Conservative Business Magazine, Barron's, Excoriates Bush for Committing a Potentially Impeachable Offense

In case you missed it over the holidays, that bastion of commie pinko liberalism, Barron's, more than mentions the "i" word.

The article is online here (requires registration) but you can read it in its entirety here.

Unwarranted Executive Power
The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws

[snip]

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

[snip]

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

"Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

That's no America I know...

A friend e-mailed in a link to a great column in the Miami Herald. You can find it here. Robert Steinback deserves some sort of medal for this one. He writes:

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marine Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

And yet, all of that's true, isn't it?

Go read the column.

Word of the day:

Impeach.

More gristle for the wingnuts to gnaw on

I found this via dailykos. It's from UPI. It's short so I'll reprint it entirely.

Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

Yea, that's what you do when you respect the rule of law. If it gets in your way, just go around it.

Impeach

Brian O'Neill Agrees

I don't know if Brian O'Neill is a reader of this blog, but it's nice to know that he and I are on the same page on this Santorum thing. I wrote this yesterday and now take a look at his column today. Here's how it starts:

Oh ye of little faith, do not be too hard on U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum for his abandonment of the Thomas More Law Center.

The Republican from Pennsylvania is looking at a tough re-election fight next year. That's why some are scornful of Mr. Santorum's announcement last week that he's withdrawing his affiliation with the public interest law firm that bills itself "as the sword and the shield for people of faith.''

It takes little time for O'Neill to get to the heart of the matter.

It only took a losing court fight in his home state to put him on the path to enlightenment. Mr. Santorum now says the center "made a huge mistake'' in backing the Dover Area school board in its failed effort to move the notion of "intelligent design'' into science classrooms. Mr. Santorum told The Philadelphia Inquirer he is cutting ties with the firm.

Many see that as a curious turn. "The evolution of a flip-flop,'' one critic called it. Earlier in the year, Mr. Santorum had commended the school district for having "taken a step in the right direction by engaging in the debate and attempting to teach the controversy of evolution.''

But if Mr. Santorum wishes to grant himself retroactive naivete, who are we to judge? Perhaps he honestly didn't know this case was steeped in religion from the start.

By the way, that "evolution of a flip-flop" came from a blog called "Panda's Thumb." It's comment #64218 from someone named "Fross." As far as I can tell "Fross" used to have a blog called (you guessed it) "Fross' Blog." I know this doesn't add to the importance of O'Neill's column in any way - I'm just showing off my google-skills.

O'Neill then does the funny. Check it out:

Let us not waste our time today debating the unknowable. Let us rather increase it. We don't know how many precedents for Santorum-like disavowals of previous affiliations may exist. Consider these possibilities:

"It has recently come to my attention that the University of Notre Dame is a leading Roman Catholic institution of higher learning, and I am, evidently, the son of Norwegian Lutheran immigrants. I therefore see no choice but to submit my resignation as coach of the football team.

-- Regretfully,

Knute Rockne.

And so on...

Kudos to Brian O'Neill

Oh and by the way:

Impeach

More Trouble for Rick Santorum

Via the York Daily Record, I found a troubling press release from the American Family Associate of Pennsylvania. Troubling, that is, for Lil Ricky Santorum. You can find it here. The first sentence says it all:

Senator Rick Santorum’s agreement with Judge John Jones’ decision concerning the Dover Area School District’s policy pertaining to Evolution and Intelligent Design is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the Senator, a statewide traditional values group said today. [emphasis added]

Ouchie.

The Daily Record fills in some of the blanks.

The association's president, Diane Gramley, said Santorum - who is expected to face a tough re-election challenge next year from state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. - should heed her organization's remarks.

"It's a warning that he needs to be careful," Gramley said. "That he's beginning to lose his conservative base."

Then there's this. Can someone PLEASE say flip-flop?

Gramley criticized Santorum for changing his position.

"He's almost made a 180-degree turn on this issue," she said.

In August, after President Bush said he supported teaching intelligent design in science class, Santorum said he didn't agree.

Rather, he said he supports "teaching the controversy" over evolutionary theory.

"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution," the Pennsylvania senator said during an NPR interview in August.

But in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article, Santorum wrote that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

Gramley said Santorum's change of view is an indication that "he may be diverting from his conservative positions," in order to court more moderate voters.

Gee, ya think???

Even on Christmas, Jack Kelly distorts

Take a look at today's P-G. In it there's yet another defense of the increasingly indefensible Bush Administration by National Security correspondent Jack Kelly. Too bad much (if not all) of it is just crap.

Basically his argument can by summed up with this:

A grave crime was exposed Dec. 16 when New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau published a story revealing President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States without first obtaining a warrant.

"We're seeing clearly now that [President] Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.

But the scandal was not the program Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau wrote about. The scandal is that they wrote about it.

This is a typical Kelly response. Odd, though - coming as it does from an employee of a newspaper.

In writing this, Kelly makes a number of distortions. He trots out this well-worn quotation:

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," said Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under President Clinton, in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994.

"It's important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities," she said.

First off, take a careful look at what Gorelick said. She said that:

"...the president has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes..." [emphasis added]

Can someone please tell Jack Kelly that that that's not what Bush ordered the NSA to do? There's a huge difference between a physical search and an electronic search. Or doesn't the P-G's "national security correspondent" understand this?

In any case when Gorelick testified in July of 1994, FISA did not cover physical searches at all. So to use this quotation to support the claim that Bush's use of the NSA is not "unprecedented" because Clinton also did it, is plainly dishonest.

But Kelly does more damage to his own credibility. Let's take a look at Gorelick's actual testimony that day:

At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.

But this follows immediately:

Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President’s authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted.

Whah??? The Clinton Administration supported legislation establishing warrant procedures for physical searches under FISA? Jack Kelly carefully omitted that part, didn't he? And take a look at what he else quotes from Gorelick's testimony. Right after his first paragraph, he goes with this:

"It's important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities," she said.

The implication is that it happened right after after the first paragraph (we already know that that's not true). Where does it come from in Gorelick's testimony? It's a couple of paragraphs away. Now take a look at the context:

That being said, the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation. A bill that strikes the proper balance between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation’s security, on one hand, and the preservation of basic civil rights on the other will be an important addition to our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions. Such a bill would also provide additional assurances to the dedicated men and women who serve this country in intelligence positions that their activities are proper and necessary.

In considering legislation of this type, however, it is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.

Please note, Jack, that Gorelick made a distinction between physical searches and electronic searches. Something you did not when you were selectively quoting her.

The legislation incorporating physical searches into FISA was passed in 1995 and from that point on, the Clinton Administration did not hold that it had the "inherent authority" to do the searches you claim it claims.

By the way, electronic searches were restricted by FISA since it's inception. Another thing you failed to inform your readers.

Next thing he uses is a New York Times article from 1982. He writes:

Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau chose not to mention the following story, which appeared in The New York Times on Nov. 7, 1982: "A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

This was new to me. It took a few minutes to find out that Jack Kelly is referenceing Jabara v Webster (sorry about the cache search - it's all I could find). Unfortunately I think the NYT got it wrong on this one. I am not a lawyer, but if I am reading the decision correctly, the circuit court overturned a lower court ruling about Mr Jabara's claim that the FBI violated his 4th Amendment rights in receiving the messages intercepted by the NSA. This is from the decision:

On November 1, 1971, the FBI, without a warrant, requested the NSA to supply it with the contents of Jabara's telegraphic communications sent overseas, and the NSA complied by furnishing the FBI with summaries of six of such communications.

Defendants contend that the fourth amendment does not apply to and limit NSA's gathering of foreign intelligence. They also contend that, in any event, the facts surrounding the acquisition by the NSA of overseas telegraphic communications such as those sent by Jabara are subject to the state secret privilege.

Jabara, however, does not even contend on this appeal that the interception by the NSA violated his fourth amendment rights; we may therefore take as a given that the information was legally in the hands of the NSA. What Jabara does contend, and the district court agreed, is that his rights were violated when the NSA turned over the information, without a warrant, to the FBI. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that, since the NSA had lawfully intercepted and had made a record of the content of Jabara's communications, the fourth amendment was not implicated when the FBI requested and obtained the summaries from the NSA. This is so, defendants contend, because there simply was no "search" or "seizure" when this information was turned over to another agency of the government. [emphasis added]

As far as I can tell, the 6th Circuit Court overturned the lower court ruling because that lower court used a too narrow definition of what was relevant and necessary information for the FBI to use to ask the NSA for the searches. I could be wrong, though. I'll wait for the legal types to chime in on this one (anyone with any legal insight on this, please e-mail me).

But since Jabara himself didn't assert in this case that his 4th Amendment rights were violated by the NSA, I can't see how this decision can be used to "prove" that Bush didn't violate the 4th Amendment by ordering the NSA to conduct warrantless searches of American Citizens.

It's that last phrase that tells the tale of Jack Kelly's lies. Check out these paragraphs:

Even the feckless Jimmy Carter issued on May 23, 1979, an executive order authorizing the attorney general "to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." President Carter cited as the authority for issuing his order the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Congress had passed the year before, and which Mr. Alter and other hyperventilating hypocrites claim President Bush has violated.

In a 2002 case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- the special court that hears appeals in FISA cases -- said the president "did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

First off, we've already posted on Carter's executive order (here). Gee Jack, I thought you read this blog - my mistake. But take a look at Kelly's text. Nowhere in there is there the phrase "American citizens" or "United States Citizens." The order that Carter signed allowed the AG to conduct those searches as long as he was able to certify that no US Citizens were being surveilled.

Again the issue is not "warrantless searches" but "warrantless searches against US citizens."

Any time you hear someone say it's the former and not the latter, tell them they're lying.

Jack Kelly - you're lying.

Joe Conason Explains it All

Over at Salon.com, Joe Conason has more than a few things to say about those folks (and you know who you are) who can still somehow defend Bush's surveillance program. He begins:

Notwithstanding the haughty pretensions of this imperial president -- who never apologizes and rarely explains -- the officials, scribes and courtiers of the Bush administration are busy fashioning excuses for the illegal-surveillance scandal. Advanced by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as the likes of Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, these sophistries range from the absurdly illogical to the blatantly misleading.

Later on...

In his signature style, Drudge has sought to suggest that Bush has done nothing that Democratic presidents didn't do, which may reflect his own continuing obsession with Bill Clinton. The Internet gossip's headline this week blared, "Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court Order..." He went on to link to a National Review Online article that made much of a Clinton order in 1994 authorizing warrantless searches. But it is important to connect the dots, as the president would say, in Drudge's ellipsis points. The Clinton executive order permitted such searches only under certain very limited circumstances that are legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the very statute that Bush has admitted ignoring.

The Center for American Progress noted Wednesday what Drudge left out and what the National Review's Byron York elided -- namely, the difference between search or surveillance operations conducted against foreigners and those conducted against American citizens. ("Some people," York later noted in chiding exaggerations on both sides of the issue, "have said that Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing such surveillance; he did not.")

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act restrictions were designed to protect Americans, not to hobble U.S. counterintelligence aimed at foreign spies and terrorists.

That was why Clinton's order authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" -- but only if the attorney general "makes the certifications required" by Section 302(a)(1) of FISA. That section requires the attorney general to certify that the search or surveillance in question would not invade the property or premises of "a United States person," meaning a citizen or someone living here legally. By leaving out the same qualification, Drudge made the same incorrect implication about an order signed by Jimmy Carter in 1979. Then again, as Drudge has occasionally boasted, his reporting is 80 percent correct -- but sometimes that omitted 20 percent can make all the difference.

Impeach

Huh. The spying was BIGGER than what Bush said it was

Imagine that. The man lied. Again.

Take a look.

The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

Impeach.

More on Santorum and ID

So he DID support it before he opposed it!

From this editorial in the Scranton Times, I was able to find this op-ed piece in Ronald Reagan's favorite "news" paper, the Washington Times. Let's start with the editorial. It begins like this:

Like the famous Galapagos Islands finches that have been observed evolving in a single generation in response to environmental conditions, Sen. Rick Santorum has evolved in a single political season.

The senator, who once claimed in The Washington Times that intelligent design “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes,” announced Thursday that he is resigning as an adviser to the right-wing group that recently attempted to force that very baloney down the throat of a federal court.

The Times is far too nice. As I posted here recently, Lil Ricky isn't "evolving" as much as he's putting politics above principle - again. Even though I can't agree with him, I'd respect him more if he were to stick to his principles and let the chips fall where they may.

On to the op-ed piece in 2002. Here's what he said:

Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.

But let's remember what came out of the Philadelphia Inquirer recently:

But Santorum denied that his remarks were contradictory, saying he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.

But wait, didn't he say that ID was a legitimate theory? Where in his 2002 op-ed is even the suggestion about teaching the controversy rather than the theory itself?

Rick Santorum - You just can't trust him.

...and there's more

Via ThinkProgress, USNews is reporting this:

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

I'll let that sink in for a second.

Let me inject a prediction here. I predict that all of the defense of this "program" will be centered around how the places being surveilled were public and that the law allows surveillance of public. I am sure we'll hear about how (to quote the article) if a deliveryman can access the site, so can the government. But please note that in the above list, homes were also searched. Private homes. Take a look:

In Bush's America, private homes were searched without a warrant.

I know I shouldn't have to post this, but here it is anyway:

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.

See that word "houses" in there? It means "homes." And see that phrase "...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause supported by oath or affirmation..."? That means that the government can not do what it did.

And before anyone tries the assert that such a search is constitutional, Take a look at Kyllo v United States. It's my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) that the case entailed a warrantless infrared search of a home that was suspected of housing a marijuana garden under hot lights. The question before the court was whether the search required a warrant (again, this is my understanding). In any event, the decision was written by Antonin Scalia and this can be found in it:

Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Antonin Scalia wrote a decision that stood in the way of Our President's efforts to protect us from the terrorist who want to kill us. That commie bastard terrorist sympathizer!

Rick Santorum and ID (did he support it before he opposed it?)

And when will the local Pittsburgh Punditocracy begin to call him a flip-flopper on it?

I caught this in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:

The lead defense counsel for the Dover Area School District said yesterday that he was surprised at Sen. Rick Santorum's apparent about-face on intelligent design and questioned the timing of his highly critical comments on the federal lawsuit decided this week.

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, attributed Santorum's comments, and his sudden resignation Wednesday from the Christian law center's board, to political pressure in a tight Senate race.

The article goes on with some obvious weasel words from our junior senator:

But Santorum denied that his remarks were contradictory, saying he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.

Santorum's communications director, Robert L. Traynham, said the senator stood by the statements made on Wednesday and had nothing more to say on the matter.

Traynham said Santorum was dissociating himself from the law center, which promotes itself as a defender of "Christian values," because it was "time to move on."

"He has a busy plate, and it was not the best use of his time," Traynham said.

Santorum's remarks came a day after a federal judge in Harrisburg ruled that the Dover district had violated the Constitution when it imposed intelligent design as part of the biology curriculum.

Notice the weasel words: He was against mandating the teaching of ID, and only wanted teachers to teach the "controversy" surrounding Darwin. But it should not be a surprise to learn that the only "controversy" surrounding Darwin is that Darwinists refuse to accept Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory. So by mandating the teaching of "the controversy" Santorum is also guaranteeing the teaching of ID - all while still being able to deny doing anything of the sort.

Weasel.

But I am getting off the subject - sorry.

Take a look at the end of the piece:

Former school board member Jim Cashman, who voted for the intelligent-design policy, said the critical statements suggested Santorum was trying to be "politically correct."

"I'm a little disappointed," said Cashman, one of eight pro-intelligent design board members who were ousted in the November election. "He's trying to come to the center more, and that bothers me. He used to be more conservative."

If anything this is, as implied by the first paragraph of the Inquirer piece, another example of Santorum's placing "politics over principle."

Here's another example. Remember waaaaay back when Arlen Specter was running against Congressman Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination? The main conservative criticism of Specter was that he placed "politics over principle." True conservatives were supporting Toomey and were annoyed at Rick for not doing the same. We wrote then:

It seems like a lifetime ago, but I once met Congressman Pat Toomey. The PAC of the lawfirm I used to work for hosted a meet-n-greet with the Congressman. During the meeting, Toomey spelled out basically the same criticism (of favoring politics over principle) when discussing Senator Spector. When one of the more conservative attorneys in the room (a member of the Federalist Society, no less) asked about getting Senator Santorum's endorsement due to their close ideological stands, the Congressman laid out the same argument above. If Senator Santorum moved one inch in the direction of aiding Congressman Toomey, he'd loose his position in the party by the end of the day.

The point that both Toomey and McNickle make is that Senator Man-on-Dog wouldn't have lost his Senate seat had he endorsed Toomey - just his position in the party. All to work for an incumbent already described as favoring politics over principle.

I'm not sure anyone else in the room that day caught the irony of Toomey's situation. And honestly I kinda felt bad for the guy. He should have been welcomed with open arms by Lil Ricky. Instead he got fucked by one of the Senate's leading anti-gay legislators.

And remember last November? Bush's poll numbers had tanked and although the leader of the free-world was visiting our State, Lil Ricky had "other" plans? Read about it here.

Now the same thing has happened to the supporters of Intelligent Design - when it becomes politically expedient, Lil Ricky has other obligations.

Rick Santorum - Politics over Principle

If not now, when?

So we now know that Bush:

Sought War Powers INSIDE the US

Personally approved spying on US citizens without warrants

Cherry-picked prewar intelligence to start a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the US

Had to have his arm twisted to come out against torture

Terrorized US citizens by issuing numerous Terror Alerts before the 2004 election (but NONE since)

Declares that the "War on Terror" gives him authority to do whatever he wants

So now can we impeach the fucker?

More Questions about King George's Authority

John at AmericaBlog asks:

So can Bush assassinate New York Times reporters?

Seriously. I'd like to know what limit, if any, there is to Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Bush said that the New York Times jeopardized national security and the war on terror by publishing its story revealing that he broke the law by spying on Americans. So, can Bush have New York Times reporters arrested and executed for treason? Or at the very least, when the NYT executive editor met with Bush at the White House to discuss whether or not to run the story, could Bush have simply had the NYT editor shot?

I'm serious, I want to know. We've been told that Bush can do anything he wants so long as it's to help the war on terror, so are there any limits?

And, The Rude Pundit asks a similar question (Warning: not for the weak of heart or the hypocritical).

What Happened to the Terror Alerts?

From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

Every so often a reader writes in and asks this question. And it's a pretty good one. So here goes: When was the last time there was a major terror alert? They were something like a regular occurence for the eighteen months or so before the 2004 election. And through 2004 the administration pushed the line that al Qaida was aiming to disrupt the elections themselves. But as near I can tell there hasn't been a single one since election day.

Through 2004, of course, critics of the administration routinely questioned whether the frequency and timing of the various terror alerts were not all or in part for political effect.

How do we explain what appears to be a night and day difference between the year prior to November 2004 and the year since in terms of terror alerts and scares?

Bush's War Against the US: Bush Sought War Powers IN the US

(The Most Dangerous Man in the World)

Those of you who see Bush for what he is may not be surprised. Those of you who will shrug this off or try to say that, "Clinton did it first" would not be swayed if Bush ate a baby live on TV.

From the Washington Post:

Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S.

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States'' in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in Friday's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

[snip]

Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

[snip]

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

UPDATE: In addition to the above article, Tom Daschle also has an op-ed on this subject in WAPO called, "Power We Didn't Grant."

Bush's Report Card

Admittedly unscientific AOL poll.

Overall, did President Bush win or lose this year?
He lost 64%
He won 27%
He came out even 9%
(Total Votes: 357,529 )

How do you think he will do in 2006?
Worse 46%
Better 35%
The same 19%
Total Votes: 356,970
(Total Votes: 357,529 )

How would you grade him on Iraq?
F 52%
A 16%
B 14%
D 11%
C 7%
(Total Votes: 309,554)

FISA Judges react

Yesterday I posted this. It's a story about a FISA judge who resigned in protest Bush's secret surveillance program.

Well via washingtonmonthly, I found this article at the Washington Post.

Seems that Georgie's got some 'splainin' to do:

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

I loved the part where the judges involved want to know why the administration believed the authorization-free surveillance was legal. Looks like they already think it was not. Then there's these interesting hints in the text:

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. 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."

Whuuh? The administration complained that it had to name a target and give a reason that it wanted to spy on it? What sort of democracy do we have here?

Looks like they wanted to be able to listen in wherever/whenever they wanted, keep it completely secret and not have to justify it to anyone ever. Too bad there were laws against that sort of thing. No problem, they just ignored the law and spied anyway. Any complaints would be chalked up to "irresponsible acts that help the enemy."

Worst President ever.
Impeach the bastard.

Time for a Little Fun

Saw this over at A Bit Of Cotton Doesn't Equal Fluff :

4 things meme!

FOUR JOBS YOU'VE HAD IN YOUR LIFE:
1. Web Development Director
2. Director of Special Global Events
3. Used Record Store Clerk/Buyer
4. Prep/Short Order Cook

FOUR MOVIES YOU COULD (AND DO!) WATCH OVER AND OVER:
1. Rosemary's Baby
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Dogma
4. The Fifth Element

FOUR CITIES YOU'VE LIVED IN (TOWNS)
1. Pittsburgh, PA
2. NY, NY
3. Brooklyn, NY
4. Lock 4 (North Charleroi), PA

FOUR TV SHOWS YOU LOVE TO WATCH:
1. Daily Show
2. Countdown with Keith Olbermann
3. Seinfeld
4. Pittsburgh City Council (comedy/tragedy)

FOUR PLACES YOU'VE BEEN ON VACATION:
1. Rome, Italy
2. Washington, DC
3. By some lake in Ontario being eaten alive by vicious GIANT Canadian mosquitoes and ending up in the emergency room
4. Disney World, FL (never recovered from getting stuck in "It's a Small World After All" ride)

FOUR WEBSITES YOU VISIT DAILY:
1. http://www.dailykos.com
2. http://atrios.blogspot.com
3. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com
4. http://www.americablog.org

FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE FOODS:
1. Mexican
2. Greek Diner
3. Any Diner
4. Chinese

FOUR PLACES I'D RATHER BE RIGHT NOW:
1. New York (OK, I'd rather wait until after the strike)
2. Rome
3. Venice
4. in a country that gave a shit when the preznit shat on their constitution

But I heard at New Republic/Drudge/FOX News that Clinton/Carter did the same thing/worse...

Since we got the same 'argument" from two different trolls on two different posts in the past 12 hours, here's the answer which I posted to one already:

Nice way to miss the obvious! What you're missing in the National Review article is that this was DEBATED in the open at the time. That Clinton SOUGHT Congressional APPROVAL. That he actually sought real Congressional AUTHORIZATION. That Gorelick did TESTIFY before Congress and that The Washington Post was able to quote that testimony the next day. Clinton did not act like a THIEF IN THE NIGHT telling partial truths to an extreme minority of Congress and keeping them from seeking any legal opinion.

And that the outcome of that OPEN DEBATE was an executive order that DID NOT INVOLVE WARRANTLESS SPYING ON AMERICANS (and was not secret):

From Think Progress:

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that. ****

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved. ****

And, more from from Daily KOS:

****You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

****Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

So sorry, folks: NO CIGAR (pun intended).

Some Guesses from the Experts

I found a pair of articles at defensetech.org that, while admittedly educated guesses, point to something deeply sinister going on in DC.

The first article.

A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between midly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any fucking circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird shit. But at least you don't fuck with your own people."

From that article, I found this one:

There's more to the NSA domestic spying case than the current storyline -- that much is clear. The idea that the Bush Administration needed to bypass the courts to get wiretaps quickly makes no sense; under the current system, you can start eavesdropping, and get a warrant later. The notion that disclosing the surveillance would somehow tip off potential terrorists is laughable, too; Al Qaeda types know they're being monitored.

That's all assuming, of course, that the wiretaps in this case are the same as in any other. But maybe they're not. Maybe there's something different about this surveillance. It could be in its scope, as Laura suggests. But I'm guessing -- and this is just a guess -- that the real difference is in the technology of the wiretaps themselves.

"Laura" refers to another signal intelligence-blogger. She wrote on 12/18:

There's something else about the Bush/NSA warrantless, oversight-less spying on Americans that doesn't make sense. The case Bush cited yesterday - of two San Diego based hijackers al Hazmi and al-Mihdhar and their overseas communications -- as a justification for going around the FISA court to use the NSA to spy on Americans making calls overseas -- really makes no sense.

Why?

Because it's pretty clear if you were tapping Mr. Al Mihdhar's calls to Germany and Mr. Al-Hazmi's calls to Germany and Afghanistan, that pretty soon, you would want to tap their calls to each other, in San Diego, or their calls with Mr. Atta, who was in Florida.

In other words, you would want to tap the calls between US based persons.

Why? Because what you're really worried about is what those potential terrorist cells are planning to do in the US.

So presumably, you would have to go to the FISA court at that point. (Bush hasn't admitted to the NSA being used to tap US to US calls -- yet).

But that's not how it worked. The way Bush did the NSA warrantless spying on Americans was no fine instrument. It was a blunt instrument. As the NYT reports today (Sunday), Bush ordered every communication to and from Afghanistan monitored by the NSA after September 11.

Back a step...

The second article ends this way:

So maybe the NSA wiretaps were using a new kind of capability; one that terror suspects might not have know about; one that might have even made the FISA court uncomfortable, somehow.

It's a lot of mights and maybes, I know. But the current threads of this story are so thin, it's time to start considering some alternatives.

I realize alot of this is guess work, but when the experts are saying it, some attention should probably be paid.

This is a dirty smelly mess. The President ordered the NSA to circumvent the law - and then admitted to it. Impeach the bastard.

FISA Judge Resigns

Via the DailyKos, I found this article in the Washington Post. The article begins:

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

But there's something very interesting further down.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

So not only did our American Caesar needlessly circumvent the law, but some of the very judges that would have issued the FISA warrants were concerned that they were being manipulated by the whole illegal process.

Conyers Introduces Bills to Censure Bush/Cheney and to Create Select Committee to Investigate Possible Crimes/ Make Recommendations Re Impeachment

Congressman John Conyers has introduced three new pieces of legislation aimed at censuring President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and at creating a fact-finding committee that could be a first step toward impeachment.

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts! (Click here )

That link will take you to a newly revised After Downing Street site, where you'll find at the top an extensive new report produced by the House Judiciary Committee and titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War."

More Spygate Fallout

From the New York Times:

Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

From the Washington Post:

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

[snip]

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Rick Santorum (R-Va) Declares Bush King!

(It's Good to be the King, Part II)

From AmericaBlog:

Rick Santorum: President can do "whatever is necessary"
by John in DC - 12/20/2005 09:59:00 AM

Really Rick? So that would include taking people's guns away, having background checks at gun shows, keeping permanent federal records on gunowners, repealing the 2nd Amendment? You said "whatever is necessary"?

Just wait until the first shopping mall is attacked by some Saudi with a machine gun, then kiss your guns goodbye. And the best part is that Congress won't have to fire a shot, so to speak - Bush will do it all by executive order and pro-gun Republicans like Rick Santorum will say "hey, whatever is necessary."

From the Philly Inquirer:

"The senator recognizes that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," Santorum spokesman Robert L. Traynham said. "He fully supports the President's ability to protect American lives by going this step in terms of listening in on conversations."

"It's Good to be the King!"

(Variations on a Theme)






tags: impeach impeach bush impeachment

IMPEACH

What Does Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa) Say About Illegal Domestic Spying?

His constituents might like to know...

Opponent Tom Kovach has a very clear position stated here and thinks you might want to ask Murphy for his thoughts on this issue.

Klink Klunk?

MEDIA girl and Gort42 think that Bob Casey, Jr. is starting to look awfully Klinkish. (Many mentions of Chuck Pennacchio.)

The Real Reason Why Bush Broke the Law (Like he needs a reason)

Many have wondered why, when FISA Courts approve nearly every wiretap and when you can ask for a wiretap retroactively, Bush went to the extraordinary lengths of just breaking the law and subverting the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Looks like a little digging by Shock at Daily KOS has come up with the answer in an old article in the Washington Post.

Apparently the courts had already rebuffed Ashcroft about bad wiretaps in 2002:

The secretive federal court that approves spying on terror suspects in the United States has refused to give the Justice Department broad new powers, saying the government had misused the law and misled the court dozens of times, according to an extraordinary legal ruling released yesterday.

A May 17 opinion by the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) alleges that Justice Department and FBI officials supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.

Authorities also improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York on at least four occasions, the judges said.

[snip]

The documents released yesterday also provide a rare glimpse into the workings of the almost entirely secret FISA court, composed of a rotating panel of federal judges from around the United States and, until yesterday, had never jointly approved the release of one of its opinions. Ironically, the Justice Department itself had opposed the release.

Stewart Baker, former general counsel of the National Security Agency, called the opinion a "a public rebuke. ...

Read the entire story here.

GENIUS IDEA

From Kagro X at Daily KOS:

IMPEACH: The Guerrilla Marketing Movement

What I'm proposing is this: Go into your word processors right now, and type out the word "IMPEACH." Go ahead, use caps. Center it. Bold it. Make it 72 point. Turn the page to landscape if you like, and make it bigger.

You've got a sign. Print it out. Xerox it. Put it up on a lamp post. On a supermarket bulletin board. Inside a newspaper vending machine. Anywhere.

You've joined the movement.

How does it feel? Want more? Would you be willing to spend a little money on it?

Pick up a pack of Avery labels down at the office supply store. Print out a page worth of stickers that say the same thing. IMPEACH.Not impeach Bush.

Not impeach Cheney. Not Chimpeach. Just IMPEACH.Everyone will know what you're talking about.

Everyone will know who you're talking about, even if you're talking about Cheney and not Bush. They'll still get it. Stick those stickers anywhere you like, and that you won't get in trouble for. Go ahead. Anywhere.

Got more money than that, and want to spend it?Go the "freeway blogger" route. Print it out banner-sized. IMPEACH -- greeting every commuter on their way to work.

Grander still? Got the money for a vinyl banner? Do we know printers who'll give us a bulk rate? What if we got together to cut a deal on 500 such banners? The cheapest possible printing -- black on white. Just a big IMPEACH. Nothing else. Yard signs? Billboards? Moving billboards?

Read the entire post and the other ideas in the comments section here.

IMPEACH

Billy Valentine - Portrait of a Fascist

I normally wouldn't waste my time responding to such an obvious troll, but our favorite gay-bashing, misogynist, anti-choice sidewalk counselor, Billy Valentine, left some comments here that point out a frightening streak of fascism. If we can assume he's not in his own political wilderness and that there are others like him, then this country is in deep shit indeed.

First some definitions.

Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

In Mr Valentine's case, I can't speak on the racism or "stringent economic controls," but everything else about him seems pretty fascistic to me.

My evidence?

The comment on this posting.

The Other Political Junkie outlined a case for impeachment based, in part, on the authorization of the seemingly illegal wiretapping and other abuses of power by the current resident of the White House. And Mr Valentine's response? I'll reprint it in full:

Wow. Impeachment? You are so far out in left field.. there's no hope of bringing you back to reality.

Republicans control the White House, Senate, House of Reps, the majority of state legislatures, and the majority of Governors.

And, with the help of Roberts and Alito, we are inches away from a Supreme Court that will shove OUR social agenda down YOUR throat.

Impeachment? How about a reality check.

While it may be correct to assume that because of the right-wing control of the federal legislature impeachment may be a long way off. But, if anything, that's more evidence of the further (some might say "absolut") corruption of the GOP. A blue stained dress and "that all depends on what the definition of 'is' is" and they impeach a sitting president. Another president admits to authorizing the NSA to ignore federal law and the best defense that that "Law and Order/Traditional American Values" party can do is to trot out a weak and dishonest rationalization that Congress authorized Bush to do what he wants, when he wants and wherever he wants in his war on terror.

Sounds more than a bit fascistic to me.

And then there's Billy Valentine. Read his words carefully. Look at what he says and what he doesn't say. There's no concern about the legality of the NSA authorization, no concern about the threat to civil liberties. Heck even Bob Barr is outraged at that one. He said this on CNN:

What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.

But not a trace of this in made it out of Mr Valentine's bile duct. All this is seemingly OK with him as long as the Supreme Court (with newcomers Roberts and Alito) gets to shove his wing-nut agenda down the country's throat.

And what would that agenda be? I am guessing it goes something like this:

Might makes right, the powerful can and should ignore the law whever it wants to, and anyone who disagrees needs a reality check.

Welcome to Billy Valentine's America.

Billy Valentine, Impeach, NSA, Bob Barr

American Caesar

I know there's no blow job involved, but we still need to impeach the Worst President Ever.

It's hard to imagine saying this just five years ago, but the fact that the President personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times isn't the big deal here. It isn't because it's just one more drop in the bucket. Once more instance where this President has shown his disregard for our Constitution and the Rule of Law. As Jack Cafferty said on CNN on Friday:

Who cares if the Patriot Act gets renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it! Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it! Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it!

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it. Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it.... What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

(And he left out the parts where the DOD spies on peace protesters and where we "render" [kidnap] people to places where we know that they will be tortured or killed. )

We need to start seriously saying the "i" word.

And, yes, I know that the Republican controlled House of Representatives will never bring articles of impeachment against Bush. As this article shows, they cannot be counted on for even the most basic oversight:

In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

"Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own," said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. "I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches."

Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.

But that does not matter. We need to talk impeachment because it is warranted and because we need to ready the American public for it. The word needs to be out there. It needs to be a regular part of the debate NOW or winning in 2006 won't matter all that much because starting to talk impeachment them will just be seen as so much payback.

MyDD asks the question here: "Should MyDD run professional polls on censuring or impeaching Bush for spying on US citizens without a warrant?"

Our answer must be: YES!

(If you're at all still uncertain as to whether Bush should be impeached, there are some excellent arguments to be found here, here and here.)

Ours is a government of laws, not men.

Bush has betrayed the American People and our Supreme Law (the Constitution).

If we do not call him out as the Caesar that he is, we do not deserve to call ourselves Americans.

Kudos to the P-G Editorial Board

They wrote this:

The Bush administration is continuing its assault on Americans' privacy and freedom in the name of the war on terrorism.

First, in 2002, according to extensive reporting in The New York Times on Friday, it secretly authorized the National Security Agency to intercept and keep records of Americans' international phone and e-mail messages without benefit of a previously required court order. Second, it has permitted the Department of Defense to get away with not destroying after three months, as required, records of American Iraq war protesters in the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, database.

The editorial ends like this:

The White House needs to tell the Pentagon promptly to destroy the records of protesters as required, within three months. It also needs promptly to tell the NSA to return to following the rules, to get the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before monitoring Americans' communications. The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national security doesn't wash; that is the language of a police state. Those are the unacceptable actions of a police state.

Let me retype out those last few words, in bold letters and with a larger font to emphasize their importance:

Those are the unacceptable actions of a police state.

I can hear the apologists now:

Police state? How dare they compare America to a police state! Once again the liberal media is showing its insensitivity to the real victims of police states all over the world. They refuse to see that our President is only trying to protect us from the terrorist evildoers all over the world who hate us and want to kill us. Don't you remember 9/11? So a few international calls were tapped, who cares when it could stop another 9/11! Which would you rather have, some terrorist sympathizer's* phone tapped or another 9/11? That's the choice facing our President since 9/11. Tap a few international calls or risk another 9/11. What would you do to keep America safe?

*For the sake of full disclosure, I've been labelled an "anti-American" and a "terrorist sympathizer" on Fred Honsberger's TV show. Does this mean I have an NSA file?

Hang on, there's a knock at the door. I'll be right ba-

An Amazing Few Days

So much has happened in Murika in the last few days, it's seems rather overwhemling to try to make some sense out of it.

Martin Garbus is a partner at the lawfirm of Davis and Gilbert, LLP and at his blog-space at the Huffington Post, he summed up the last few days beautifully.

You can find it here.

Today, for two separate reasons, has been an incredible day in America. First, the United States has legitimized torture and secondly, the President has admitted to an impeachable offense.

First, the media has been totally misled on the alleged Bush-McCain agreement on torture. McCain capitulated. It is not a defeat for Bush. It is a win for Cheney.

Torture is not banned or in any way impeded.

Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.

That defense "loophole" totally corrodes the ban. It is the CIA, or the torturing agency, who will decide what a "reasonable" person could have concluded. Can you imagine those agencies in the interrogation business torturing on their own in trying to decide what is reasonable or what is not? What is not "reasonable" if the interrogator (wrongfully or rightfully) believes he has a ticking-bomb situation? Will a CIA or military officer issue a narrow order if he knows his interrogator believes, in this case, torture will work?

The Bush-McCain torture compromise legitimizes torture. It is the first time that has happened in this country. Not in the two World Wars, Korea, the Cold War or Vietnam did the government ever seek or get the power this bill gives them.

The worst part of it is that most of the media missed it and got it wrong.

Secondly, the President in authorizing surveillance without seeking a court order has committed a crime. The Federal Communications Act criminalizes surveillance without a warrant. It is an impeachable offense. This was also totally missed by the media.

On the torture part, it's something I hadn't heard. Here's what CBS news had to say about it:

Additional language to the amendment obtained by CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts sought to provide a defense to protect U.S. officials authorized to interrogate persons believed to be a threat and thought to be legal. The amendment states: "It shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."

And:

Under the deal, CIA interrogators would be given the same legal rights as currently guaranteed members of the military who are accused of breaking interrogation guidelines. Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order.

Here's the complete text of the protection language.

Here's the section (as far as I know - I am by no means a lawyer) of the US Code that deals with Electronic Surveillance.

They impeached the last guy because of a blue dress with a stain on it - how much more will it take to impeach this guy? In the opinion of at least one lawyer, HE BROKE THE LAW. HE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

He should be impeached.

Patriot Act Not Reauthorized in the Senate

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

[snip]

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

On the afternoon of 9/11, the following thought crossed my mind for the first and last time:

"Thank God Gore isn't President."

I didn't think this because I thought Gore would have been the wrong man to be in the office at the time. I thought it because I knew that the Republicans would have blamed the Democrats for 9/11 and would never rally around him the way the entire country (including the Democrats in office) rallied around Bush.

Of course I worried about the corollary to this thought only a few days later:

The entire country has rallied around Bush and the Bush Administration/ Republicans will use that to wage war on the world at large and on the civil rights of the citizens at home.

Shortly after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act and Bush signed it into law on October 26, 2001. Some had concerns about it almost immediately, but most were caught up in the fear and turmoil of 9/11. Ever so slowly, however, the tide turned against the act.

Howard Dean has famously said, "You can't trust Republicans with your money," but a growing segment of the populace has also come to the conclusion that you cannot trust Republicans with your civil liberties either.

A movement against the Patriot Act took hold at the grassroots level with more than 400 counties, municipalities and states now having passed resolutions or ordinances of opposition to parts of the act, including Pittsburgh, PA.

From Bush's arm having to be twisted to agree to an anti-torture bill to the very recent revelations that Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US without court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, the American public is coming to see the Bush Administration for what it is:

Worse than the Nixon Administration.
We congratulate the Senators who voted "nay" and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) in particular. Feingold was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act and he led the fight against it being reauthorized today.

tags: Patriot Act Patriot Act Reauthorization Vote patriot act not reauthorized

HAPPENING THIS WEEKEND

FRIDAY::: GREEN DRINKS (A Holiday Edition)
Beer, The Enviroment & Sean Brady = Good Time

Friday, December 16, 2005
5:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Phipps Cafe© at Phipps Conservatory
One Schenley Park
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3830

GREEN DRINKS is a monthly happy hour/networking event for folks with an interest in the environmental future of Pittsburgh, outdoors stuff, or for the purists, an interest in drinks.

GREEN DRINKS has been meeting at Phipps all year, but in January they'll start taking the show around the city. This month's speaker Sean Brady from Venture Outdoors! There will be a discussion of some of the great outdoor activities you can take part in during a Pittsburgh winter.

MORE INFO: Shawn Westcott shawnmwestcott@yahoo.com


SATURDAY::: GEORGIA BERNER OPEN HOUSE
Meet Georgia Berner (running for Congress in the 4th district -- North Hills and counties north of Allegheny)

Saturday, December 17th, 2005
1:00 Pm – 3:00 PM
222 Bridge Street
Bridgewater, PA
(Coffee, Cocoa & Cookies)

"Come find out what is going on with my campaign for Congress, meet my team, and share stories of our concerns and hopes for our region. I look forward to meeting you there! "

The campaign office in Bridgewater (Beaver County) is OPEN and is located on Bridge Street in Bridgewater, just over the Beaver River from the K-Mart and Giant Eagle in Rochester.

Check out Georgia’s interview in PoliticsPa: http://politicspa.com/FEATURES/Interviews/berner.htm

"With your help – we can win this race! We are just weeks away from the important end of year FEC deadline. Please help Georgia’s campaign by making a donation before Dec. 30th." http://www.georgiaberner.com

You can contact the campaign at 724.770.2220 or contact@georgiaberner.com

R.S.V.P at:
http://www.evite.com/contact@georgiaberner.com/openhouse


SATURDAY::: LUPEC ANNUAL HOLIDAY PARTY
LUPEC HOLIDAY PARTY Honoring the Duchess! All Hail Her Royal Majesty Duchess

Saturday, December 17, 2005
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM
The Lava Lounge
2204 E Carson St. (South Side)
Pittsburgh, PA 15203
412-431-5282

LUPEC are the Ladies United for the Preservation of Endangered Cocktails. This Saturday they will celebrate at their annual holiday party which will also honor the "Duchess" (Norma-Jean Wofford Robinson, d. 2005).

"Norma-Jean was my first sidekick, we did everything together. She was like family which is why I told everyone she was my sister. There was no one else like her and I will miss her very much." --Bo Diddley, 2005

Did you know that Bo Diddley's guitar player was a young lady from the Hill District right here in Pittsburgh?

Neither did we.

But, now that we all know it, LUPEC wants to celebrate her and they hope that you will join them at their annual holiday party.

LUPEC will be featuring a new cocktail created by Del Marcus of The Lava Lounge in honor of Norma-Jean Wofford Robinson, aka "Duchess". Three other endangered cocktails will be released into the wild as part of LUPEC's Endangered Cocktail Breed and Release Program.

http://www.lupec.org

The 2005 Koufax Awards -- Nominations Are Open

"The Koufax Awards are named for Sandy Koufax, one of the greatest left handed pitchers of all time. They are intended to honor the best blogs and bloggers of the left."

There are 15 categories: Best Blog, Best Blog—Pro Division, Best Blog Community, Best Writing, Best Post, Best Series, Best Single Issue Blog, Best Group Blog, Most Humorous Blog, Most Humorous Post, Most Deserving of Wider Recognition, Best Expert Blog, Best New Blog, Best Coverage of State or Local Issues, and Best Commenter.

You can use the comments section here to nominate your favorite blog/blogger/blog post. (hint, hint)

Melissa Hart does the Right thing (again)

And again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the title is a pun.

Here's something I picked up at her website. Let's get the nit-picky stuff out of the way first. The webmaster (mistress??) over there titled the press release:

Congresswoman Hart Applauds Introduction of the Public Trust and Accountability Act

But then take a look at the first couple of paragraphs:

Congresswoman Melissa Hart, a member of the House Ethics Committee, issued the following statement today on the introduction of the Public Trust and Accountability Act.

“One of the most important responsibilities any federal government employee is charged with, especially elected members of the Congress and the Executive Branch, is to uphold the integrity of public service,” said Hart, who is an original co-sponsor of the measure.

So wait a second. She co-sponsored the bill, and yet she's applauding its introduction?

Doesn't that mean she's applauding something she herself did?

Maybe I am reading too much into it. Can I go to work today and do my job and then issue a press release applauding the fact that that job was done?

In any event, here's what her press release says about the act:

The Public Trust and Accountability Act amends current law (5 USC 8312) and expands its scope to ensure that all federal employees, elected and appointed, convicted of federal “white-collar” offenses such as bribery, illegal solicitation of gifts or campaign contributions and perjury, also lose their pension benefits.

This all seems pretty clear. BUT (as there always is in these sorts of stories) there's more. The Post-Gazette has this to say:

Pennsylvania Rep. Melissa Hart and a group of House colleagues introduced a proposal yesterday that would force federal employees to give up their pensions if convicted of such crimes as bribery, solicitation of gifts or perjury.

The group said the recent revelations about former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who took $2.4 million in bribes from defense firms in exchange for helping them to win government contracts, had spurred the lawmakers to fight for more severe punishments for officials who misuse their office.

Ms. Hart, R-Bradford Woods, said the intent of the legislation was to show the public that Congress will not stand for abuses of public trust. "When public servants fail to meet their responsibilities, and especially when they choose to break the law in these ways, it's important for us to show we mean business and we won't accept that kind of behavior," she said.

An article in The Hill quotes Congresswoman Hart:

“Members of Congress did not condone [Cunningham’s actions]. In fact, members of Congress are pretty angry about it.”

HOWEVER (and you're gonna love this) tucked in the tail end, the very last paragraph of the P-G article is this:

The act would not be retroactive -- meaning it would not affect the pension of Mr. Cunningham or an official such as I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, who was indicted by a federal grand jury in October on five counts, including perjury and making false statements, related to an inquiry into the public disclosure of a covert CIA operative's identity.

So basically, no matter how angry the Republicans have gotten over the Duke-stir and even though, in Congresswoman Hart's words, they don't condone his actions, the law that rose in reaction to Cunningham's various corruptions still wouldn't apply to him.

So even if Tom Delay's found guilty of the "white collar" crime that Hart's "Accountability Act" describes, he'd still get his government pension - am I reading this right?

So the whole thing is just a smoke screen, isn't it? They get to look like they're doing something about the corruption in the House (with this threat to cut off pensions), but for the big guns IN the House who are currently under indictment, their pensions are protected.

Melissa Hart, always doing the Right thing...

And, yes. It is a pun.

The "War On Chrismas" Christmas Cards

These pretty much speak for themselves:






(Click on each view larger images)