Among the witnesses testifying at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on Sen. Feingold's Censure Resolution is former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean. Dean has frequently compared the abuses of the Bush Administration generally to those of the Nixon Administration, and has specifically compared the illegal eavesdropping activities of the two Administrations.
While we know that the eavesdropping ordered by President Bush is exactly the eavesdropping which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in, we do not yet know -- thanks to the frenzied efforts of Bush defenders to suppress any and all investigations into the Administration's eavesdropping activities -- the nature and extent of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program. We do not, for instance, know which Americans were eavesdropped on, how many Americans were subject to this illegal surveillance, how it was determined who would be eavesdropped on, what was done with the information, whether purely innocent Americans had their communications intercepted without judicial approval, etc.
The White House has repeatedly assured us that there is no reason for us to know any of this, and there is nothing for us to worry about, because they are eavesdropping only -- to use a The White House's formulation -- on the "very bad people."
In that regard, John Dean is an excellent witness for the hearings today, since he was part of an Administration which invoked exactly the same rationale. According to this July 25, 1969 article from Time Magazine, which was reporting on public fears over new surveillance powers given to the Administration by the Congress, Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell told Americans they had nothing to worry about:
During his presidential campaign, Richard Nixon said that he would take full advantage of the new law-a promise that raised fears of a massive invasion of privacy. To calm those fears, the Administration last week issued what amounted to an official statement on the subject.
In his first news conference since becoming the President's chief legal officer, Attorney General John N. Mitchell pointedly announced that the incidence of wiretapping by federal law enforcement agencies had gone down, not up, during the first six months of Republican rule. Mitchell refused to disclose any figures, but he indicated that the number was far lower than most people might think. "Any citizen of this United States who is not involved in some illegal activity," he added, "has nothing to fear whatsoever."
Because all of this was before FISA, the Nixon Administration was able to exercise their eavesdropping powers on Americans in secret, without any oversight of any kind -- just like the Bush Administration has been doing even in the face of FISA. We all know how well that worked out. It was the shocking abuses of those powers by not just the Nixon Administration, but by the Kennedy and Johnson Justice Departments as well -- all which were revealed only as part of the Church Committee's investigation -- that led to the enactment of FISA, since the country no longer trusted political officials to exercise eavesdropping powers on Americans in secret and with no oversight.
It is rather striking how the White House's defense of its activities -- and its explanation for why there need not be any Congressional investigation into its actions ("you shouldn't worry"; we are only eavesdropping on the "very bad people") -- is virtually identical, both in substance and in words, to the assurances given to us on the same topic by the Nixon Administration. John Dean is an extremely appropriate witness at these hearings in so many ways.
UPDATE: As commenters here pointed out (I didn't see it), Sen. Feingold read from parts of this post at the Censure Resolution hearing this morning (and, courteously, credited this blog) when he was questioning John Dean. He specifically asked him about the Mitchell quote.
To see the video excerpt of that exchange, click here, then click on
Senate Judiciary Hearing on the Censure President Bush.
You can watch the whole hearings there. The exchange where Feingold quotes from this post begins at 2:41:55. (UPDATE - C&L has now posted the video clip here).
UPDATE II: I will be on Air America's Majority Report with Janeane Garafalo at 9:22 pm EST tonight to talk about the hearings. That was scheduled a few days ago. You can listen to the live audio feed or see the station list here.
UPDATE III: C&L has now posted the video clip of the Feingold-Dean exchange.
(repeat) Here is the lineup.
ReplyDeleteRobert F. Turner - War College, Hover Institute on War, Pentagon, academic pretenses, military "intelectual" establishment. bio
Bruce Fein - "Conservative constitutional analyst", Reagan DoJ lawyer, publishes sometimes with Moonies, known to be critical of the NSA program.
Lee Casey - DoJ during Regan, Panama Bush administrations, right wing Washington lawyer, a feature on NRO. Titles of some pieces: "The Yassin assassination [by Israel] was perfectly lawful." "The Alarmingly Undemocratic Drift of the European Union". Attacked the International Committee of the Red Cross for what he sees as bias in its treatment of the United States. Etc. Looney in Bolton style. . bio
(Both Casey and Turner are active with Federalist Society)
John R. Schmidt, DoJ 1994-1997 (Responsible for Civil, Antitrust, Civil Rights, Environment and Tax Divisions), recipient of "International Association of Chiefs of Police Award for Outstanding Contribution to Law Enforcement". Pro NSA. bio
and John Dean.
It's like Deja Vu, all over again.
ReplyDelete(Plagiarized from Yogi Berra. ;)
Here is one more bit from Casey's official bio:
ReplyDelete... and was responsible for reviewing candidates for appointments to the federal bench...
I guess we should not be surprised at the condition of federal judiciary these days when neocon loonies like him have been in charge of these things for such a long time.
The crucial point is that GOP-ers have a full machinery out there (institutes, think tanks, their people in right places in controlling positions). Verbal theatrics of democratic blogosphere or some democratic senators is great but in politics the machine matters, and Dems don't have one.
BTW Turner used to write in the Moonie paper extensively on WMD crap just before the invasion. Excerpt:
ReplyDeleteThe basic premise was that the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction has fundamentally changed the nature of the threat, and we must no longer simply sit patiently and allow radical regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq to acquire illegal WMDs and then give them a "free kick" — which might take the form of coordinated chemical, biological or nuclear attacks against multiple targets and endangering the lives of millions of Americans — before we can defend ourselves or our allies.
Integrity of these people, intellectual and moral.
In this articleJohn Dean that does a good job of laying out where we are in the NSA scandal, where it’s going, and what’s most likely to happen.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, he concludes that the courts won’t be of help because the cases won’t make it there anytime soon. Congress won’t be of help, because Spector’s proposed legislation won’t pass the house. He also has decided that Feingold’s censure resolution, while increasing awareness of the issue, is unlikely to pass either.
He concludes that the 2006 election is the key. And if the Democrats take control and get a real investigation, “It will even make Richard Nixon look like a piker when it comes to staying within the law.”
Therefore, for Bush supporters,everything rides on maintaining Republican control of Congress – everything. The Outlaw Party must prevail at all costs.
The big question, says Dean “is whether there will be an "October Surprise" - a dramatic event that will bump up Bush's currently dismal polling numbers, and help his party.
If you have any knowledge of how White Houses operate, you can be sure they are working night and day to pull off such a surprise.
If they do it, Bush will get away with his lawlessness. If not, he and Cheney are in for two very bad years. They have earned them.”
Yes, Dean is an extremely appropriate witness today, but his warnings on the probable attempts to influence the election are also right on target. I think that bombing Iran is a given, the plans are drawn up and only its timing is undecided awaiting upon when it will do the most good.
Already, Chris Matthews and company are talking about how many points in the polls Bush will go up from such bombing, forgetting to mention that the experts have concluded that Iran is still a long way from a bomb, and such bombings would kill an estimated 10,000 innocent civilians.
With everything at stake for Cheney, Bush and the cabal it is no longer a “conspiracy theory” to be worried about how far they might go to influence the elections, even beyond attacking Iran.
I think there definitely will be an October surprise, I just don’t know how extreme it might be. Nixon planted false evidence to influence the election and, as Dean says, he was a “piker” when compared to the lawlessness of this administration. Get ready.
Russ Feingold’s post at Tom Paine yesterday hits all the right notes.
ReplyDeleteTheir actions are not just short-sighted, they are a departure from one of the Republican Party's defining goals: limiting government power.
The President has claimed an inherent authority to wiretap Americans on American soil without a warrant that he thinks allows him to break this law. So why would anyone think the President will comply with any new proposal?
One of the best ways to limit government power is to ensure that each branch provides a check on the other two, but most Republicans in Congress today aren't checking the President's power or defending the judicial branch's right to do so - they are giving him a blank check to ignore the rule of law.
By supporting the President now, Republicans are making it tougher for members of their own party to challenge the power of future presidents and departing from their own values in the process.
What would serve the nation, and support the rule of law, is for a few courageous Republicans to follow the example set during the Watergate scandal by standing up to a President of their own party, asking tough questions, and holding the President accountable for his abuse of power.
In his mind, Bush is driving around in a 50's shiny, zaftig convertible with polished chrome bumpers and fat white-wall tires, while the wife is towel-drying and putting away the last of the dishes, packing the kids off with their lunch boxes, and he is on his way to a secret meeting where, in a room full of elderly white men in suits, one or two of whom will have their jackets off and their starched white sleeves rolled up to just below the elbows, he will be deciding the fate of the world; the agenda will include up-coming tests of the world's largest conventional bomb (ah, those nostalgic mushroom clouds), the toppling of Iran and Syria in a blitzkrieg attack of armageddon-like proportions, an overview of the total domestic surveillance program that data mines every extant computer, phone call, postal mail, and traffic camera in the country, and, of course, an update on the military cities that are being built in the State of Iraq, soon to be known as Texacana. Then a lunch of tuna salad on white with lemonade (or milk). The afternoon respite will include "the twofold luxury of meditation and a meerschaum."
ReplyDeleteWhig said: I don't think anyone believes that the government is listening to everyone's conversations. It's too labor intensive, too unwieldy. But there is an implication that the government now reserves the right to listen in on anyone at their pleasure. Who wants to be a target?
ReplyDeleteReponse: We do have some idea about whom the NSA is bugging. According to FBI agents on the ground tracking down the so-called lead provided by NSA monitoring:
"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
More insidiously, Think Progress provides links to political enemies and journalists whom the govt. is tracking through NSA and similar programs.
On top of that, one of the heads of the NSA program was asked point blank whether the programs target political enemies. His non-response boggles the mind to find some plausible reason why he couldn't simply say, "No":
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, “No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?” Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner.
Many could see this in 1999 -- chimpy was elevated to the national level to push the agenda of the same interests that were behind Richard Nixon.
ReplyDeleteWho were they? The military-industrial complex that Ike warned this nation about in the 50's.
It is a lie that the bush family fortune comes from oil -- that is just how it was "cleansed;" it actually came from enabling hitler to come to power and financing the nazi war machine.
Clearly, the NSA scandal is exposing those roots, but we should have seen them much earlier.
The smirking chimp, based on his merits and competence, could never have manipulated our political system and stolen 2 national elections. That was done for him
This isn't about "competence," however, because the character defects, lack of intellectual curiosity, and alcoholism/drug addiction of this game is what makes them perfect tools.
Just follow the money trail....
The people behind this administration are laughing all the way to the bank.
It is a lie that the bush family fortune comes from oil -- that is just how it was "cleansed;" it actually came from enabling hitler to come to power and financing the nazi war machine.
ReplyDeleteThis made me laugh out loud. The poor soul (if he really believes this) has about the worst case of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. He should seek immediate help, preferably from his local mental health agency.
The first "surprise" was the assassination of JFK -- nothing less than a coup-d’etat. Without eliminating Kennedy, Nixon would never have been president.
ReplyDeleteJFK would have been re-elected and then RFK would have been unbeatable. From there, the torch could have been passed to any number of competent, viable candidates. Remember, Democrats used to rule the house and senate too.
Repugs ran a lame candidate in '64. Made no sense to run Nixon then -- he would have lost. Besides, LBJ was representing the military-industrial complex anyhow. It has deep roots in TX.
We all know what happened to MLK and RKF in 68 -- these were powerful leaders that could mobilize people. Nixon won a 3-way race.
The real reason for Watergate was because Nixon crossed his backers -- they sacrificed him to protect themselves. DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENT THAT WAS GOING TO WIN RE-ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY A 4rd RATE BUGLARLY?
LOL!!
We have now all seen that Woodward is a tool, "catapulting the propaganda" and deeply involved with Plamegate.
The Iran Hostage crisis was manipulated by bush I to steal the election from Jimmy Carter. It was TREASON and essentially another coup-d’etat.
An assassination attempt by the moron son of bush family friends very nearly knocked off ronny -- idiot sons of politically connected families are useful tools, aren't they?
When Ross Perot entered race in 92, he shook up the establishment and probably altered the political balance. While many thought he was "paranoid" over remarks about threats against him and his family -- can anyone really doubt them now?
The world knows that 2000 was stolen in FL. This was another coup. American's prefer to cover their ears and sing, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU; I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
2004 was also stolen -- amazing how the same lying liars that point to polls now refused to talk about the exit polls that prove chimpy did not win his last "accountability moment."
GREAT CRIMES DEMAND EXTRAORDINAIRY DEEDS TO COVER UP AND ENABLE THE CRIMES TO CONTINUE.
I've often asked "are we even remotely surprised by this?"
ReplyDelete'This' of course being the intellectual, legal, moral, ethical, and philosophical inconsistencies and chaotic policymaking that results from this crew.
It goes without saying that 'very bad people' would be comedic if not for the fact these idiots apparently are using that as an actual criterion for targets for surveillance. Its loose, subjective, speaking to no legal standards of evidence or probable cause, and ensures only a highly nervous, uncertain public that is left to wonder if the Administration is even thinking coherently here.
But then, the Administration has only fear to run and govern on. So, again, are we even remotely surprised here?
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteWhile we know that the eavesdropping ordered by President Bush is exactly the eavesdropping which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in, we do not yet know -- thanks to the frenzied efforts of Bush defenders to suppress any and all investigations into the Administration's eavesdropping activities -- the nature and extent of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program. We do not, for instance, know which Americans were eavesdropped on, how many Americans were subject to this illegal surveillance, how it was determined who would be eavesdropped on, what was done with the information, whether purely innocent Americans had their communications intercepted without judicial approval, etc.
This is becoming tiresome.
Well over 20 members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have been briefed by a team led by the VP and then by the NSA. They have had hundreds of questions answered and have seen the program itself in operation at the NSA.
Specifically, these members of Congress have been briefed on all the minimization procedures in place to keep the NSA Program from intercepting purely innocent conversations of American citizens.
Every single member who his investigated this program supports it and wants it continued. None of the members of either party have indicated that this program is even remotely comparable to the spying on American citizens performed by Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Clinton.
If you have been following the news, and it appears that you have, you would know this. Therefore, there is no excuse to continue repeating the lie that Congress has not thoroughly investigated this program.
Whig: You express a call to rational concern and balanced objectvity. Indeed, with such a threat as government eavesdropping and the power of technology to intrude into the most private spheres of our lives, a reminder to remain calm is perhaps called for.
ReplyDeleteThis reminder can cut two ways, however. It can make us complacent and unaware of the true threat that these measures pose. That fact alone calls for some response. In other words, you might say, "What's all the fuss about? Isn't it just a bunch of lawyers trying to make tempest in a teapot?"
I have suggested in my own postings that the danger to us, to our culture is quite immense. It is insidious, however, and acts under the radar. This darker side of the these programs and the behaviouristic efects they have on our society is best summarized, perhaps, in the comment a student made to me after a debate on this very issue: "We need these programs because everyone is a potential terrorist."
Another delusional, overwrought mind buzzed into paranoia? Consider this story story reported by UPI:
The state of Indiana may set up an "intelligence fusion center" to collect and analyze data on what security officials deem as suspicious people. [my emphasis]
Legislators and public safety officials say the center would be part of homeland security efforts, staffed with law enforcement officers under the governor's supervision, reports the Indianapolis Star.
State Sen. Thomas J. Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, who is sponsoring a bill for the center, says the measure would allow collection of intelligence information on an individual only if that person "reasonably" appears to have knowledge of terrorist or criminal activities.
Giving way somewhat to a slippery slope argument: Do you want to live in a culture where spying on others, suspecting everyone to be a terrorist, looking askance at "suspicious people" (whatever that might mean)?
This is not a free society, it is a society enslaved by its mass fears and delusions. It enforces some warped notion of conformity that tracks and perhaps jails those who do not conform to some bureaucrat's idea of what is the right way to act or what ideas to think and express.
From anonymous at 12:12PM:
ReplyDelete"The poor soul (if he really believes this) has about the worst case of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. He should seek immediate help, preferably from his local mental health agency."
There you go again, anonymous. Speaking about yourself as if you were responding to another.
To Bart:
ReplyDeleteOkay, name some of these 20 from House and Senate and when they made these statements in support of the program.
Not that I'm dismissing your claim, but to date the only public statement I've seen or read on this comes from Senator Rockefeller (who stated he wasn't provided sufficient details to make a judgment on the program's legality or efficacy).
From one anonymous to another...
ReplyDeleteDON'T BE A MORON!!!
But perhaps you refuse to look at what much of the rest of the world has already seen
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Your proclaimations don't make it so... but if you prefer, continue to chant, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
After all, you don't have any facts on your side.
If you have been following the news, and it appears that you have, you would know this. Therefore, there is no excuse to continue repeating the lie that Congress has not thoroughly investigated this program.
ReplyDeleteAny lawyer - or rational person - knows that the difference is one of night and day between: (a) an "investigation" where the target of the investigation handpicks the people you to talk who then answer questions secretly and informally and (b) an actual investigation with subpoena power, legal oaths, and the ability to question who you want and obtain records.
The Administration has allowed (a) in the most limited of circumstances (while threatening the people who access the information with prison if they comment on any of it), but has desperately fought to avoid (b).
Put another way, there has been no meaningful investigation by Congress, and the Administration has done everything they can to prevent it -- all while claiming that they welcome one.
Why would you post here without a moniker?
ReplyDeleteCuz an moniker doesn't make me special, its all about ideas. Guess if you think you are so important and special that your moniker is important here -- go ahead.
Like you fake name gives you any credibility....
How about just saying something meaningful and then actually backing it up? What a concept...
No one here is falling for it.
ReplyDeleteOh, and you speak for everything too -- have to remember your important moniker...
LOL!
With all due respect, Glenn, I think we can make a pretty good guess at the "nature and extent" of the program.
ReplyDeleteThe Administration was enthusiastic about tracking as much information as technologically possible, pretended to cancel programs designed to collect that information, rejected any attempt at oversight by the usual authorities, bragged about being able to monitor all U.S.-international transmissions, accused opponents of not wanting to monitor possible enemies, have churned up thousands of false positives, and declared that they have the power to break the law for the good of the country.
What, exactly, makes anyone think they are not conducting surveillance on every electronic (phone/internet) transmission within the country? It's technologically possible. It's not necessarily legal, but they don't treat that as an impediment.
What are we waiting for, Bush to say, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! You're goddamned right I ordered warrantless eavesdropping on everybody!"
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteAny lawyer - or rational person - knows that the difference is one of night and day between: (a) an "investigation" where the target of the investigation handpicks the people you to talk who then answer questions secretly and informally and (b) an actual investigation with subpoena power, legal oaths, and the ability to question who you want and obtain records.
And any prosecutor knows that these tools are unnecessary if the person from whom you are seeking information has been forthcoming and has answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
Conversely, the use of subpoenas and other coercive techniques often lead to opaque lawyered answers rather than shedding light.
Not a single briefed member of Congress claims that they have not had every one of their hundreds of questions concerning the means, methods and results of the program answered fully and to their satisfaction.
I trust the partisan Dems on the NSA subcommittees are not going to cut the WH any slack whatsoever. I know the Elephants on these subcommittees would not give a future Dem president any slack.
Therefore, to claim that no sort of meaningful investigation has occurred is simply false. Indeed, I doubt members of the Intelligence Committees have obtained this much information and personal observation on any other program run by NSA.
Where the Dems want a further investigation is to troll through the privileged documents of Justice in an attempt to play political gotchya by finding some dissenting official or lawyer. This is completely unnecessary (not to mention illegal) because Congress is being briefed on the program itself. If they think it is illegal, they can defund it and file articles of impeachment. Of course, no one is suggesting that.
The Administration has allowed (a) in the most limited of circumstances (while threatening the people who access the information with prison if they comment on any of it), but has desperately fought to avoid (b).
Its called operational security. Even members of Congress do not have any right to reveal military secrets to the enemy. None of the members of the Intelligence Committees disputes the need for these common sense limits.
It’s nice in the morning to check in on the Greenwald site with a cup of tea. Usually there is a chuckle or two available in the comment section. This morning jayc amuses us with an only slightly veiled revelation of the usual ill-concealed crass political motivations:
ReplyDelete”If the Administration's flouting of the FISA requirements IS a case of "data-mining", how would you suggest arguing against it? As, IMHO, it is a fairly esoteric, and far weaker issue to arouse public indignation over. “
Another pious Constitution-protector.
David Shaughennsy characterizes the opposition, even using ESP:
“Turner is a moron...Schmidt is even dumber. I don't know anything about Casey but I imagine he's more of the same.”
Whig suggests that fear stalks the streets: “The question is how to assuage the public's fear of their own government, which is perhaps far greater [than the fear of terrorists] for at least a substantial number of people “
A little whimsy from ommzms:
“In his mind, Bush is driving around in a 50's shiny, zaftig convertible with polished chrome bumpers and fat white-wall tires...”
Next, a primer in the (right out of the Wifkipedia definition of Moonbat) conspiracy theory approach to political thought by Anonymous:
“Many could see this in 1999 -- chimpy was elevated to the national level to push the agenda of the same interests that were behind Richard Nixon. Who were they? The military-industrial complex that Ike warned this nation about in the 50's.”
Pendragon finally has enough facts to make a conclusion: “It goes without saying that 'very bad people' would be comedic if not for the fact [!!] these idiots apparently are using that as an actual criterion for targets for surveillance.”
Bart dumps the usual bucket of cold water on the discussion: “Therefore, there is no excuse to continue repeating the lie that Congress has not thoroughly investigated this program.” Spoilsport. Bad use of “thoroughly” which Mr. Greenwald later points out.
Pendragon comes in with “so’s your old man!”: "There you go again, anonymous. Speaking about yourself as if you were responding to another."
Anonymous, from the senile seniors section: “How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power...”
Mr. Greenwald slanders [libels, actually] lawyers: “ Any lawyer - or rational person ...” That isn’t an either/or proposition, Mr. Greenwald.
Vermontraccoon fumes:
“...Apologists for the rethuglicans are coming into this battle of wits unarmed, so they have to resort to dirty tricks to muddy the waters. ID yourself or STFU. No one here is falling for it.”
Anonymous then becomes rational and sort of spoils everything: “How about just saying something meaningful and then actually backing it up? What a concept...”
Ahhhh, another cup.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteTo Bart:
Okay, name some of these 20 from House and Senate and when they made these statements in support of the program.
OK, here goes with one. I'll let you google the rest...
Concerns about surveillance
GWEN IFILL: Vice President Cheney had an extended opportunity to make his case last night.
Tonight we're joined by two members of Congress who have expressed misgivings about the surveillance effort: Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, is a member of the Judiciary Committee; and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, is one of the eight members of Congress briefed on the program.
We understand, Congresswoman Harman that that briefing actually expanded this afternoon and you may have gotten a few of your questions answered. What can you tell us?
REP. JANE HARMAN: Yes, I did.
Well, after hearing the vice president last night on your show, he must have had second thoughts overnight and today things are somewhat different, and I am encouraged.
We had a three-and-a-half hour briefing this afternoon by Gen. Michael Hayden, who was head of NSA and is now the deputy director of national intelligence, and Attorney General Gonzales on some of the operational aspects of the program, as well as some of the legal underpinnings.
All Democrats on the committee were in attendance and most Republicans were. We had a chance to answer questions. And where we left it was they will be back and we are now holding -- or going to hold hearings in the House Intelligence Committee on FISA.
GWEN IFILL: Is it fair to say that was a confidential briefing? And is there anything that you can tell us about how much farther they were willing to go?
REP. JANE HARMAN: Well, I won't describe details obviously; I never have. But the general outline of the program was described to all members of the committee.
I still believe that under the National Security Act of 1947 the committees have to be fully and completely briefed. And the Senate committee has not yet been briefed.
I also agree with my friend, Lindsey Graham, who did a heroic job on Monday, that the administration's legal case supporting this program is weak and that there's a better way to go there. But I do support the program, and I have said that over the years that I've been briefed on it.
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/nsa_02-08.html
Notherbob2: Your intellectual and rational blindness must indeed be immense. You refuse to acknowledge anything that does not accord with your own preconceptions. Do you have anything else in your so-called rhetorical toolbox beyond shrill ad hominem?
ReplyDeleteEarth to Bart.
ReplyDeleteIf by "program" you mean warrantless wiretaps, you are wrong.
If by "program" you simply mean surveillance of terror suspects, you are right.
In this thread we are talking about the former as it relates to the latter.
Most people learn to understand these little nuances by the time they get to college.
From Bart at 1:36PM:
ReplyDelete'REP. JANE HARMAN: Well, I won't describe details obviously; I never have. But the general outline of the program was described to all members of the committee.
'I still believe that under the National Security Act of 1947 the committees have to be fully and completely briefed. And the Senate committee has not yet been briefed.'
Hardly a ringing endorsement. I don't deny Representative Harman closed saying:
"But I do support the program, and I have said that over the years that I've been briefed on it."
This actually raises more questions than it answers. Specifically:
1. were questions of the legality and efficacy of this program laid to rest?
2. does the program have sufficient safeguards to ensure 4th Amendment limits are held and respected?
3. are there clear and firm standards of evidence/probable cause used to target subjects for surveillance?
Nothing in this exchange gives me the sense these or related issues were investigated. Representative Harman can support the program on merits alone (certainly I do); but does this give us a comfort level that the program isn't being used for less-pure purposes? No.
An investigation, including subpena power and the like, has proved necessary given this. Call it a 'fishing expedition' if you wish; keep in mind government and its officers are supposed to serve the public good, and as yet no actual good has been served by this Administration's continued refusal to allow investigation. The notion of 'privileged' DOJ materials would be almost comedic given Justice is supposed to serve the public, not its own interests.
At least, that's what one would hope. Perhaps we're all living in Oceania now.
Glenn, your blog's RSS has gone back to abstracts. It's hard to read - yes I use a Mac with a standards compliant browser. Would you go back to full RSS feeds (Blogger settings Site Feed description Full) or fix the sidebar so the background displays? The sidebar is missing closing unordered list tags [ </ul> ] after the Wizbang link and is missing both opening and closing unordered list tags [ <ul> </ul> ] around the atom.xml link. Thanks.
ReplyDeletemight this be because the current admininstration insiders were nixon insiders and reagan insiders too? those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
ReplyDeleteAJ said...
ReplyDeleteEarth to Bart.
If by "program" you mean warrantless wiretaps, you are wrong.
If by "program" you simply mean surveillance of terror suspects, you are right.
In this thread we are talking about the former as it relates to the latter.
Most people learn to understand these little nuances by the time they get to college.
To start, being snotty is no way to go through life.
Second, I have no idea what program you think you are discussing, but the NSA program at issue conducts warrantless wiretaps of international telephone calls from the US to foreign countries where one end is a telephone number captured from al Qaeda. That would appear to cover both of your descriptions, not just one.
Awesome job - Feingold quoted.
ReplyDeleteFeingold just quoted Glenn's article at the hearing. Kudos to Glenn, who I wish was at the hearings!
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon:
ReplyDeleteCongress does not need the Executive's legal guidance given freely or under subpoena. They have their own very talented staff of attorneys and can hire more if they like.
Subpoenas are meant to compel testimony about facts, not to gain legal opinions.
None of these briefed members of Congress claim that they are not getting the facts on the program which they requested.
At 12:13 on Friday March 31, Senator Russ Feingold referred to "blogger Glenn Greenwald" and details of a blog entry Glenn wrote today.
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS THE POWER OF BLOGS: Make a credible argument. Make it consistently. Get read. Have influence. Congratulations Glenn. . . you are a winner. I'm glad you punted on your ten-year law firm career and took up the work of the people. You are a leader. Thank you.
Which article did Feingold quote? What part of it did he quote?
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I don't care who has been briefed about the program in Congress. Trust has already been violated, and I can't see how anyone would be content to let this matter rest until we know the extent to which this program has been used against law abiding citizens.
ReplyDeleteTo Bart:
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that those members who have been 'briefed' have been stonewalled or anything. I'm sure we'd hear of it if they were getting stonewalled.
The problem is there is no level of comfort that serious, hard questions have either been asked or answered.
And given how secretive and insular this Administration is, exactly how do you expect such an investigation to happen save through a bit of coerion?
It seems to me that Feingold's side was trounced in this hearing. All the hearing did was to give Specter more grist for his own bill.
ReplyDeleteUntil Feingold and others undermine the idea that the US is at war, their continued desire to see the President's domestic spying program as illegal will falter.
I say this with some trepidation. I think the Bush admin is a clear and present danger to the life of the Republic. Unfortunately, I think the admin. has the Congress over a barrel.
We are witnessing the bitter weeds of what our representatives in government sowed in their cowardice and fear when they gave the President a broadly phrased and open-ended resolution to use military force.
All I can say is, the country has some dark days ahead of it. Perhaps these days are necessery. They will serve as a form education into what American-style tyranny looks like.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteTo Bart:
I'm not arguing that those members who have been 'briefed' have been stonewalled or anything. I'm sure we'd hear of it if they were getting stonewalled.
The problem is there is no level of comfort that serious, hard questions have either been asked or answered.
:::heh:::
I never thought I would see the day when I have more trust in Dems to perform their jobs than do the members of that party.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteUntil Feingold and others undermine the idea that the US is at war, their continued desire to see the President's domestic spying program as illegal will falter.
With our men and women in uniform killing hundreds of the enemy on battlefields around the world and in turn giving up their lives and bodies while bin Laden and his cohorts are saying that they plan on laying waste to the US, I think you are going to have a difficult time convincing most people we are not at war...
Bart: Of course, just because people are killing each other does not make a war. I suggest that it's not a war until Congress says so--as the Constitution supposedly affirms as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Presdient and his cohorts have exploited fear and confusion about whether the country is at war for three years. And no one has the guts to call him on it.
What you call the killing of soldiers and innocent men and women in Iraq is a matter for debate. Some will call it a police action. Some might call it something else. I suggest that it's an attempt to usurp power in the US while troops are falsely and unconstitutionally fighting an illusion of a conflict in the field.
Your appeal to whether people at home or abroad might think that it must be a war because otherwise the troops and enemies died for a lie, at the least, or nothing at the most is logically and morally neither here nor there.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteThe only point at issue in this thread is the warrantless aspect.
How intellectually dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
Snotty? I have not heard that word used since high school.
Without attempting to convince Pendragon of anything, [clearly an impossible task] I will take this opportunity to try to make an intellectual point that, hopefully, will add something to the discussion here.
ReplyDeleteFirst the setup:
“This actually raises more questions than it answers. Specifically:
1. were questions of the legality and efficacy of this program laid to rest?
2. does the program have sufficient safeguards to ensure 4th Amendment limits are held and respected?
3. are there clear and firm standards of evidence/probable cause used to target subjects for surveillance?”
There are probably three or four more such questions that could be inserted here. No matter. Yes, I said, “No matter.” I can just hear some of the committed (or, perhaps the not-yet-committed?) saying to themselves: “How can he say that?”
Put aside all of the “getChimpy”, rethuglicans, etc. Just get down to some pure reason. A large number of the members of Congress, INCLUDING SOME, WHO BY ANY MEASURE, HAVE A CLEAR INTEREST IN MAKING TROUBLE IF THINGS IN THE PROGRAM ARE NOT “RIGHT”, have been thoroughly briefed on the program and have not taken to the parapets. What does that mean?
Now, at this point in a discussion, one has a choice. One can, as most of the commenters here seem to do, look immediately to their pundit of choice (NYT, Mr. Greenwald, etc.) for the answer to that question. Wrong. Wrong.
Read the stuff referred to by ‘the ghost’. Isn’t there something in there about the duties of citizens? Something about the ultimate authority, bigger than the Constitution, any branch of government, etc.?
So when one reaches the point of “What does that mean?” a good citizen should run it through the old brain. Most people have learned to save time and effort and just go straight to the pundits. On really interesting issues, they check more than one. In this way, they convince themselves that they have “researched” the issue. Thus, they become “sheeple” for the opinion-guiders.
So if we take the road less traveled and run the questions raised by Pendragon through the brain, what do we get? Certainly, for most of us, we don’t get an understanding of the NSA program. We don’t get whether or not it is consistent with FISA, is it OK for a President to use, etc. But we can [and IMHO should] get that we have elected representatives to Congress who have done their best to become knowledgeable about the actual NSA program. We get: 1) that those who have been briefed are not screaming for an impeachment or censure. Yes, they are “going along” for obvious political reasons, with the efforts to initiate a political fishing expedition/witch-hunt on the NSA issue. And we can get: 2) the Republicans, for their part, are NOT “going along” with those efforts for that expedition for the same political reasons. Can we think that the reasons the Republicans are resisting are more than the prevention of the political witch hunt? See point number one.
Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
An informed citizen is now ready to withstand the opinion-leaders spin, having established a base of reasoned thought on which to build. Once you let yourself become “efficient” and just follow the pundits, you become their sheeple and just as cornsilk sways in the wind, you go where they direct you. That is the real danger to our country, one that the founders never understood, never having tasted the power of the modern spin machine.
How’s that for a non ad hominem comment?
"Plagiarized from Yogi Berra"
ReplyDeleteUh - I belive the operative now is "Domenechized"
Glenn, I heard you name mentioned by Senator Feingold. Would you all call the following Senators to ask why they were not at the hearing this morning.
ReplyDeleteKennedy 202-224-4543
Biden 202-224-5042
Kohl 202-224-5653
Feinstein 202-224-3841
Schumer 202-224-6542
Durbin 202-224-2152
GLENN - Being cited by Feingold at the hearing is a HUGE COUP. Congratulations!!!
ReplyDeleteWatched Fahrenheit 451 last night. Just thought I'd mention it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should start memorizing our favorite books.
I imagine all that those who oppose this usurpation of power by the Bushites have to hope for is that the Supreme Court will judge as broadly as possible in the Hamdan case and declare that the President has set up war crimes trials in a time when: 1) there's no war and 2) there's no national emergency (for if there were, then the President might be able to invoke martial law-type powers).
ReplyDeleteThat is, as Justice Breyer stated in a question to General Clement:
JUSTICE BREYER: ... And, in my mind, I take their argument as saying, "Look, you want to try a war crime. You want to say this is a war crimes tribunal. One, this is not a war, at least not an ordinary war. Two, it's not a war crime, because that doesn't fall under international law. And, three, it's not a war crime tribunal or commission, because no emergency, not on the battlefield, civil courts are open,
there is no military commander asking for it, it's not in
any of those in other respects, like past history. And if the President can do this, well, then he can set up commissions to go to Toledo, and, in Toledo, pick up an alien, and not have any trial at all, except before that special commission."
Now, I am sure there are nuances to this that I'm not getting, since I am not a lawyer. In fact, I have read one commentary on the Hamdan arguments that suggested that the Justices will nto want to judge broadly in this case--meaning by that they will not take on the big issues about whether it's a war or not.
Perhaps someone can inform about how I have misconstrued Breyer's comment and/or disabuse me of my interpretation.
I'm sure you caught your shout out during the Senate hearings. Kudos, blogstar! And someone probably ought to forward your post to Lindsey Graham -- apparently he's a bit light on his Watergate history...
ReplyDeleteJoy Reid
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI think Lindsey Graham did a good job today tearing down the Bush-is-Nixon meme your pushing.
But congrats on the mention!
IMPEACH.TV
ReplyDeleteC-SPAN 2 to televise IMPEACH! programming this Sunday, April 2, 2006 at 4 pm.
Have an IMPEACH! house party!
More at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/31/14528/4230
I think Lindsey Graham did a good job today tearing down the Bush-is-Nixon meme your pushing.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Graham was actually embarrassing on the whole Watergate issue. He had no idea of the basic facts and Dean had to correct him several times on basic points.
There is no denying the similarities that they both eavesdropped on Americans in secret and with no oversight while assuring Americans - with virtually similar language - that they would only eavesdrop on guilty Americans, not innocent ones.
It's also factually true that both Presidents claimed that the President had the inherent authority under the Constitution to break the law in areas of national security.
You can say that the similarities end there or that thsoe similarties are irrelevant, but it's just factually true that those similarities exist.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteI imagine all that those who oppose this usurpation of power by the Bushites have to hope for is that the Supreme Court will judge as broadly as possible in the Hamdan case and declare that the President has set up war crimes trials in a time when: 1) there's no war and 2) there's no national emergency (for if there were, then the President might be able to invoke martial law-type powers).
That is, as Justice Breyer stated in a question to General Clement:
JUSTICE BREYER: ... And, in my mind, I take their argument as saying, "Look, you want to try a war crime. You want to say this is a war crimes tribunal. One, this is not a war, at least not an ordinary war.
When the enemy is killing us and we are killing the enemy, it is a war. Many of today's wars are not between nation states. It is time the good justice gets clued in before he mangles the law in reaction to something he apparently does not understand.
Two, it's not a war crime, because that doesn't fall under international law.
This is nonsense. International and domestic legal precedent concerning war crimes does not require that the perpetrator fall under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Conventions were entered into to protect combatants who follow the laws of war. Those who do not are illegal combatants and may be summarily executed under the Conventions. What Mr. Bush is proposing is giving them more due process than is required of illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions in comportment with our WWII tribunals.
And, three, it's not a war crime tribunal or commission, because no emergency, not on the battlefield, civil courts are open,
War crime tribunals during WWII which were repeatedly upheld by the courts required no emergency, they were conducted in the US and not on any battlefield and our civil courts were operating just fine. As Justice Scalia has properly pointed out over two opinions and in a recent speech, the US has NEVER given civilian trials to enemy combatants.
there is no military commander asking for it,
Says who? The military is operating these tribunals.
And if the President can do this, well, then he can set up commissions to go to Toledo, and, in Toledo, pick up an alien, and not have any trial at all, except before that special commission."
Why not? In WWI, we used these tribunals to try illegal combatant Germans who were captured in the US.
When the enemy is killing us and we are killing the enemy, it is a war. Many of today's wars are not between nation states.
ReplyDeleteBart - Would you agree, along with the Defense Department and even the President himself, that by this definition of "war," our country will be at "war" for the next several decades, probably for most if not all of our lifetimes?
Nobody thinks we're going to eradicate Al Qaeda in the next few years. Muslim terrorism is almost certainly going to exist for the next 10-15 years at the very, very least. Would you agree with that?
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThere is no denying the similarities that they both eavesdropped on Americans in secret and with no oversight while assuring Americans - with virtually similar language - that they would only eavesdrop on guilty Americans, not innocent ones.
And where is your evidence for this? Without evidence, then this statement is eminently deniable.
It's also factually true that both Presidents claimed that the President had the inherent authority under the Constitution to break the law in areas of national security.
Glenn, most of the precedent which Mr. Bush is relying upon was based on Nixon's wiretapping of foreign agents and was upheld by the court of appeal and denied cert by the Supremes.
Where Nixon (not to mention JFK, LBJ and Clinton) went wrong was using resources meant for intelligence gathering against Americans they considered to be subversive or political enemies.
I suggest that it's not a war until Congress says so--as the Constitution supposedly affirms as well.
ReplyDeleteI understand what Cynic Librarian is getting at but, politically, I don’t think it makes much difference whether Congress says so or not (legally is another matter entirely).
Let’s not forget that the Korean War was officially a “police action” and not ever declared a war by Congress either – but tens of thousands of Americans died in that “police action.” It’s in all the history books as a “war” nevertheless, and you’d never convince the public that it wasn’t.
It would be much easier to convince the public that because there can never be a “end” to being vigilant against terrorism, and that the term “war against terrorism” is a misnomer.
We need to distinguish between what must be considered a “war” in Iraq, from Bush’s rhetoric of an endless “war on terrorism” that he is using to justify usurpation of power for the executive branch, and gives him carte blanche to do what he pleases regardless of whatever laws Congress might pass.
In other words, I think the “separation of powers” and the terms “checks and balances” have much more resonance with the public than trying to pretend we are not at “war” in Iraq, where U.S. soldiers are coming home in flag-draped coffins.
I also think the point Feingold made today (ala Glenn) that “we must trust the president” to only spy on the “bad guys” (like Mitchell insisted with Nixon) will connect with the public as well.
We keep hearing “there is no evidence” that Bush has done anything wrong or spied on anyone he shouldn’t have. But we need to keep asking “where would such evidence come from?”
(The oversight relied upon by Bush supporters is a joke -- which they keep repeating -- and they know it.)
If we couldn’t trust Mitchell under Nixon, why should we trust Gonzalez under Bush?
That, in my opinion, is an easier sell to the public than “we are not at war.”
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteBart: When the enemy is killing us and we are killing the enemy, it is a war. Many of today's wars are not between nation states.
Would you agree, along with the Defense Department and even the President himself, that by this definition of "war," our country will be at "war" for the next several decades, probably for most if not all of our lifetimes?
Agreed. This war will last a generation at least.
This is what makes the current enemy combatant cases so interesting. In a war between nations states, there is usually a clear beginning and end.
We have no diplomatic relations with al Qaeda and the Islamic fascist movement in general. We are in a total war to destroy one another and, until that occurs, this war will not end.
However, the captured combatants are no less dangerous because they are involved in a long indefinite war. Some we have already released once have been recaptured fighting our troops again.
If the alternative is returning them to the battlefield where they are trying to kill our citizens, I see no alternative than to detain these enemy combatants indefinitely or to execute them.
Having worked at the NSA (and affiliated facilities) for almost 30 years, I believe that the focus on whether or not the current programs targeted anybody other than "very bad people" is a red herring. Having started working in this community during the period that FISA was implemented, my roots are very much dipped in the purposes of FISA. The question is more appropriately directed to the actions that inevitably occur, if they haven't already. The vast majority of the people involved with the NSA are dedicated and honorable, and would report anything they recognized as a constitutional violations. But, as any organization of its size, there is a significant percentage of less than upstanding characters that even the most rigorous screening process will miss. And these folks tend to recognize each other and concentrate in specific offices. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn't matter. There are unethical groupings of them. And given a chance these groupings will try to leverage their position for gain. Some groupings are at a high level, some at the very bottom. It is therefore incumbent on the congress to ensure that there is never a weakening of either the congressional or judicial oversight. We've seen what happened in the Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon administrations without them.
ReplyDeleteSo it doesn't matter whether the Bush administration is a collection of high minded public servants or venal criminals, the abandonment of judicial oversight or the abdication of congressional oversight is a self destructive move for the U.S.
And where is your evidence for this? Without evidence, then this statement is eminently deniable.
ReplyDeleteI put the Mitchell quote up where he said that and linked to several Bush Administration quotes where they did.
Glenn, most of the precedent which Mr. Bush is relying upon was based on Nixon's wiretapping of foreign agents and was upheld by the court of appeal and denied cert by the Supremes.
Exactly - that was before the country decided that it did not want the President to have that power because it didn't trust them to have it.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI don't consider it "embarrassing" that Lindsey Graham doesn't know the intimate details of Watergate as well as John Dean. He is John Dean, after all.
But the basic point that Graham was making was that comparing what George W. Bush had done to the crimes of Nixon obscures the serious debate that needs to be had concerning presidential power in a time of war.
Second, you say that "There is no denying the similarities that they both eavesdropped on Americans in secret and with no oversight while assuring Americans - with virtually similar language - that they would only eavesdrop on guilty Americans, not innocent ones."
How was it secret of members of Congress was informed of the program? That fact alone means that it was not a secret to Bush and his "cabal" only. In terms of oversight, a lack of Congressional oversight does not indicate no oversight at all.
You also write that, "It's also factually true that both Presidents claimed that the President had the inherent authority under the Constitution to break the law in areas of national security."
This partly true--not "break the law" but the actions were within the constitutional authority of the President. The obvious difference, and the point Graham was making in the hearing, is that in the case of Nixon it was ridiculous to claim that his actions had anything to do with national security. In the case of Bush, it is a legitimate argument because it expressly involves monitoring communications of suspected terrorists.
Bart wrote: When the enemy is killing us and we are killing the enemy, it is a war. Many of today's wars are not between nation states. It is time the good justice gets clued in before he mangles the law in reaction to something he apparently does not understand.
ReplyDeleteIt makes a difference whether this is a "war" or a constituionally based declaration of war. As I have argued before, if it's the latter then the President is allowed (by unspoken convention) to have some leeway in exercising his executive discretion. The same goes for a state of emergency, such as martial law. When it's not a war by constitutional definition, then the President's powers cannot be exercised in this manner. S/he is, at the least, constrained by Congressional oversight and even administration.
To declare this war on terrorism as some kind of "new" war is a red herring. It's no such thing. The "war" on terror is just as much a war as fighting narco-terrorists is--no more, no less. To use the rhetoric of war can only do one thing--that is to enhance the power of the executive branch in an unconstituional, unlawful and, I would add, an unethical manner.
Your logical confusion about this question astounds me. You seem like a relatively rational person. Even though I disagree with many of your points, I think you do believe in what's fair and right.
Being such, I imagine you'd see that just because people are killing each other, that does not make it what is legally and constitutionally--in the context of a state with laws and a constitution--a war. By your definition, a gang war--where people kill and are killed--is literally a war. That's nonsense and you know it. But it's this type of logical and moral nonsense that this administration has hoped to capialize on and exploit in order to expand a political agenda whose focus is much more than simply defending the country.
A war has to be declared and agreed upon in a republic and democracy. No such thing has been done, contrary to all the hyperbole about the war on terrorism. This "war" is a metaphor that has been construed duplicitously and deceptively as a literally real war.
In the case of Bush, it is a legitimate argument because it expressly involves monitoring communications of suspected terrorists.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you know this?
No one knows what they’re doing.
You think this because you “trust Bush” and that’s all you’ve got. Trust. It’s because you “believe” in Bush, it is your “faith” in Bush that tells you this. That does not prove anything except your political allegiance.
You don’t know what they’re doing more than Sen. Leahy who is a member of the committee and he doesn’t know what they’re doing, so how can you make these claims?
Great post - I hope that this hearing gives the centure movement some traction.
ReplyDeleteIt's amusing to see the "what's the fuss?" commenters here cite the necessary nature of "this" program, the lack of objection from those who know about "this" program, and then conclude "See, there's nothing behind 'that' curtain."
ReplyDeleteYou know, I hear Rove puts blinders on his horses to keep them focused on the straight and narrow.
Someone should send this to Senator Feingold while we're at it.
ReplyDeleteOops. I pasted my observations on the wrong thread about today's hearings. Here they are:
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a long post about the hearings, but it disappeared, so I will summarize it here.
l) Naturally I died and went to heaven with Russ Feingold mentioned Glenn Greenwald and his post of today in his testimony. WAY TO GO, Glenn! Don't want to gush, so I'll leave it at that.
2) Bruce Fein is one of the few most intelligent people on the planet. He was perfect: knowledgable, articulate, principled, effective, a demonstration of the beauty of what happens when a world class intellect combines with an unbridled integrity.
3) John Dean was sensational. Statesmanlike, knowledgable, principled, wise, measured, dignified, succint and powerful.
4) Feingold was Feingold, and must obviously be President. He was spectacular. Everyone else will write to praise him, so I only point out here how smart it was of him to address most of his inquiries to the only two people who were there to tell the truth, and give them a further platform, rather than waste time correcting the fallacies of the three trolls.
5) Specter revealed, yet again, himself to be a man so overwhelmed by his own runaway ego that he has lost any pretense to authenticity and gave proof, once again, that anyone who is counting on him for anything is doomed to be betrayed and disappointed.
6) Leahy was great. Hard not to love or trust him. A man of honor.
This would have been a great, great day for America, were it not shockingly marred by one of the ugliest displays of what has become the soul of what calls itself a Government these days. Graham, in a shameful and raw dispay of pure viciousness, resorted to the type of baseless, pathetic, horrifying ad hominem attack on John Dean that has, unfortunately, come to be emblematic of what the faux Republicans now use as their primary modus operandi.
I was repulsed. I was ashamed to be an American. I was engraged. No scorn leveled on Graham would be enough to condemn him for what he did today.
I think everyone should call his office even before they call Sen. Feingold to praise him and tell him that THIS WILL NOT STAND. ATTENTION MUST BE PAID to what he did. This is not America. Get out, you imposter. Leave the stage. You deserve to be eternally vilified for stooping so low, and disgracing this country in the eyes of all who watched the hearings.
What a low, low, low, low point in American history.
The fact that this self-serving fool didn't even know that Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break-in nor know of it before it happened shows that this person, I cannot call him a man, has a knowledge of American history so meager that it matches his miniscule integrity, or lack thereof.
One last point. Did anyone, including Glenn, catch that comment Patrick Leahy made? Listen to that again. He appears to be saying that even in the closed sections to the few who were briefed on the NSA programs, the Administration would not confirm that opening the mail of American citizens on American soil without a warrant was not being done.
That is big news, if I read that correctly, revealed for the first time today.
Every American who doesn't condemn Graham should hang his own head in shame.
Meanwhile, to the members of the Force, bravo and well done!
Here's my other observation that I pasted on the wrong thread, plus I asked a question in another post about the accusation that Russ should have put "bad faith" as a charge in his censure motion. Is this correct?
ReplyDelete......
By the way, did you all pick up that moment which revealed how truly out of touch with reality Specter is?
Sen.Feingold started to speak, and mentioned first that today is Specter's birthday. The audience there clapped. Specter launched into a stern reprimand, admonishing the audience that this was a dignified hearing and he would not tolerate such a display. He obviously thought they were clapping because Russ started to speak.
Russ, graciously and delicately, pointed out to Specter that the audience was clapping not because he was speaking, but to applaud Specter because it was his birthday.
Specter answered something like "that's about as accurate as some of the other assumptions Feingold makes."
This man, so completely out of touch with reality, is the one in whose hands people are placing the responsibility to save the Constitution? Could trust ever be more carelessly misplaced?
When jao says, Mr. President, tell it to a judge, I hope he doesn't think Specter is the one who is going to have anything to do with making that happen.
Meanwhile, bravos again to Sen. Feingold, John Dean, Bruce Fein, Pat Leahy, and our own Glenn Greenwald! A job well done! A+ and then some!
PS. Glenn, why did they focus on the fact that the censure motion didn't mention bad faith? Should it have? Do they have a legit point there, or are they grasping at straws?
Lindsay Graham, I hope you are happy with yourself, you morally bankrupt disgrace to America. If you had one shred of dignity, which you obviously don't, you would call a press conference and apologize to John Dean
Sen. Feingold read from parts of this post at the Censure Resolution hearing this morning (and, courteously, credited this blog) when he was questioning John Dean. He specifically asked him about the Mitchell quote.
ReplyDeleteToo cool. Allowing that the riff raff citizenry online might have something meaningful to say.
It was hard to listen to Graham prattling almost incoherently about how we do need to be sure when "Americans are contacted" the govt gets a warrant -- I mean, the Congress already did that. Duh.
Feinstein was impressive,and sat back smiling good-naturedly when Specter read all those gross editorials dissing the idea of censure. Bruce Fein was good on substance (what I watched of his testimony), but now I recall from his Crossfire/CNN days that he just isn't that telegenic.
Anyway, that was a very awesome h/t.
zack, interesting observation about John Dean's conclusions.
ReplyDeleteIt seems every patriotic REAL REPUBLICAN, like John Dean, Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Fein (oh dear, are there any others?) has come to the same conclusion: the Democrats must get one of the houses in 2006.
That's how real patriots act. When their party abandons its core principles, they are willing to support an opposition party whose less central principles they do not support. They put their love of country first.
It's not an easy leap, let me tell you. For a laissez faire capitalist such as moiself, having to support pinkos is a bitter pill to swallow.
Yet I am willing, anxious to do it, if doing so will preserve this Constitutional Republic.
Actually, I hope Dems take only one house, so Sen. Feingold can be President in 2008. I wouldn't want to see ever again all three go to the same party.
I would most like to see a Real Republican be elected President in 2008 if any run, but that eliminates all current politicians.
But Sen. Feingold is a close second.
hypatia writes:
ReplyDeletebut now I recall from his Crossfire/CNN days that he just isn't that telegenic.
Oh boy. Typical hypatia. Guess when someone speaks the truth, it offends her eyes.
I thought he was BRILLIANTLY telegenic. The max! Everything about him, his style, his words, his logic, his selection of points to address, his delivery, his precision, everything! He was the DEFINITION of telegenic to me.
The fact that you didn't find him telegenic when he is so obviously telegenic just betrays your inner resistance to what he was saying.
Let me know what other blogs you are writing on "hypatia." Would love to see what you are saying there. Just for amusement of course, not for any enlightenment.
Lindsay Graham/hypatia. Two peas in a pod.
Excuse the bitterness. But when you slither on this blog and try to take away from Bruce Fein what is rightfully his, color me bitter.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteGlenn: There is no denying the similarities that they both eavesdropped on Americans in secret and with no oversight while assuring Americans - with virtually similar language - that they would only eavesdrop on guilty Americans, not innocent ones.
Bart: And where is your evidence for this? Without evidence, then this statement is eminently deniable.
Glenn: I put the Mitchell quote up where he said that and linked to several Bush Administration quotes where they did.
We all know what Nixon did. His illegal actions involved targetting Americans who he considered to be subversive or were political opponents.
Where is your evidence that the NSA Program is targeting Americans who are not foreign agents? The Administration never admitted to this.
Next, where is your evidence that this program was secret to the other branches of government. The Administration disclosed this program to the heads of Congress, the congressional intel committees and the head of the FISA court and provided all of these with regular status briefings. Furthermore, they modified the program in response to FISA court objections.
Without this evidence you are making a fallacious comparison between the NSA Program and the Nixon dirty tricks.
Furthermore, I notice that you do not use similar Dem dirty tricks by JFK, LBJ and Clinton to make your point. That hardly gives one confidence that this is not a partisan smear job.
Bart: Glenn, most of the precedent which Mr. Bush is relying upon was based on Nixon's wiretapping of foreign agents and was upheld by the court of appeal and denied cert by the Supremes.
Exactly - that was before the country decided that it did not want the President to have that power because it didn't trust them to have it.
Apart from the fact that no court has ever held that FISA may limit or eliminate the recognized Article II powers of the President in this area, the "country" didn't decide squat. Congress ran over the weakest president of the 20th Century and made a grab for executive power with FISA. This was not the subject of an election or any particular debate among the people.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteBart wrote: When the enemy is killing us and we are killing the enemy, it is a war. Many of today's wars are not between nation states. It is time the good justice gets clued in before he mangles the law in reaction to something he apparently does not understand.
It makes a difference whether this is a "war" or a constituionally based declaration of war.
To start, Congress did authorize this war in no uncertain terms. The fact that they did not use the words "declaration of war." is of no moment.
In the initial decisions on the detainees, the Supreme Court recognized that we were at war and the keeping prisoners was a proper incident of that war.
I don't understand that Air America schedule, and I am too excited about Senator Feingold mentioning Glenn, and too upset by what Graham did to figure it out now. Can someone please tell me what radio station in NY, AM or FM, Glenn can be heard on tonight?
ReplyDeleteThank you very much. Please put what the number on the radio dial is.
JaO said...
ReplyDeleteAbout Good Faith and Congressional Intent
Much was made at the hearing on censure today about good faith, or bad faith as the case may be, on the part of President Bush.
So how does anyone prove bad faith?
bad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations.
Bad faith raises the burden on proof on Mr. Feingold. Instead of just proving that Mr. Bush violated the law even though he may have honestly believed in his legal position, Mr. Feingold would have to prove that Mr. Bush knew that he was violating the law and did so intentionally.
It really doesn't mean anything when the "jurors" in this case are just a bunch of partisan politicians. Congress isn't bound by any real rules apart those necessary to enact any other resolution - a majority of votes barring filibuster.
The Senate trying Clinton wasn't even listening to the evidence and many declared their intentions before the trial.
Gaditano -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight. That sort of secretive grouping of personnel is exactly how I envision this NSA program being run without fear of exposure. The unethical power-worshippers among the employees who obey orders no matter what, have been collected by Hayden and Negroponte and Goss and Rumsfeld and whoever else, to execute this domestic NSA spying, I imagine. [Corporate CEO involvement from complicit communications companies is obviously another part of the story.]
Is there any way to give us a bit of a history lesson about FISA, the NSA, and the Fourth Amendment, based on your long experience in the agency, without giving away anything you shouldn't? Bruce Fein, thanks to questions from Leahy and Feingold today, started to explain the operations of FISA, and how they don't apply to overseas targets, which starts to pull off the veil of the political spin and cover-up, by focusing on actual facts. We can use all the fact-based information about the real-world application of FISA we can get, from those with actual experience in the field. Thanks for participating.
Telegenic. Ha! Here's how I see it:
ReplyDeleteThe Brad Pitt Dream Team:
Russ Feingold
Bruce Fein
John Dean
Pat Leahy
The Rorshach Nightmare Team:
Hatch
The three stooges
Specter
I call them the Rorschach team because their faces look to me like rorschach tests, in that their features, not defined by any principle behind them, all squish together in one big indistinguishable blob.
Those are the two teams of humans.
I left off the snake. I do not consider him a human.
While Lindsey Graham’s performance today was contemptible and embarrassing, no one made a bigger fool of himself than Prof. Turner who suggested that the Congress who passed FISA to prevent future Nixons (and future abuses by the intelligence agencies domestically) should be censured.
ReplyDeleteThe radical nature of his testimony was stunning, but there was no one who better articulated the position of the Bush administration. No one.
He insists that Congress had no right to curb presidential powers after Nixon abused them, and that they must be punished for doing so.
Is the public ready grasp that concept?
That is the administration’s position although they dress it up a bit differently, taking time to wrap it up with fear, insecurity, 9/11 and terror.
Turner wants Congress punished for trying to prevent abuses of power? Maybe we should take him up on it. Yes, let's have that debate.
I hope Glenn (or someone else) runs with this theme: that in spite of Nixon’s abuses of power, Congress was wrong to limit presidential power in the post-Nixon era.
It is this theme that is at the heart of the radical nature of this administration, and if the public ever really understands it, Bush’s arguments on this issue will come tumbling down.
I thought he was BRILLIANTLY telegenic. The max! Everything about him, his style, his words, his logic, his selection of points to address, his delivery, his precision, everything! He was the DEFINITION of telegenic to me.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you didn't find him telegenic when he is so obviously telegenic just betrays your inner resistance to what he was saying.
Oh get a grip. I have zero resistance to what he was saying, and in fact love his mind. But he used to be a regular on Crossfire and in my opinion he isn't the best spokesman for the right in a "pretty head, pleasant voice" medium, and I was simply reminded why his TV pundit career at CNN didn't take off. Not to say he isn't brilliant, he is.
You've just decided I'm evil, corrupt, or whatever bizarre fantasies of vileness you impute to me. I don't know what I ever did to you to bring it on, but it is creepy.
Kudos to tag team Greenwald/Finegold.
ReplyDeleteEWO - It's on AM 1190 in NYC.
ReplyDeleteThe video of Russ thanking Glenn is here.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand that Air America schedule, and I am too excited about Senator Feingold mentioning Glenn, and too upset by what Graham did to figure it out now.
ReplyDeleteAir American is broadcast in NYC on WLIB, 1190 on the AM dial.
Not for long, apparently
I thought he was BRILLIANTLY telegenic. The max! Everything about him, his style, his words, his logic, his selection of points to address, his delivery, his precision, everything! He was the DEFINITION of telegenic to me.
ReplyDeleteGag. Is this person 12 years old?
EWO declares: Excuse the bitterness. But when you slither on this blog and try to take away from Bruce Fein what is rightfully his, color me bitter.
ReplyDeleteNo, color you deluded.
It just takes the cake, it really does. You are swooning over Fein like a schoolgirl, and yet have castigated me repeatedly as unfit for the company here because I supported the Alito nomination. Well guess what, EWO? Your boyfriend Mr. Fein did, too.
Further, Fein read Alito's confirmation hearing testimony as a warning that he's not on board with Bush's Yoo theories of an unchecked Executive.
Given some of the claims that have been made with regard to executive power these days, I think Judge Alito may have been sending a signal that at least on his watch there is nobody, even the president of the United States who escapes judicial review.
And see also this:
But some of Alito's allies say he should embrace the conservative label because it fits.
"The Department of Justice statement is fatuous. If you can't tell by looking at his opinions what kind of philosophy he would carry to the Supreme Court, how would you know to nominate him?" said Bruce Fein, a conservative legal scholar and an Alito supporter. "A judge has a personal view of what the Constitution means."
Ha ha. So what's it gonna be, EWO. Do you repudiate Fein, now that you know he is as evil and clueless about the Opus Dei plot as I am?
I have to declare bankruptcy. Why won't someone Stop the Damn Clocks for a few days so I can do some actual work? Glenn on the radio tonight and now Sen. Feingold just announced he will be on Fox News Sunday---it's becoming a full time job just keeping up with those two. Help!
ReplyDeleteI love Crooks and Liars and hope they put up the clip of Graham attacking Dean, to make sure that disgusting moment will live on in history to eternally shame Graham in revealing what an ignorant bully and fool he really is.
Let's get Dean's back. We're an army of truth seekers, and we have to support our own troops, those who are fighting our same principled battle.
jao writes: I would add a footnote. During the Alito hearings, Bruce Fein took the same position I did: that Alito should have been more forthright in taking ownership of his 1985 opinions about Roe v Wade.
ReplyDeleteYes, that first link I tossed out to EWO is a WaPo editorial by Fein titled, Don't Run From the Truth:
Why Alito Shouldn't Deny His Real Convictions. Myself, I could never play an ideological hide-and-seek game. It isn't just that I think it is immoral, it is that I really cannot pretend to believe something I don't, or to supress views to which I do adhere.
But then, I'd never run for office, and given some of my views, like on drug policy -- which I could never deny -- I'm unelectable. Maybe the NRO crowd is right in terms of pragmatics, but I don't like it.
I feel like it's worth a post at some point or another about the borderline ludicrous question begging that's inherent in the "bad people only" defense of the question-begginly renamed "terrorist surveilance program."
ReplyDeleteNot to single anyone out, but it seems that everyone of Bart's posts simply assumes the legal issue away with a wave of the hand and a "spying limited to terrorists". The whole point of judicial oversight, be it for FISA warrants, or more pedestrian search warrants is so we don't have to assume anything - reasonable basis for suspicion has to be articulated such that an independant judge sees the smoke.
"Trust me" simply flies in the face of that notion, and in all honesty should make people question the fitness of those making it to fight actual terrorists. If they cannot show cause why they believe someone to be connected to terrorism, why should they be trusted with combatting that threat?
Keith Olberman about to interview John Dean 8PM Eastern Standard Time. Hope Crooks and Liars carries this as a video.
ReplyDeleteI just got finished writing a letter to Feingold thanking him for being the last person standing with regard to actually defending our system of government, the Constitution and representing the American people's best interests.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing the empty chairs at that hearing it is apparent to me now that the Dem establishment could never stand on principle because they don't have any fucking principles! They only know politics and political "strategies." They are just as bad as the Cons in this regard except they are worse at it because they are also cowards with respect to choosing the political battles.
They couldn't even bring themselves to be there in a show of solidarity? You have got to be kidding me. They martyred Feingold today.
I am so disgusted. And I feel ashamed and embarrassed that I never realized this about them before.
What a disgrace they are.
I am done with this silly assed Kabuki dance where we all get worked up and bothered because we think that one party is actually "better" than the other. It is monumentally idiotic. With very few exceptions they really are all disgusting.
I am supposed to choose between a party based on fundamentally wicked principles and a bunch of self serving cowards who have no principles!? I am finished with it. Chalk up one non-voter and, if I can work it out - ex-pat, to the tally.
My only hope now is that I get out in time and they run this fucking country into the ground before they can be of any more danger to the rest of the world.
Good luck to you all... you are gonna need it.
Dear "hypatia",
ReplyDeleteYour defense of Alito is not why I repudiate you, which I oh so strenously do. I do not repudiate Fein one bit. I think he is absolutely brilliant and incredibly articulate. I can only judge him by his performance today, as I never heard of him before frankly, but I would imagine that if I investigate the reasons why he supported Alito, which I will, they will be different than your own.
For one thing, as you point out, he took Alito at his word. I think when the Hamdan decision comes down, he'll realize he put too much faith in Alito's words, and not enough emphasis on his careerism.
I imagine that a busy person like Bruce Fein didn't have time to read every major Alito dissent, which I did. That took me almost a full week, but because I came on the blogosphere in the first place because I was interested in the SC opening when SDO left, that was my sole interest at the time. BTW, I initially supported Alito too, because I was assuming he was someone who would interpret the Consitution like Janice Rogers Brown, who I really, really like. Still do. I supported Scalia at that point too, because I had never read his decisions and had been Borkwashed into thinking he was a good SC Justice.
Not everyone now involved in the present national debate is someone who has had any real interest in politics before. I was one who did not, assuming they were all a bunch of phonies, everything in the media was propaganda, which I think has now been demonstrated, so why waste my time? I supported, from afar, those individuals who I thought were most likely to understand and support laissez faire capitalism.
Having heard Bruce Fein today, I did not detect the slightest proclivity toward a fascist mindset. Quite the opposite. If that's wrong, then I will change my view of him when I learn more about him, but I will not change my view that he has an unusally brilliant mind, and today he spoke for me.
Lack of fascist proclivities is a biggie for me, a central focus, and unfortunately, I cannot say that about some people.
In my own defense, it only took me a few days to realize that being on confirmthem.com, a site I initially went to because I thought it would represent my views, was sort of like being dropped into a vat of boiling oil, only without the charm.
I do think you fit in rather well there.
Love,
Hardly Deluded.
RH: I was as disheartened as you by the performance of the Dems. However, I listened to the call-in show on C-SPAN after the hearing. There was much for hope there--Dems, Reps, Inds all calling for censure. Forget the legal jargon and gyrations--people see Feingold's act as one of defiance and common-sense; a standing up to lie, illusions, and deceit. People ARE confused by all the assertions/counter-assertions, manipulated news and spin. What they do understand is an act of conscience. Their support for it derives from diverse motives--I suggest there's much anger and resentment at pols who think they can make fools of us.
ReplyDeleteEWO spews: I imagine that a busy person like Bruce Fein didn't have time to read every major Alito dissent, which I did.
ReplyDeleteYes, that must certainly be it. A Con Law scholar and editorialist in WaPo and the WashTimes didn't read the important Opinions of the nomineee he publicly supported, unlike EWO, who has Alito down pat in a way Fein doesn't.
You are a moron. Bruce Fein advocated that Bush pack the SCOTUS with men like Scalia and Thomas. Alito is in that mold, and Fein -- your latest hero -- is pleased Alito is on the High Court.
(Both Casey and Turner are active with Federalist Society)
ReplyDeleteNot surprised. Are they also in Opus Dei?
BTW, to Hume's Ghost. I agree that was an excellent article in Reason.
However, I will not send it to Feingold, because when something doesn't pass the smell test, I start asking myself questions.
To wit: Why would a man commit suicide when he isn't in pain, and not in a moment of despair? Why would his lawyers let him?
Ans. He wouldn't. They wouldn't. The instinct for self-preservation is basic in both humans and animals.
If a religious fanatic thinks he is following his faith and serving his God by blowing himself up, he might. Such things are beyond reason.
But this man did not take the stand to launch an impassioned defense of Islamic Fundamentalism, which could have, had he done that, explained his reasoned decision to commit suicide.
Therefore, I conclude something else is operative here. And as I take nothing at face value unless I have already made a decision to respect the source completely, I have some very big questions as to what this situation is really all about.
This person's testimony did not ostensibly help Islamic Fundamentalism nor did it ostensibly help the Bush Administration.
So what made this guy "commit suicide"?
What was his motive? Why has nobody stopped to ask "What was his motive"?
When someone has a budget of 1.6 billion to spread disinformation, I don't underestimate his firepower. Just because the disinformation seems to be hurting the big spender at first, that doesn't prove it's not disinformation. Maybe the real purpose of the disinformation is so diabolically hidden at first it's hard to discern. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So I won't send that particular article to Feingold, because I am not certain of the real facts concerning this case.
The whole trial just doesn't pass the smell test.
bart writes: We are in a total war to destroy one another and, until that occurs, this war will not end.
ReplyDeleteHa ha. That reminds me of that quote uttered by that high level military guy who influenced American foreign policy for many, many years.
I wrote about him before on this blog.
His classic quote?
"Who cares? As long as there are two Americans left and only one Russian, we win."
EWO - It's on AM 1190 in NYC.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, anon.
bart writes: We are in a total war to destroy one another and, until that occurs, this war will not end.
ReplyDeletespoken like a true fascist.
Bart's definition of victory: victory.
brilliant.
For those of you who are deluding themselves that the GOP is just salivating to make Feingold's censure resolution part of the fall campaign, catch the first commercial counterattacking...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gop.com/Default.aspx
Great Glenn. You were terrific!
ReplyDeleteGlenn handled himself well on Air America.
ReplyDeleteWell-spoken and not hysterical as some portray those of us on the left. I appreciated his motive as explained is not to get Bush or to speculate, but to know what is going on.
He frames the issue perfectly: it's not about Bush, it's about the USA and our Constitution.
Good showing Glenn! (Too bad Janeane wouldn't give you more time)
Whig[Bold added] "I have to say, while I often read comments that bemoan the lack of public outrage, I think we need to realize that by the very nature of this controversy people are often afraid to speak out against it. I don't think anyone believes that the government is listening to everyone's conversations.
ReplyDeleteAs to the belief of what the NSA is or isn't doing -- they listen to everything -- overseas Echelon allies listen to the domestic targets.
As to the outrage, it's easy to speak out. The issue is: Do people want to listenn to solutions?
Lap Dogs of the Press
ReplyDeleteBy Helen Thomas
The Nation
Friday 10 March 2006
Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed - conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and "spin" - nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out - no questions asked.
Reporters and editors like to think of themselves as watchdogs for the public good. But in recent years both individual reporters and their ever-growing corporate ownership have defaulted on that role....
The naive complicity of the press and the government was never more pronounced than in the prelude to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media became an echo chamber for White House pronouncements....
After all, two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, had kept up a drumbeat for war with Iraq to bring down Dictator Saddam Hussein. They accepted almost unquestioningly the bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the dubious White House rationale that proved to be so costly on a human scale, not to mention a drain on the Treasury. The Post was much more hawkish than the Times - running many editorials pumping up the need to wage war against the Iraqi dictator - but both newspapers played into the hands of the Administration.
Hmmmm. Then they hire Ben D. Hmmmm.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his ninety-minute "boffo" statement on Saddam's lethal toxic arsenal on February 5, 2003, before the United Nations, the Times said he left "little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal" a so-called smoking gun or weapons of mass destruction. After two US special weapons inspection task forces, headed by chief weapons inspector David Kay and later by Charles Duelfer, came up empty in the scouring of Iraq for WMD, did you hear any apologies from the Bush Administration? Of course not. It simply changed its rationale for the war - several times. Nor did the media say much about the failed weapons search. Several newspapers made it a front-page story but only gave it one-day coverage. As for Powell, he simply lost his halo. The newspapers played his back-pedaling inconspicuously on the back pages.
My concern is why the nation's media were so gullible.... Why did reporters become cheerleaders for a deceptive Administration? Could it be that no one wanted to stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism?...
All the blame cannot be laid at the doorstep of the print media. CNN's war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, was critical of her own network for not asking enough questions about WMD. She attributed it to the competition for ratings with Fox, which had an inside track to top Administration officials.
Despite the apologies of the mainstream press for not having vigilantly questioned evidence of WMD and links to terrorists in the early stages of the war, the newspapers dropped the ball again by ignoring for days a damaging report in the London Times on May 1, 2005. That report revealed the so-called Downing Street memo, the minutes of a high-powered confidential meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair held with his top advisers on Bush's forthcoming plans to attack Iraq. At the secret session Richard Dearlove, former head of British intelligence, told Blair that Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The Downing Street memo was a bombshell when discussed by the bloggers, but the mainstream print media ignored it until it became too embarrassing to suppress any longer. The Post discounted the memo as old news and pointed to reports it had many months before on the buildup to the war. Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley decided that the classified minutes of the Blair meeting were not a "smoking gun." The New York Times touched on the memo in a dispatch during the last days leading up to the British elections, but put it in the tenth paragraph.
(talks about the White House Press during Watergate and says)
the so-called "body watch," which travels everywhere with the President.. has no time to dig for facts. But looking back, they knew they had missed many clues on the Watergate scandal and were determined to become much more skeptical of what was being dished out to them at the daily briefings. And, indeed, they were. The White House press room became a lion's den.....
(talks about exchange she had with Scott McClennen in early days of Iraq invasion)
Those were the days when I longed for ABC-TV's great Sam Donaldson to back up my questions as he always did, and I did the same for him and other daring reporters. Then I realized that the old pros, reporters whom I had known in the past, many of them around during World War II and later the Vietnam War, reporters who had some historical perspective on government deception and folly, were not around anymore.
I honestly believe that if reporters had put the spotlight on the flaws in the Bush Administration's war policies, they could have saved the country the heartache and the losses of American and Iraqi lives.
From Bart at 6:14PM:
ReplyDelete"Where is your evidence that the NSA Program is targeting Americans who are not foreign agents? The Administration never admitted to this."
I'm not sure which I find more puzzling: Bart's question, or the naivete it suggests.
Look, this Administration may not be the sharpest bunch of pencils in the box, but even this collection of characters must know better than to go around *admitting* they're targeting American citizens for illegal surveillance. *Especially* given the President himself has effectively admitted the program is of (at the very, very least) dubious legality.
Bart continues:
"The Administration disclosed this program to the heads of Congress, the congressional intel committees and the head of the FISA court and provided all of these with regular status briefings. Furthermore, they modified the program in response to FISA court objections."
Witness their desperate gyrations to keep any in-depth investigation from being held. Yes, there are legitimate security concerns at issue; but there are any number of ways the Administration might reassure both Congress and the wider public.
Actually and formally briefing more than just 20 members of Congress on the scope, procedures, standards and objectives of the program under discussion would be a nice start.
Oh, and on a somewhat different topic, Bart states:
"We are in a total war to destroy one another and, until that occurs, this war will not end."
If that were true, Bart, why have we deployed only 135,000 active troops to Iraq and another 20,000 to Afghanistan? Why are we waging this 'war' by half-measures, our troops insufficiently equipt to fight it, our economy still on a peacetime footing, and without the sort of 'scortched earth' tactics demanded of Total War?
ps. I don't really expect an answer to this one; there honestly isn't a serious one to be had.
Glenn handled himself well on Air America.
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I thought the interview was absurd and Jaenane's questions were inane. I've done that show before and the quality of the interview was high but this was what one could generously call an off night.
What is the point of sitting around speculating about who has been eavesdropped on, when we have no idea precisely because it was done in secret and the GOP has blocked every investigation into how those powers were used? Honestly, I was glad the interview was cut short given how pointless it was.
"Bad faith raises the burden on proof on Mr. Feingold. Instead of just proving that Mr. Bush violated the law even though he may have honestly believed in his legal position, Mr. Feingold would have to prove that Mr. Bush knew that he was violating the law and did so intentionally."
ReplyDeleteExcept that Bush indicted himself in that regard when he said "a wiretap requires a court order".
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002181.htm
So even though you'd probably like us to believe he was just an ignorant alkie, he's actually just full of shit.
Well, on another note, (and sorry havent had time to read all the comments to see if this was covered) I just saw the C-Span re-broadcast of the hearing. Senator Cornyn was in fine form.
ReplyDeleteIm not talking about his attempted smackdown of John Dean - a below-the- belt jab par excellance - but the following.
Basically Cornyn was talking about the "surreal atmosphere" surrounding the hearings, blaming that on an effort to critize the President for wanting to eavesdrop on terrorists in a time of war. That is, for wanting to eavesdrop on terrorists. Period.
Of course no one is saying that - rather, the argument is that the President should spy on terrorists; but with the qualification that he should do so under the warrant requirements of FISA and the 4th Amendment. (BTW isnt there an independent 4th amendment argument we havent been utilizing?)
No. The surreal atmosphere results from Republicans in Congress and in the media continually getting away with mischaracterizing the debate for partisan reasons. (Look no further for "bad faith," Arlen.) The surreal atmosphere results in large part from the unwillingness of the Democrats to challenge these false assertions when they are made. This dooms the cause because the public always wind up with 2 competing narratives, nothing more, and in general believes one or the other depending on the makeup of one's political worldview.
The surreal atmosphere is from the ability of people like Senator Cornyn to say outrageously false statements, unchallenged.
Arlen says "where's the bad faith?" But Arlen needs to be shown the mountain of reports of recent government spying on political dissenters. Isn't that what this is really all about? Need to hear more about that - a good subject for an available bullhorn.
Neither the Democrats nor the MSM seem even close to being up to the simple task of challenging false assertions at this point, although that all could change and hopefully will before too long.
Thanks, but I thought the interview was absurd and Jaenane's questions were inane.
ReplyDeleteThis is of course true Glenn, and I for one was sort of shocked. She missed at least two points of yours, as if she hadn't even listened to what you had said.
I am not knocking her, as I think her heart is often in the right place, but it points out how easy it is for non- serious thinkers to want to just hear some new inflammatory attack on someone they dislike rather than focus on the facts at hand.
Nevertheless, although you have may been too close to see it given that limitation, you still did an excellent job of getting some basic stuff out there very effectively.
David Shaughnessy, thank you for that link which I will now visit. I find this issue of the Graham/Kyl fabricated arguments particularly fascinating, and wanted to spend a few days reading and thinking about it, but like so many topics it got lost in the shuffle because everything seems to be happening so fast. Like the Censure hearings. Like Glenn being mentioned by Feingold!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, David, I found a blog that I think is extremely interesting called Wash Park Prophet and I think you might enjoy going there. I post an excerpt from that host on this topic:
Footnote on Republican Malfeasance.
As an aside, the Senate proponents of the Detainee Treatment Act, Senators Graham and Kyl, inserted fake testimony into the Congressional record in a manner contrary to customary practice regarding prepared remarks which make clear their "non-live status", which no one else in Congress was privy to until after the bill passed, in an effort to make legislative history, implying that the fake testimony was a basis for votes on the legislation. Senator Brownback, who was given a cameo role in the fake testimony, even lied to a reporter claiming that it had taken place. CSPAN, of course, proved otherwise. Page 23 of their amicus brief is particularly damning, where it states "the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when statements therein are followed by a bullet . . ", and also claimed in the brief that Congress had the testimony available prior to the vote.
In my opinion this is grounds for Jefferey A. Lamken and Sheila J. Kadagathur, at Baker Botts, who signed the brief, to be disbarred if they indeed did know that, as C-SPAN revealed, these were not live comments. Misrepresentations, even by strong implication, to a tribunal regarding a material matter before the U.S. Supreme Court, is a serious violation of the rules of professional conduct. Likewise, Senators Graham and Kyl should face ethics charges in the Senate for this misconduct. Somehow, I am not surprised to see more Republicans make shit up to support the war on terrorism and to attempt to deceive the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conclusion.
Now, we wait. Also, given the administration's past history in these cases, it is likely to try to change its policies, or seek legislative relief to change the playing field, given the perception that it may lose in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Big Hat Tip to How Appealing for locating the stories linked.
posted by Andrew Oh-Willeke @ 3/28/2006 11:52:00 AM
Needless to say, after what Graham did today, the words "ethic charges" are music to my ears, although I felt that way when I first read the story, as I had posted. I just don't understand how people get away with things like this, when it goes so against the grain to see that happen.
bart said:In the initial decisions on the detainees, the Supreme Court recognized that we were at war and the keeping prisoners was a proper incident of that war.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the Supreme Court made this determination in the Hamdi Case. That is how the AG interprets it, but I think the fact that the Court is hearing the case of Hamdan indicates that they wish to take on the issue of whether the AUMF is indeed tantamount to a declaration of war.
Breyer's questions lead me to believe that he, at least, sees merit in the argument against the AG's understanding of AUMF and Hamdi. As I said earlier, the issue before the court in Hamdan is how broadly the Court wishes to adjudicate this case in reference to the "war."
bart said: For those of you who are deluding themselves that the GOP is just salivating to make Feingold's censure resolution part of the fall campaign, catch the first commercial counterattacking...
ReplyDeleteImagine this: Picture of Bush as Alfred E. "What Me" Newman
Text Underneath:
No WMDs. No Osama. No terrorists in Iraq. New Orleans/Katrina.
How much longer will we let George Bush and the Republicans make fools of US?
This is another area equally insidious that isn't getting much attention.
ReplyDeleteAm reading up on Bruce Fein. Interesting case. I think I see what the basic problem is.
ReplyDeleteHe writes:
A decent respect for government by the consent of the governed does not foreclose the Supreme Court from voiding acts of Congress, the president, or the states. The whole purpose of a written Constitution is to deny absolute power to the political branches. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. James Madison celebrated the Bill of Rights as a formidable tool in the hands of the judiciary to check legislative and executive abuses. But to avoid enervating democracy, the high court should stick to the original meaning of the Constitution in lieu of social engineering.
OK. So far so good. Many of his specific arguments come back in one way or another to the above.
The problem seems to be not with his intellect, because his reasoning follows in logical sequences.
The problem seems to be his deep philosophical inability to relate to something I don't know the legal terminology for, but I will call "transcendental human rights."
I can see why he objects to the pinkoes on the court, because I have always done that also, and think they've often been ridiculous in their twisting of the Constitution.
But at a time like now, I'm glad they're there, because they are the ones who, despite all their ridiculous stuff, recognize those transcendental human rights, and now that is the big issue.
If Mr.Fein had the right grasp on those transcendental human rights, he would logically object to both the pinkoes on the Court and the conservatives he likes.
He'd understand that the Constitution doesn't have to address those, because they supercede the Constitution. They are just there, regardless of what anyone or any piece of paper says.
Is he Catholic?
jao said: there is another possible legislative remedy in the mix: Sen. Schumer's new bill to facilitate judicial review in third-party civil actions.
ReplyDeleteJao, you can also find a discussion of this at LawCulture. As this blogger notes, Feingold has expressed his support of Schumer's legislation.
March 30, 2006, 6:09PM
ReplyDeleteSenate Committee OKs Supreme Court Cameras
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court hearings could be shown on TV under a bill approved by a Senate committee Thursday but opposed by some high court justices....
Another sitting justice was more blunt: "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it's going to roll over my dead body," Justice David Souter told a congressional panel in 1996.
Don't go. We need you. I think I am opposed to this also. Much as I would love them to be televised, it's just another invasion of privacy for commercial reasons.
Anyone who really cares what goes on can read the transcripts.
I watched the hearings tonight on C-span. Hmmmmmm. I thought the high point was the “Mr. Democrat” John Schmidt who stated that the whole exercise was a political crock and that he was having no part of it. I had a “Zell Miller” moment: Not all Democrats are far left whackos. Could he be a sell-out of some sort? Promised a pension? I don’t know. I never heard of him. So let’s get past the fact that he told the truth of this whole matter, whatever motive he had, and go forward to the rest of the show.
ReplyDeleteOther than Schmidt, everyone else was earning their pay. Senator Specter impressed me for the first time. He knew what a charade this whole thing was. He played it straight (well, pretty much). All one had to know was who he was and then watch his eyes. This issue is over. However, one never knows. A venal motive may yet show up and it is better to plan for all contingencies. Everyone was in Kabuki mode. I know, not clever, that metaphor has been overdone, better men than I have already [over] used the “Kabuki” thing. Yes, I know, some wingers are still asking, “What is Kabuki?”. Still. I cannot come up with a better metaphor. Everyone was “marking their place” so that if venality shows up they can take up the cry from that point. No venality – dead issue. Dead, dead, dead. Over. Not good news for Mr. Greenwald’s book. Oh well, that is politics and publishing.
Buckley Says Bush Will Be Judged on Iraq War, Now a `Failure'
ReplyDeleteMarch 31 (Bloomberg) --
``Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq,'' Buckley said in an interview that will air on Bloomberg Television this weekend. ``If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam.''........
In the interview, Buckley criticized the so-called neo- conservatives who enthusiastically embraced the Iraq invasion and the spreading of American values around the world.
``The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country,'' Buckley said.
EWO asks: Is he Catholic?
ReplyDeleteNo you idiot, as this anti-Semitic site puts it:
Lest there be any doubt that this is what the Jews actually are aiming for, consider the following comments by Jewish lawyer Bruce Fein, who writes on legal topics for a number of publications.
Fact is, your latest heartthrob loves Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. And he seems able to overlook their Catholicism in a way a Know-Nothing like you cannot.
Thus, Fein is a soulless monster, who should be shunned by all True Americans. Surely you now admit that?
It's a shame that this hearing was so poorly attended. Even if you disagree with Feingold's notion of censure, the hearing was useful in airing various options as to what Congress should do regarding Bush's warrantless domestic spying. Here are a few notes.
ReplyDeleteThe hearing started with Cornyn's swift kick to Dean's gonads. Texas classy. After which he graciously left the room.
Having no other argument Specter stuck with his theory of "lack of bad faith". This was rather weak, when I'm caught driving 50 in the 35 mph zone, it's kind irrelevant whether I did it in bad faith or not. The administration was caught in clear violation of US statues (spying on Americans w/o warrants), bad faith or not, they are criminally liable.
Also for the first time Specter clearly stated that his intention is to legalize an existing program. That's ex post facto legislating that happens to be explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
Being in the state of war was cited profusely by GOP-ers to justify Bush's actions. The fact, however, is that this country has been in the state of war permanently since early 40s, Nazi Germany first, cold war later, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, now terror war with no end in sight. So why pass any laws to regulate anything?
It was interesting to watch Graham's chaotic thinking aloud. After much struggle he finally arrived at an interesting conclusion - spy on foreigners as much as you want, no need for courts, but for Americans he wants to have a judge overseeing things. He doesn't seem to realize that this is precisely what present FISA is all about, what Bush totally ignored and what Feingold so justly wants to have him censured for.
There is a notion that censuring weakens the presidency and that this is not good for the country. This is unquestionably true, especially now when our international standing is in the dumps thanks to Bush administration. An international pariah with censured president is not a very nice prospect.
However this needs to balanced with the need to reign in a grossly overreaching executive, to restore a system of checks and balances. I'm leaning to the later as a better solution for the country in the long run.
Go listen to it yourself (CSPAN), well worth your time, imho.