backed the president's authority to hold Padilla without charges or trial in an earlier ruling. That decision, like the one refusing to authorize Padilla's transfer, was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was a contender to be nominated by Bush to the Supreme Court this year.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts is the Supreme Court justice who oversees cases from the 4th Circuit, but it was unclear yesterday whether Roberts would rule himself on the government's request for Padilla's transfer. The full court is considering whether to take up the merits of Padilla's detention by the military.

The presumption of innocence is foundational to any democratic form of government. Without that presumption, the state is free to exert whatever control it arbitrarily chooses in the incarceration or punishment of its citizens. This effectively destroys the firewall that safeguards the individual from the vagaries of government power and intrusiveness. It is absurd to talk about democracy if the most fundamental of protections for its citizens are not provided. When the presumption of innocence is denied, justice is denied, and democracy withers.

For the first time in American history this principle is being challenged outright in the government's case against Jose Padilla. The Bush Administration is claiming that the president has the authority to strip a citizen of his constitutional rights in the name of national security. If they are successful in their efforts, the "inalienable" rights of man will cease to be. Citizens will no longer be protected by clearly articulated due process rights interpreted by an independent judiciary, but quickly dispatched by executive fiat. Justice will be dispensed at the discretion of the president.

For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant. They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.

• Padilla update
• The Madness of King George
• Color me skeptical...

I'm a Soldier, Not a Spy

By Grant Doty

Friday, December 30, 2005; Page A27

As Americans take stock of the news that the government has been involved in domestic warrantless eavesdropping as well as surveillance of "potentially threatening people or organizations inside the United States," many people are troubled, including me.

Although the government may be interested in my ACLU membership, my wife's participation in war protests or my affiliation with the liberal United Church of Christ, my real anxiety stems from the fact that I am a soldier and may now be under suspicion from my friends and neighbors.

Specifically, given the information slowly leaking out of Washington, it may not be farfetched for some to think that when I "stumble across people or information" that might be of interest to the government, I might report it to the Pentagon's three-year-old Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA).

While such a conclusion would be false (I hadn't heard of CIFA before reading about it in the news this month), in an Orwellian world, the protestations of someone labeled the "eyes and ears" of the state are reasonably suspect.

What makes me think that the people with whom I interact regularly will somehow believe I won't report suspect words and actions? When I walk to my bus stop in Bethesda each morning, I see who has a "War Is Not the Answer" yard sign. One of the people I regularly see on my commute wears a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals button on her overcoat. My church, which prayed for me during my year in Iraq, has an e-mail list that informs me about local civic actions, including war protests. I attend night law school, frequently in uniform, and through the social network of law students know when the gay, lesbian and bisexual organization is planning to lead the picketing of Judge Advocate General Corps recruiters who come to campus.

Now that we've learned that the military may be collecting such "raw, unverified information" in the form of "Talon reports," my fear is that when friends and neighbors see me, in or out of uniform, their speech could be chilled. I wonder: Will I begin to see a change in behavior? Will my neighbors draw their shades more often? Will they think twice about putting a bumper sticker on their car? Will I be deleted from the church list? Will my law school class discussions be more reserved?

"Paranoia," some may say. The only people who need to worry are those with something to hide. This may be true. In fact, being with the president or against him in the war on terrorism may be the current controversy, but I can envision a time when antiabortion groups and churches might fear soldiers attending meetings or services if such groups are labeled "threats" by a subsequent administration. Are they sincere pro-lifers or moles? Perhaps gun owners' groups might feel that soldiers are joining to get access to membership lists or activities if such groups are deemed "dangerous." Is one a Second Amendment defender or domestic spy?

Yes, I took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies "foreign and domestic," but the implication of domestic intelligence-gathering by the military, even by a limited number of soldiers, should be sufficiently disturbing for American citizens in and out of uniform that we think long and hard about crossing the line, even a little.

The writer is a lieutenant colonel in the Army. The views expressed here are his own.

• Just 46 percent of Americans have a favorable view of President Bush, according to CNN/USA Today/Gallup. (They like Laura, though) ...
  
• 33% of Americans would like to vote Dubya off the Survivor island first if they had the chance, just behind Paris Hilton, according to a new Parade Magazine poll ...
  
• Two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track under Mr. Bush's and the Republican Congress' leadership, according to the latest NPR poll by Stan Greenberg and Public Opinion Strategies... (though as often happens in polling, the two pollsters' analyses of the data differ according to their political leanings...)
  
• A GMI global attitudes poll finds Americans among the most gloomy and pessimistic people in the Western world regarding our economy and the direction of our country, and blowing more and more money on escapism to ease the pain...

Would you like fries with that?

Previous:

• Ah, now I get it...
• The Rasmussen boobie poll

Tags: Polls, Americans, Opinion,

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- More than four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited, according to a new Harris Poll. For example:

-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had
"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

However, all of these beliefs and others have declined sharply since the questions were asked in February 2005. For example:

-- Those who think Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda have fallen from 64 to 41 percent.
-- Those who believe that Iraq was a serious threat to U.S. security are down from 61 to 48 percent.
-- Those who think Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11 are down from 47 to 22 percent.
-- Those who think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are down from 36 to 26 percent.
-- Those who think Iraqi hijackers attacked the United States on 9/11 have fallen from 44 to 24 percent.

Although public support for the war in Iraq has been waning, a 56 percent majority of all adults believe that "the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein." However, this has also fallen from 76 percent since February.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,961 U.S. adults surveyed online between December 8 and 14, 2005 by Harris Interactive(R).

These new poll findings and trends show how slowly most people change their minds once they believe something to be true. Nevertheless, they also show that, over time, beliefs can change greatly. [Source: P.R. Newswire]