In that same point, Digby cites a quote from Hatch where he claims -- as he has done several times since the NSA scandal began -- that FISA is clearly unconstitutional because Congress has no right to limit the President's eavesdropping activities:
"It would be unconstitutional for the Congress to say, 'You have to go through the FISA court.' We could pass a law that says, 'We want you to go through the FISA court,' and I think the president would probably try to live with that. The problem is, you cannot do what they've been doing to protect us through the current FISA statute."
That FISA is an unconstitutional encroachment on the President's authority is an interesting opinion for Hatch to voice. When FISA was enacted in 1978, the Senate approved that legislation by a vote of 95-1. Although the roll call vote appears not to be online, someone working with me on my book telephoned Hatch's office this week to confirm that he voted for FISA. He did. (He also voted to amend FISA and modify the criminal restrictions imposed by Congress on the President's eavesdropping activities in 2001, when the Senate voted to enact the PATRIOT Act).
Hatch thus voted to enact criminal restrictions on the President's eavesdropping activities. Once it turned out that the President was breaking that law, Hatch suddenly claimed that the very law he voted to enact and repeatedly amend was unconstitutional.
This seems to be an accurate summary of the evolution of Sen. Hatch's views of constitutional law:
(1) The Congress has the right to restrict the President's eavesdropping activities, and to make certain eavesdropping activities a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.
(2) Therefore, Hatch votes several times for FISA.
(3) Every President since then complies with the law -- including President Reagan and Bush 41 during the height of the Cold War - and no Administration or member of Congress challenge its constitutionality.
(4) George Bush gets caught violating FISA by engaging in the precise eavesdropping which FISA criminalizes.
(5) Hatch says that the Leader did nothing wrong because the law which the Leader violated -- the same one Hatch voted to enact and to amend repeatedly -- is unconstitutional.
Hatch has been in the Congress for more than 30 years. He was in Congress when FISA was enacted 28 years ago. He never once claimed that it was unconstitutional in any way -- until it was revealed that George Bush has been deliberately violating the law. Then he suddenly said that Congress had no right to pass that law, so after 28 years, the whole thing is all just totally invalid.
Congress may have the right to request (respectfully and politely) that the Commander-in-Chief go to the FISA court before eavesdropping on American citizens, but Congress has no right to require that the Commander do so (even though the law which Hatch repeatedly voted for purports to do just that).
I realize that intellectual honesty isn't exactly in great abundance among career politicians like Hatch, and that naked, amoral inconsistencies of this sort are run-of-the-mill for the Beltway sophisticates. But isn't this a bit too transparent and rancid even for that circle?
Thanks, Glenn. The despicable behavior of Orrin Hatch in the Senate has been getting a pass for far too long.
ReplyDeleteTo think that this shyster is one of only seven members of the entire U.S. Congress permitted to learn as much as the Administration decides to privately share about the NSA spying, is simply appalling. His actions have earned him no such privilege and trust, on behalf of Americans and our Constitution. But then, the Republican Party is our new shadow monarchy, and for such a purpose, Mr. Hatch is eminently qualified to serve.
This guy displays Gestapo 101 characteristics, and I don't give a damn if he and Utah want to glorify AUTHORITY above all. Our Constitution removed the King's Authority, and it's about damn time Orrin Hatch and Utah learned that lesson.
We've got some real tinpot dictators hiding behind the facade of democracy in our Congress, and Hatch is one of the prime offenders. He is not worthy to walk the same halls as our nation's Founders.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteI agree that politicians of either party are hardly the paragons of consistency.
However, FISA appears to me to be perfectly constitutional for all purposes apart from limiting the President's Article II power to perform warrantless intelligence gathering.
Members of Congress vote for and President's sign bills with which they partially disagree or even feel are partially illegal because they desire to enact the items in the remainder of the bill. Hell, I would have voted for FISA simply to create a secure court to get criminal evidence warrants in national security cases. This is not inconsistency, it is a cost benefit analysis.
I have no idea whether Senator Hatch is being inconsistent or he engaged in a cost benefit calculation. However, you cannot automatically assume the former.
Hatch is probably being partisanly inconsistent in choosing censure for Clinton, but thinking it is unconstitutional for Bush.
Hatch's latter opinion is probably correct because Courts have routinely held that impeachment is the only Constitutionally sanctioned punishment for a President in office.
However, in Clinton's case, Hatch joined several Dems in recommending censure to save Clinton from the Senate conviction his felony perjuries so richly deserved.
I was out of work during the Iran/contra hearings, which is when I first became aware of the existence of the lizard-like Orrin Hatch. He did everything he could to obstruct the hearings, speechifying on the glorious patriot career of Ollie North and asking puffball questions of North and Poindexter, et al. Without Hatch, these miscreants would have been taken out and shot for treason, which is what they deserved. Hey, they didn't just provide support for the enemy, they gave them restricted military hardware.
ReplyDeleteHatch's partisan attitude towards law and order follows a simple formula: when you do it it's wrong, even if legal; when we do it it's right, even if illegal. Utah must have the worst public education in the free world, if it produces citizens that repeatedly vote for this insidious troll.
At first, when I read Hatch’s quote I thought you may have overstated the title of this post and that it was somewhat misleading. I thought this because of the term “current FISA statue” which our trolls will surely argue is outdated because of changes in technology.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you read the history of Hatch’s positions on this issue, supporting it even as late as 2001 (when Bush started violating it apparently) saying that it is now “unconstitutional” because Bush violated it is exactly what Hatch has done.
(This is very similar to the widely quoted comments on Free Republic regarding FISA during the Clinton years and now, when it applies to Bush, the opposite is true.)
I’d love to see a list of all the prominent Republicans who voted to limit presidential powers after the Nixon era – you know, the ones that crazy Prof. Turner wants to be censured.
If we had a real press, they would have asked Hatch if he agreed with Prof. Turner that “Orin Hatch should be censured” for his votes in those days, along with the majority of other Republicans in power at the time.
I’d love to see the look on his face when he got that question. But alas, it will never happen.
Bart said: Hell, I would have voted for FISA simply to create a secure court to get criminal evidence warrants in national security cases. This is not inconsistency, it is a cost benefit analysis.
ReplyDeleteYour logic is sound on this one, Bart. To put it another way, it was/is incredibly stupid of Bush to conduct warrantless surveillance in clear violation of the existing law. The costs far outweigh the benefits in light of the tenuous theory used undergird this program. To wit: If the warrantless surveillance is illegal, the evidence obtained in that surveillance is invalid.
A similar situation now exists with the cases in Gitmo. Dumsfeld has said the Gitmo detainees are the "worst of the worst". The government's own report to justify "enemy combatant status" are not only weak, they admit to the failure of factual evidence to continue to hold several of the detainees. So the Bush administration has created its own Catch 22.
a) The political costs of releasing the detainees is too great.
b) Cases lacking evidentiary merit cannot be tried. Again, if BushCo loses and a detainee goes free, it puts the lie to Dumsfeld's worst of the worst meme.
Moreover, every detainee will claim torture as a defense to any statements he made.
Result: The benefits of unlawful detention (to say nothing of torture) outside the normal channels of the legal system are far outweighed by their costs.
And.....
Hatch is simply an idiot who can say anything or do anything no matter how ridiculous because he will still be reelected. Similarly, Sessions is the perfect administration foil because he is in the same situation. Both consistently vote against the interest of their own citizens but remain in their positions by way of support of the religious powerhouses in their respective states.
Daniel’s observations about North, Poindexter and company reminded me of how Dean was smeared yesterday for actions many years ago.
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t those smears apply to current inhabitants of the executive branch like Elliot Abrams and Poindexter as well? Yes, they were pardoned by Bush I, but the very same smears and labels would certainly apply to them, wouldn’t they? Abrams was certainly convicted, and now he’s making polices for us.
Double standards anyone?
What's remarkable is that Hatch was -- as recently as the Clinton administration -- seriously spoken of a potential SCOTUS nominee who'd attract overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.
ReplyDeleteThough I think he's always been this bad, his willingness to package political self-interest as high principle has been so clearly on display since Bush took office that any thought of a cushy seat next to Roberts, Scalia, et al. has probably passed. Or at least a Hatch nomination would encounter some opposition. Or at least I hope it would...
Does anyone else really wish that Hunter Thompson was around to comment on this? Or is that just me?
ReplyDeleteBecause of the President's tanking approval ratings, he's pulling a power grab at the time most of his allies are distancing themselves from him
ReplyDeleteBut the GOP hasn't figured out yet that when they pull away from the White House, they undercut their formerly strong support of this Administration
They're pullinjg each other down, and the process has been set in motion too long for either entity to stop now
And there's still the further fallout of the lobbying scandal with Jack Abramoff playing out as well-anyone who thinks Tom DeLay will remain unindicted concerning his Abramoff dealings is whistling past the political graveyard
The Iraq War, and the botched response to Katrina have eaten away at any legitimacy this President thought he had-when Katrina came ashore, instead of a strong, decisive & confident leader, the whole world watched as President Bush Jr froze for another three days while New Orleans drowned & people died
That myth of Presidential credibility & legitimacy were washed away with Katrina as well, and it will NEVER accrue to this President again
The wild card here will be just how much of a spine the Dems in the House & GOP decide to show leading up to this election
And I'm at the point where I'm not sure if they took back both the House & Senate that the Dems would actually hold this President or his retinue in any kind of check or accountability for the massive damage they've inflicted on our Constitution
And to state the obvious, there's only one logical reason this Administration ignored the already lenient FISA standards
Because it's purely domestic communications that the Administration is warrantlessly spying on
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI was pleased to hear your name mentioned by Senator Feingold. I'd be interested in your take on points made by some of the other participants. It was also shameful that there were not more Democrats present. (ie..Feinstein, Rockefeller, Biden?)Thanks for your blog.
The remarkable thing about Hatch is that while he acts like a legal oracle he doesn't have a law degree.
ReplyDeleteSigh. I've met Hatch and I can tell you that he's a doddering, senile old man, led around by his aides, who also tell him what to say. He is an embaressment to the reasonable people of Utah. I have written to him numerous times about the illegal war in Iraq, the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, and I receive condescending letters telling me I can't possibly know as much as Orrin does, because he is working closely with Bush who he implies is the second coming of Christ. Hatch ran against Frank Moss who had been in office for 16 years, and won his Senate seat based on a promise to limit himself to two terms in office. So you know what a hypocrite he really is. I personally loathe him, and hold the blind followers of the LDS church who do as they are told to reelect Orrin every time he runs. He is more worried about a flag burning amendment than he is about the shredding of our Constitution, and it is my hope that someone will topple him next November. Unfortunately his opponent is an arrogant rich jerk named Pete Ashdown who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning because he comes across as an asshole. So the good people of Utah are stuck with hypocrite Orrin, to our everlasting shame. Is it any wonder that Utah is the reddest state in the Union? Which doesn't mean everyone in Utah is a blind follower by any means.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say I hold the blind followers of the LDS church responsbible for Orrin's tenure.
ReplyDeleteKing Cranky said: And to state the obvious, there's only one logical reason this Administration ignored the already lenient FISA standards
ReplyDeleteBecause it's purely domestic communications that the Administration is warrantlessly spying on
Yeah, we are coming to that conclusion; i.e. note the following:
a) If national security is priority one and
b) If by extension, presecution of the War on Terra is the natural byproduct of the administrations number one priority
Then....
How can it possibly be "best practice" to jeopardize prosecution of terrorism through the use of shaky, untested theories that go to the powers of the President as Commander and Chief and the rules of evidence?
How do we know that no previous president used warrantless surveillance since 1978?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that this is a claim that would be hard to substantiate.
Bush reported his so-called secret program all along to members of the congress.
How would we know if any of the previous presidents engaged in this activity?
Sen. Hatch is obviously a "flip-flopper". Meaning he is a flacid penis, not that he voted for FISA and then against it;-).
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I watched the whole (or most of) the opening arguments and there were truley some diabolical forces at work among the Rebublican and their minons.
JW
"I realize that intellectual honesty isn't exactly in great abundance among career politicians like Hatch, and that naked, amoral inconsistencies of this sort are run-of-the-mill for the Beltway sophisticates. But isn't this a bit too transparent and rancid even for that circle?"
ReplyDeleteOnly if the people call him on it, Glenn, which they haven't, so it's not.
We need another revolution.
Every time I read a comment by Bart (always by accident), I am reminded of the enormous number of people who were failed by the American educational system. Apparently Bart thinks that laws are like investments. You make legal and governmental decisions with little excel spread sheets, weighing costs and benefits and possible outcomes, and figuring that presidents, congresses, administrators, cops, the NSA, the CIA, the INS, whoever, will just violate them whenever they feel the need to protect Bart. Or whatever.
ReplyDeleteHow far does it go Bart? We know we cannot stop the administration from torturing your children to get information from you, we know you can be held without trial, we know you have no privacy, we know anything we want to know about you. What else is there about being an American that doesn't appeal to you?
i'm going to post this frequently until we get an example.
ReplyDeletefolks,
we need some examples!!!!
who did bush spy on?
who did bush spy on?
the law only works on specified people and their specified actions.
we need some examples of inapproipriate spying.
we need a daniel ellsworth.
we need a mole.
we need a whistle-blower who can deal with the fact that, for destroying the bush presidency,
he/she may spend the rest of his/her natural life in jail.
any leads?
any takers?
let me start some gossip:
bush spied on journalists reporting from iraq.
he spied of american soldeiers as they talked with their family and friends back in the u.s.
he spied on anti-war groups.
he spied on his political opponents including mccain, h. dean, and kerry in 2003-4.
he spied on hegal, snowe, and specter.
got any better gossipy guesses?
bush spied on troublesome democrats in congress.
bush spied on joe liberman.
bush spied on sultzberger and graham.
bush spied on the american atrtorneys of possibel arab terrorists.
anybody else have some gossipy guesses?
or, better still,
anybody have an idea of just who bush was spying on that he should not have been spying on?
(for clarification, in this context, bush = bush administration = nsa)
"Bush reported his so-called secret program all along to members of the congress."
ReplyDeleteIt's useful to remember that everyone who was told was sworn to secrecy regarding what you call a "so-called secret program". It's also useful to remember that the CRS determined that the steps the White House took to inform Congress of this program was inadequate, and therefore illegal.
As for whether other administrations ran their own secret programs, this is utterly useless theorizing. Not only do we have no way of knowing, but it has no bearing on the illegality of Bush's actions. Since we don't know of any other instances of this, it's fair and to say that Bush is the first.
"anybody else have some gossipy guesses?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to know who was spied on. Determining the legality of the program can not rely on the Administration releasing such details, and otherwise how would we know?
I expect if you spam this blog or any other with your post you will get banned long before you get an answer out of this administration.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteto hand news of noam chomsky's new title: "Failed States".. he's been talking to Amy/Juan at democracynow about it. a rather long post.. but very interesting and relevant in respect of possib potus 'defense'
shorter, highlighted, is the blog http://tinyurl.com/z53fb FYI - relates QA by JLG defence, for want of a phrase..
keep up the good work
To ASurvivorInUtah:
ReplyDeleteI lived in SLC for nearly a year and a half. It is a gorgeous city with a tremendous progressive community that faces horrible odds in every election against an entrenched Republican theocracy supported by the LDS church. I lived in the same building as Hatch. Went to the polls on election day 2000. He was behind me. Told him I was a liberal Dem and would not be voting for him. He smiled and told me he had nothing to fear. He was right.
Many people do not realize that SLC is a very progressive city with an active gay community and active underground movement against the Mormon bias that permeates all policies in Utah.
Hope you keep up the good fight.
From anonymous at 10:24PM:
ReplyDelete"How do we know that no previous president used warrantless surveillance since 1978?
"Seems to me that this is a claim that would be hard to substantiate."
The honest answer is that we *don't* know whether Presidents prior to FISA being signed (or since then for that matter) have ordered or authorized warrantless surveillance. It is however a good bet that many if not all of them have.
The exact circumstances of any such operations may well never be known.
Anonymous continues:
"Bush reported his so-called secret program all along to members of the congress."
A few off-the-record briefings to select members of Congress, none of these briefings under oath and the content 'sworn to secrecy' qualifies as "reporting" only under the absolute loosest of interpretations of the term. There is little chance of accountability and even less of oversight as a result.
Just the way this Administration prefers matters.
One thing that strikes me about his arguement. If the FISA law is unconstitutional in his opinion and he has voted to modify it more than once, did he not then just admit that he has violated his oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution? If he really believed that he was supporting legislation that he also believes is unconstitutional, isn't he ethically bound to resign his office?
ReplyDeleteRothbard: ”Do you people really feel great about defending this avalanche of crap on no principle whatseover (sic) than "we can get away with it, so get over it"?”
ReplyDeleteYou know, no matter how old we get, we still carry with us childish ideas. ONeof mine is that I can give people a steer toward enlightenment. I read Rothbard’s quote above and I thought to myself: “Hey, old rothbard has, perhaps just for a moment, put his head up from contentedly browsing in the NYT and noticed that there is a big yellow thing up in the sky. He has actually asked a question that was not fed to him by his pundits. I was going to refer him to the neocon who chronicles the steps she took to change from a liberal to a knowledgeable neocon. But, later comments by rothbard show that Rothbard is merely cornsilk and the fleeting moment of ...[whatever] has hardened back into the herd mentality. The truth is that Bart and those other idiots who disagree with the far left are every bit as principled as the fever swamp claims to be. Yes, they have different ideas of which principles are more important than the NYT. And for that, the NYT and the liberal claque labels them .....well, no matter.
You see, when one realizes that the “other side” is motivated by principles too, one is set free from the control of the spinners and one is no longer cornsilk. That doesn’t necessarily mean that one becomes a Democrat or a Republican. It does mean that one no longer sees reality as “the good” (my party and my pundits) and “the bad” (those nasty folks that my pundits tell me are nasty). And I think that neocon is a good role model for possible ex-liberals. Yes, I disagree with some of her stuff. But I absolutely admire her ability to grow up a liberal, live in a liberal milieu, have a liberal vocation – and be a neocon. There you have a bootstrap that is just amazing.
By the way, if you know of someone who grew up conservative and changed into a liberal (not just became more liberal, became a real liberal) who blogs? I’d like to read their stuff. I believe that the conversion can go both ways, but I lack examples.
Anyway, rothbard quickly discovered his error and has suckled back up to the liberal teat and no doubt feels much better for having been so “independent” as to ask a question that was not spoon fed to him by his pundit. Too bad he didn’t stay around long enough to hear and appreciate the answer.
As to specifics, from this source...:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060324/24oregon.htm
...we find this excerpt from the 'Original Nelson Complaint' link:
"19. In March and April, 2004, defendant National Security Agency targeted, and engaged in electronic surveillance of communications between, a director or directors of plaintiff Al-Haramain Oregon and plaintiffs Belew and Ghafoor. Defendant National Security Agency did not obtain a court order authorizing such electronic surveillance nor did it otherwise follow the procedures mandated by FISA.
20. In May, 2004, defendant National Security Agency turned over to defendant United States Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control logs of the conversations specified in the preceding paragraph."
These logs are the 'smoking-gun' document that U.S. District Judge Garr King would not let the (defendant) FBI take custody of in their SCIF in Portland, Oregon recently (see link above and its further links to the court transcript, etc.). The U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle has temporary custody of this document, which HAS BEEN SEEN by multiple civilians (AND a Washington Post reporter) who do not hold security clearances.
I don't believe it is precisely specified in the case so far, but the inference at least is that the monitored communications took place between American lawyers in America and their client organization in Oregon. And/or that cross-border communications were monitored from inside the United States, targeting the Oregon organization and/or its American attorneys.
The Oregon charity was involved with Chechen refugees and/or allegedly connected with Osama bin Laden, the government appears to claim.
So someone in this country definitely "knows" who was targeted by the NSA -- and one of those someones is actually litigating the core illegal domestic spying issue, in federal court in Oregon right now.
It's obvious that the Republicans who make up Bush's ever-dwindling loyal base are guilty of a kind of partisanship that most Americans just can't conjure up for themselves. Bart and notherbob are perfect examples of this Hatch-variety extreme partisanship. They make defending Bush the prime directive in all their cogitative machinations, and like lawyers paid to make a case, they bend the totality of whatever intelligence they have to the singular purpose of validating anything Bush does.
ReplyDeleteFortunately the vast majority of Americans no longer swallow this bullshit. Its actually entertaining to read their repetitive hypocrisy, as it's reaching a point where their extreme claims are so bizarre that they fly in the face of everything this country stands for. But that just shows how different they are from most Americans. Most Americans maintain a loyalty to a set of beliefs, and their political loyalties reflect this. Bushies now bend their beliefs to match whatever their political loyalties to their Fearless Leader require. This is responsible for the hypocrisy we all see in Hatch's position. That they don't see it themselves shows how blinded they are by their desire to be "on the team" with Bush and all their heroes at FOX News.
By the way, if you know of someone who grew up conservative and changed into a liberal (not just became more liberal, became a real liberal) who blogs?
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald.
P.S. One of the co-directors of this Oregon charity, Soliman H. Al-Buthi (or 'Suliman al-Buthe' per U.S. News) is a Saudi Arabian national. Oregon attorney Thomas H. Nelson, who represents Al-Buthi, and who filed the NSA-log spying Complaint in February, has also apparently been subjected to repeated illegal clandestine searches, during 2005. Attorney Nelson, his family, and others have circumstantial evidence of illegal entry into and searching of both his office premises, and his home. [Click above and then link to the letter to U.S. Attorney Immergut. I believe U.S. News also covered that part of the story in a previous article.]
ReplyDeleteFeel "safer" yet, America?
How would one atty Nelson know if he is the target of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program or if the NSA or FBI got a warrant from the FISA Court? Since the warrants are secret, I just wondered how someone would know if they are searched or not. I think I remember reading there were provisions added to the Patriot Act but that wouldn't have been added at the time Mr. Nelson believes he was a target.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dean is confusing me, which side is he on in this conflict?
ReplyDelete"In fact, the President does not need Congressional authority to respond.
Since Vietnam, many scholars and politicians have taken the position that the President can only make war with the authority of Congress. They claim, accordingly, that the Presidents, from George Washington to Bill Clinton, who have done otherwise have acted illegally.
Those who take this view cite Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and to raise and support military forces. But, in fact, this clause does not put the Congress in charge of counter-terrorism, which is an Executive function."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010914.html
Hatch probably films secret snuff films where he has his goons go to Vegas and kidnap/torture prostitutes. It too bad the esteemed Senator hadn't diversified his career more broadly. I can clearly see him in the role as the slick Senator Pat Geary who gets caught with a whore at Fredo's casino and she turns up dead. Cant'cha just see Hatch in that role or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteMidnightRide said...
ReplyDeleteThese logs are the 'smoking-gun' document that U.S. District Judge Garr King would not let the (defendant) FBI take custody of in their SCIF in Portland, Oregon recently (see link above and its further links to the court transcript, etc.). The U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle has temporary custody of this document, which HAS BEEN SEEN by multiple civilians (AND a Washington Post reporter) who do not hold security clearances.
I don't believe it is precisely specified in the case so far, but the inference at least is that the monitored communications took place between American lawyers in America and their client organization in Oregon. And/or that cross-border communications were monitored from inside the United States, targeting the Oregon organization and/or its American attorneys.
The Oregon charity was involved with Chechen refugees and/or allegedly connected with Osama bin Laden, the government appears to claim.
So someone in this country definitely "knows" who was targeted by the NSA -- and one of those someones is actually litigating the core illegal domestic spying issue, in federal court in Oregon right now.
You folks should really read the full complaint starting with the allegation of facts.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/motion.pdf
The complaint alleges that al Haramain Oregon was discovered to be financing al Qaeda based on intercepted communications between the directors of this organization and their attorneys.
The complaint never denies the government allegation of financing al Qaeda. Rather, it complains that their plotting was intercepted without a warrant.
If these allegations are true, that means the plaintiff attorney is part of or knew of a conspiracy to give aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war. In almost every state, an attorney has the duty to disclose ongoing criminal activity by a client. In short, the man is a traitor or has violated his code of ethics.
If not, the attorney is lying to a court of law on a fishing expedition to disclose classified documents to the enemy. Most likely he is lying.
Additionally, this attorney gave this classified document to the WP and is in violation of the Espionage Act.
Let this be a test case. The facts are very favorable for a decision by the government.
Let this be a test case. The facts are very favorable for a decision [for] the government.
ReplyDeleteWanna bet? Because I believe the government is in serious jeopardy of being found in flagrant violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. LET this be a test case, please.
P.S. Attorney Belew gave the document to the Washington Post, not Attorney Nelson. The case filed against the charity (and al-Buthe) by the government in 2005, for illegally taking money out of the country in 2000, was dismissed last September (al-Buthe is still a fugitive from that charge, which is not a terrorism indictment despite the advantage given to the government by its illegal electronic surveillance).
P.P.S. Anonymous @ 2:05: Good questions, which demonstrate the inherent problem with living in a police state. I'm not an expert on the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, nor of its revisions to FISA, but I believe secret warrants for searches ARE revealed to the targets, after some period of time. Russ Feingold was trying to get the time lapse down to a week, I believe, but I think it went through at 30 days in the reauthorization (provided, of course, that the FISA Court is actually used to obtain such a domestic search warrant, as mandated by "law").
Dear Mr Greenwald:
ReplyDeleteYour naivete is touching. Figuratively speaking, you are like a referee blowing his whistle and insisting that the players abide by the rules of the game when chaos has erupted and the mob has already invaded the playing field.
I don't what to say, except that you're trapped in an asymmetrical mode of thinking (a problem common amongst lawyers) where you expect the opposing party to play by the rules when, in fact, to them, the rules are what they say they are.
Much earlier I posted a link to an article that describes rather well how a sound and democratic legal system was perverted to serve Pinochet in Chile. (Here's the link again)
This is, of course, to a lesser degree, what is happening in the United States.
I have several friends who fled Chile at the time, anticipating that if they didn't, they might find themselves in unmarked graves; among the ones who didn't leave were lawyers, because they thought the Law would protect them, not realizing that the Law is what men say it is.
I totally support your efforts to expose the meretriciousness of the Republicans, but I fear the problem is much bigger. Democracy, the Law, are part of Rousseau's social contract. I'm not sure we have that anymore in the United States.
It may take far more turmoil than you think to reach a new contract.
Nixon's inherent power argument to wire tap domestic groups was made and then rejected in the Supreme Court decision of US vs.US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (407 US 297 314 1972.) Maybe because this administrations Justice Department has redacted parts of this decision explains why Hatch may be clueless.
ReplyDelete"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/ fed...e_redaction.htm
This would not give me very much faith in his judgement if he was getting intelligence briefings that also turned out be be redacted briefings. Shit they do not even what you to refer to the decided law. That would be no different than stealing his brain.
Another reason may be because investigating a famous blow job required 5000 subpoenas during Clinton's administration while a total of only five subpoena's have occured so far under the "Leadership" of my Congressman David Dreier and BushCo's administration. NO subpoena no cigar. And was not Commander-and-Chief Clinton trying to conduct war in the Balkan's at the time? I judge we are about 4996 subpoenas woefully behind right now. So if Hatch wants to be fair and include all wrong doing lets also be fair and call for some subpoena power.
Grahams is taking the Rehnquist position on presidential power. Lets just skip Vietnam and president war power issue. Lets talk about apples and oranges instead.
Suit yourself and your double standard Mr. Hatch. I offer the original shot heard around the world:
ARTICLE 29: We the voters of Newfane would like Town Meeting, March 2006, to consider the following resolution:
Whereas George W. Bush has:
1. Misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda;
3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;
4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and
5. Has directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.
Censure is indeed warranted and so is impeachment too. Nixon would have approved! Right on John Dean.
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan
shargash said... The man is an utter scumbag, without a shred of decency or intellectual integrity.
ReplyDeleteThat's flattering him.
I am going to print the following article in its entirety. We all knew this was coming, didn't we really?
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of that quote to the effect "People who do not move are unaware of their chains."
Remember when Paul Craig Roberts said that by the end of Bush's current term we will have slipped into a dictatorship, and people will tolerate it well except those who resist it?
If people are unaware, they'll be fine. If people are too stupid to understand what has happened, they'll be fine. But for anyone who likes to "move", the world will be over. I see what they mean about the end-times. Unfortunnately, they are here.
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.....
America's war on the web
While the US remains committed to hunting down al-Qaeda operatives, it is now taking the battle to new fronts. Deep within the Pentagon, technologies are being deployed to wage the war on terror on the internet, in newspapers and even through mobile phones. Investigations editor Neil Mackay reports
IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will.
In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.
The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document’s recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of “a revolution in the concept of warfare”. The report orders three new developments in America’s approach to warfare:
Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.
Human rights lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, said: “This is an unwelcome but natural development of what we have seen. I find what is said in this document to be frightening, and it needs serious parliamentary scrutiny.”
Crispin Black – who has worked for the Joint Intelligence Committee, and has been an Army lieutenant colonel, a military intelligence officer, a member of the Defence Intelligence Staff and a Cabinet Office intelligence analyst who briefed Number 10 – said he broadly supported the report as it tallied with the Pentagon’s over-arching vision for “full spectrum dominance” in all military matters.
“I’m all for taking down al-Qaeda websites. Shutting down enemy propaganda is a reasonable course of action. Al-Qaeda is very good at [information warfare on the internet], so we need to catch up. The US needs to lift its game,” he said.
(Remember those recent speeches by Bush and Rumsfeld, in which they whined about how the enemy" was much better at using the Internet, and that was why we were losing in Iraq? You think Scalia would stop them from doing this?)
This revolution in information warfare is merely an extension of the politics of the “neoconservative” Bush White House. Even before getting into power, key players in Team Bush were planning total military and political domination of the globe. In September 2000, the now notorious document Rebuilding America’s Defences – written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think-tank staffed by some of the Bush presidency’s leading lights – said that America needed a “blueprint for maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power-rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”.
The PNAC was founded by Dick Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Bush’s younger brother, Jeb; Paul Wolfowitz, once Rumsfeld’s deputy and now head of the World Bank; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, now indicted for perjury in America.
Rebuilding America’s Defences also spoke of taking control of the internet. A heavily censored version of the document was released under Freedom of Information legislation to the National Security Archive at George Washington University in the US.
The report admits the US is vulnerable to electronic warfare. “Networks are growing faster than we can defend them,” the report notes. “The sophistication and capability of … nation states to degrade system and network operations are rapidly increasing.”
The report says the US military’s first priority is that the “department [of defence] must be prepared to ‘fight the net’”. The internet is seen in much the same way as an enemy state by the Pentagon because of the way it can be used to propagandise, organise and mount electronic attacks on crucial US targets. Under the heading “offensive cyber operations”, two pages outlining possible operations are blacked out.
Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will “provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment … it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities”. Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.
After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations: “Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations.” The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states. Other examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads”
(Glenn Reynolds and all the usual suspects---we know who the more obvious are, but they are only the tip of the iceberg)
to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom.
The Pentagon also wants to target a “broader set of select foreign media and audiences”, with $161m set aside to help place pro-US articles in overseas media.
02 April 2006
I'd love to ask Hatch if he thinks of the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy. That'd be great to get him on the record defending McCarthy.
ReplyDeleteGee, thanks Don. Why doesn't someone in government or the media do something about this insane person? Surely everyone knows by now he is a raving lunatic....
ReplyDeleteAttacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism
U.S. Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 2, 2006; A01
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.....
Michael Birk: “...you should understand why the "NSA warrantless wiretapping" issue is so important. “
ReplyDeleteI understand that the Democrats needed an issue that could “grab” voters and the NSA issue looked like it might be ginned up into an impeachment, which would tie into the Culture of Corruption, et al and get a political campaign juiced. Given the absence of evidence of spying with a venal motive, there are any number of issues of much greater importance than
this warrant-less wiretapping issue. Get a grip, as they say.
Speaking of getting a grip, I like Jon Henke’s take on my favorite Democrat and the left wing noise machine:
“The New York Times does a news story on the impact of the internet on politics, in the course of which Adam Nagourney writes that bloggers have "been openly critical of such moderate Democrats as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut". In response, this absurd criticism from AmericaBlog is making the rounds...
I'll leave you again with Nagourney's ridiculous notion that Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat. A moderate Democrat. So Nagourney thinks that the majority of Democrats are immoderate, since almost every Democrat in the Senate is to the left of Joe Lieberman?
Well, if almost every Democrat in the Senate is to the Left of Joe Lieberman, and (as is true) almost every Republican is to the Right of Lieberman, then, yes, that makes Joe Lieberman a de facto moderate.
Despite the empirical evidence to the contrary, this absurd criticism seems to be getting quite a lot of echoes from others in the Left Wing noise/narrative machine. Ironically, in between complaining that Lieberman is insufficiently liberal, they also manage to take offense at Nagourney's notion that bloggers "have tugged the party consistently to the left".
Quod erat demonstrandum. “
Since Eyes Wide Open obstinately refuses to provide any links to the articles he/she constantly copies and pastes (in full) into these threads, let me provide everyone with the link to the article referred to: America’s war on the web
ReplyDeleteFeingold's resolution is tactically brilliant, if only because it compels weasels like Specter and monarchists like Hatch to commit to a position. As Glenn et al demonstrate daily, this is not a complicated issue. The GOP and a compliant media are too happy to muddy the waters to preserve their credibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm astonished at the convergence of bad that has led to this Constitutional crisis: the 9/11 atrocity immediately seized as a political cudgel, a corporatized and lazy traditional media, a ruthless Executive cabal bent on grabbing and consolidating un-Constitutional authority, and a Republican party only too happy to sacrifice its idealogical identity on the altar of monocratic expediency.
History will sort the wheat from the chaff, call the bullshit, and judge this a terrible time for our Republic. By keeping the issue alive and public, Feingold's censure resolution has allowed people like Hatch to carve their own epitaph.
Stick with this artcile. Strange. I never heard she was saying stuff like this a year ago. Who knew?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Political cynicism is NOT an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteThe photographer who took the picture of Scalia was fired.
ReplyDeleteThe Harvard Professor who wrote the article on The Lobby had to step down.
EWO: Again, it'd be nice 1) if you published the URL along with the stories you quote and 2) use the HTML to link to your article of interest.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your enthusiasm for these stories--and I usually agreew tih your choice--it's bad netiquette to publish an entire article in a comments section.
The most obvious reason to refrain from this is that the site from which the article comes does not get a true sense of how important that article is. This might affect the way that the site positions articles like this in the future. That is, if an article seems to get less traffic than others, the site publisher will either 1) not publish articles like that anymore or 2) position the article such that fewer and fewer people actually get to view the article.
Otherwise, good job on finding this article on internet misinformation. I'll respond to it in another comment.
From the Post(!): How the GOP Became God's Own Party, By Kevin Phillips
ReplyDeleteThe Harvard Professor who wrote the article on The Lobby had to step down.
ReplyDeleteJohn J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs and the Academic Dean of the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.
Both men remain in their respective positions.
...intellectual honesty isn't exactly in great abundance among career politicians like Hatch...
ReplyDeleteExactly, but that is why there are there. If you think politicians like hatch and chimpy got where they are today on their own merits, YOU ARE INSANE.
The real people behind the republican party choose to remain in the background -- they bring morons into politics specifically becuase they know that idiots can be counted regardless of the "facts."
The culture of corruption in the repug party is so extreme, that honest people are not allowed to the table -- at least not at a level where they can actually do anything.
There is no shortage of alcoholics, drug-addicts, various deviants, and morally bancrupt individuals to be the next generation of republican leadership.
Our real problem are those "behind the curtain"
the cynic librarian writes: While I appreciate your enthusiasm for these stories--and I usually agreew tih your choice--it's bad netiquette to publish an entire article in a comments section.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't merely bad form or impolite; unless the venues from which s/he is cutting and pasting most or all of an article(s) have given permission, copyrights are being violated. A few years ago AP threatened to sue About.com when commenters were pasting in entire AP stories in the comments sections. I know, because I excerpted from one (a "fair use" amount)and the moderators wouldn't even let me do that -- they took the extreme (but legally safe) position of "links only."
In any event, unless a writer or site has given explicit permission to reproduce in whole, EWO should stop doing that.
Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate.
ReplyDeleteJust to tie in the Kevin Phillips article to the censure debate, it is quite telling how Cornyn, Hatch (and our trolls) dismissed Dean’s opinion as unworthy and irrelevant because he was convicted in the Watergate scandal.
Well, guess what: one of the leading stars of the evangelical movement heralded by Cornyn and widely cited in Republican circles was also convicted in the Watergate scandal. Indeed, it is none other than the author of Nixon’s enemies list – Chuck Colson.
Of course, his conviction and his actions many years ago does not nullify his opinions today – because he supports George Bush. However, if like John Dean, he were to criticize Bush and the Republican Party his opinion would be dismissed as that of a “convict” and unworthy of consideration.
anon: Actually, Walt stepped down as Academic Dean. Steve Clemons at The Washington Note has the story. In an email to Clemons, Walt says he stepped down voluntarily--ostensibly to have more time for research and writing.
ReplyDeletenotherbob2 said...12:28 AM
ReplyDeleteYou know, no matter how old we get, we still carry with us childish ideas. ONeof (sic) mine is that I can give people a steer toward enlightenment
Was your post designed to "enlighten?" Did you even read it once you wrote it? I suspect I read it more closely than you did and found it to be incredibly incoherent.
Aside from your poor reading comprehension skills and your inability to supply a cogent response, your post constitutes nothing more than attacks on me based on a mistaken understanding about who I am and what I believe.
I'm not Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative or neocon.
I don't get questions, answers, talking points or grocery lists from pundits.
I don't read the NYT.
As difficult as it was, it appears at least part of your point was that everyone has "principles" to which they adhere (although I can't be completely sure that's what you're saying). But nowhere in your long-winded, rambling, self-congratulatory piece did you offer any hint of what yours might be.
At least bart identified his: The Constitution and the enforcement and efficacy of all laws should be protected merely by the self-interest of "opponents" in the two-party system. As much as I disagree with that position, he, at least, offered it up for consideration.
On the other hand, your beautiful mind cut through all the garbage, identified me as a "liberal" and assigned all your tired, stupid, non-answers to that label.
Just wondering, how's that "enlilghtenment" program going for you? Do you find that backing the truck up to people's back door and dumping a huge load of your own personal biases on them is an effective method for steering them in the right direction?
BTW, I was here till late last night and you hadn't responded. Too bad you didn't stick around long enough to offer this "answer" for my appreciation...it would have changed my life. As it is, I guess I just have to continue being a dumbass.
hypatia: Thanks for adding your correct remarks to my own. As addendum: "Fair use" copyright laws allow you to copy and paste up to three paragraphs, I believe, from the original article.
ReplyDeletezack: Actually, if you look at the exit polls of the last Presidential election, Xtian evangelical and Catholic voters accounted for nearly 50 % of the Republican vote. The evangelicals voted over 75% for and the Catholics over 50% for Bush.
ReplyDeleteBTW: Although I cover other current events at my site, I have dealt extensively with this Xtian putsch and takeover of the US government.
To cynic and hypatia: the points you’ve made regarding EWO posts have been made repeatedly on these threads to him/her. Moreover, several people have offered to show EWO how to link to articles to no avail. Nothing seems to work.
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming that EWO has read your comments. I’m not sure that is even the case. Recently, after copying and pasting at least a half dozen articles to a thread, EWO wrote that “just now” had he/she read the post and some of the comments.
I find this behavior incomprehensible.
Bart said...
ReplyDeleteHowever, FISA appears to me to be perfectly constitutional for all purposes apart from limiting the President's Article II power to perform warrantless intelligence gathering.
There is nothing in the constitution that grants the Executive any exemptions to the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the President is not charged with the task of "defending the United States", but he is required to take an oath "defending the Constitution".
In contrast, Congress is specifically empowered "to make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces". The idea that the Executive branch is somehow empowered to be free from the regulation of Congress on any matter is a fabrication of the unitary executive theorists, and has absolutely no basis in the text of the Constitution.
It is hard to reconcile Bart's argument with the oath taken by the President to uphold the Constitution, and the text of the 4th Amendment. "The President has unlimited Constitutional powers" is a pure myth, a fabrication, a sham. People who support this argument are scoundrels or rubes.
Via Kevin Drum the L.A. Times has an article about the Bush administration “taking direct aim at journalists.”
ReplyDeleteThey just keep pushing the envelope.
Rothbard, in looking over your recent comments to see if I could come up with a clever snark or two, I discovered a (poorly worded – do you read this stuff before you post it?) series of questions that just might deserve answers:
ReplyDelete” Why are questions of [1] "is this proper?" [2] "is this the kind of country you want to live in?" [3] "how do you feel about the prospect of actors with whom you disagree using the powers you now so eagerly defend at some point in the future?" (sic)”
Presumably, you meant why are these questions not being discussed on the internet by “Bush supporters”. BTW, the answers (for me) are 1) Yes; 2) Yes; and 3) Just fine.
Instead of discussing these questions, Bush supporters waste their time griping about Democrats attempting to censure or impeach a President for political gain. Imagine that. What are they thinking? And instead of being ecstatic about one of the most politically biased newspapers in the country publishing classified information that was held for over a year for maximum political effect, they are appalled. Do you notice a recurring theme here? We have a long (and successful) record of putting political issues second to winning the war we are involved in at the time.
Only three Senators are sponsors of the censure motion – all Democrats. Rockefeller has no complaints about the program after being briefed. Democrats want a political circus, excuse me, Congressional investigation.
So, let’s see, the Democrats want to, ugh, keep the NSA program and, ugh, make it more effective. On the other hand, they have no evidence of venal use of the surveillance.
”You see, there is this tiny slice in between where the President could, if he chose to, mis-use the program. Just sayin’”.
So, if we close this tiny slice there is no way the President could ever commit wrongdoing?
”Are you kidding (taking out laundry list)? There’s Fitzmas, Plamegate, Katrina, Iraq, the ports, etc. And etc.”
So why the fuss on this tiny slice?
”Oh, nothing else worked to fire up the campaign and we think this might. The base loves it.”
Go for it.
As I traverse these threads, I do my very best to avoid troll-droppings, but every once in a while I inadvertently step in one, much to my dismay. I just did that. Now if you’ll excuse me, while I wipe this “Rockefeller has no complaints about the program after being briefed” excrement from the bottom of my shoe:
ReplyDeleteRockefeller:
“For the past three years, the Senate intelligence committee has avoided carrying out its oversight of our nation's intelligence programs whenever the White House becomes uncomfortable with the questions being asked," Rockefeller told reporters. "The very independence of this committee is called into question."
Rockefeller:
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the Senate intelligence committee's vice chairman, has drafted a motion calling for a wide-ranging inquiry into the surveillance program, according to congressional sources who have seen it. Rockefeller declined to be interviewed yesterday.
Sources close to Rockefeller say he is frustrated by what he sees as heavy-handed White House efforts to dissuade Republicans from supporting his measure.
Rockefeller:
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV angrily accused the White House of obscuring the NSA program with "political smoke" and "selective release" of information. The administration's reluctance to provide details to Congress is "an ongoing, festering sore that is going to continue until it is resolved," the West Virginia Democrat warned.
There, that’s better.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteThe photographer who took the picture of Scalia was fired.
He was hired to take pictures by the Archdiocese's newspaper. The editor told him they did not want the picture published. He did it anyway.
Since he still has a job as assistant photojournalism professor at Boston U, I don't think he will starve.
The picture is pretty worthless, since there are a hundred gestures that could have been done, and his face looks like he is getting a kick out of it, not an angry fu look. A video would have told more. It all is alot of nothing, but the professor saw an opportunity to get national attention over a piddly side job and he took it. You can't blame him, it was his chance at 15 seconds of fame.
dear notherbob2
ReplyDeleteGo for what?
You're really a fan of those sics aren't you?
It's nice that you can admit that what you're looking for here is not reasonable dialogue, but an opportunity to be "cleverly snarky."
It's also helpful to realize that you're among the crowd for whom killing people is an aid to your sex life. Just say the word "war" and you're onboard without any need for knowing niggling details like why we're doing it, what it's going to cost or who's going to benefit. (After all, you're a smart person who realizes that the words coming from the mouths of the selfless omniscients in charge need never be questioned.)
Overall, I'm disappointed, though I suppose not surprised that you're obviously incapable of processing the information that I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT. And to continue to talk to me like I give a rat's ass about the dumb political games played between the fake political parties (which you obviously regard as vitally important) demonstrates why you won't answer how your enlightening program is going. It's not possible to "enlighten" anyone if you can't speak to them where they are as opposed to where your talking points would put them. (no charge for that little tip, by the way).
Actually, I can live with the idea that you won't really address me and that your only interest is to plumb the depths of snark. What I have a hard time with is that you can reduce subjects like war and the loss of civil liberties to some kind of trivial parlor game that exists for your entertainment.
Sure, history has demonstrated that the path we're on has led to some pretty horrible stuff, but it's just a joke that it could ever happen here. You've never done anything wrong, and no one in the future can ever possibly see you as a threat so what happens to any of your fellow citizens is just kinda funny isn't it?
"The picture is pretty worthless, since there are a hundred gestures that could have been done, and his face looks like he is getting a kick out of it, not an angry fu look."
ReplyDeleteYou are either grossly underinformed or a liar (or both). First off, I can't imagine how many possible gestures you think involve one's hand under one's chin in that manner. Second of all, this was not a "Sean Penn" moment - Scalia was talking about what he says to his critics, he was not talking to anyone in the press specifically, so why you would expect him to appear angry is hard to understand. Thirdly, they quoted him as well, a word that happens to have a particularly nasty meaning in Italian. Did they mishear him, and the gesture wasn't actually what it appeared to be? Did the photographer happen to catch a gesture that might have appeared offensive in still-frame, and concocted the use of the vulgarity and the rest of the quote? Is it a press-run conspiracy against Scalia in your twisted imagination?
I would suggest you actually learn something about the incident before posting about it, or quit lying. It's easy to understand why you would want to be anonymous while posting such stupidity.
zack writes: To cynic and hypatia: the points you’ve made regarding EWO posts have been made repeatedly on these threads to him/her. Moreover, several people have offered to show EWO how to link to articles to no avail. Nothing seems to work.
ReplyDeleteIntellectual pty vis-a-vis the Internet is a fast-evolving and dynamic area of law. Last I looked into it -- and this was several yrs ago -- a forum owner was actually safer not moderating at all, if s/he wanted to escape liability for copyright infringement. Once they moderate in any degree, then they may be more likely to be liable for any infringements commenters post at their sites. But who knows how some courts may be looking at the issue now.
EWO might want to consider that she does not put only herself at risk with her behavior, but she could also cause headaches for Glenn.
Brabantino,
ReplyDeletewould you care to specifically mention the possible gestures and quote the exact italian word and it's translations or would you like to continue to be a pompous ass?
"Then you follow it up with a response that is pure spin!"
ReplyDelete"Pure" really has nothing to do with it. Posit that the Democrats were "purely" interested in getting the issue squared away. The word "impeachment" would have come up only after exhaustive steps had been taken by the Juciiary Committee to negotiate changes. As I recall, it came up very early on, if not the first mention of the issue, perhaps in the NYT article disclosing the classified material? Anyway, I realize that when I am saying "Democrats" meaning those in charge of this year's Congressional campaign, readers are taking me to mean those with no connections to the campaign other than as voters.
Some naive Democratic voters believe that the NYT published this story and the rest "just happened". Mr. Greenwald "just happened" to start this blog when he did. And HRC will "just happen" to run for President in 2008. Stuff just happens. Uh-huh.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey, how long do you think it will be before members of Congress start wearing Bush fish pins?
ReplyDeleteBush Fish pins?
ReplyDeleteOrder yours today!
Bush is Jesus!
No Quarter discusses the C-Span-2 show on the case for impeacing Bush because of the NSA program. The program is based on the work of Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman, Maria Lahud, and Shayana Kadidal.
ReplyDeleteBut Rothbard, clearly you cannot oppose the Republicans' actions without endorsing whatever steps the Democratic leadership takes?
ReplyDelete{end snark}
I was an independent until 1998, when I decided that the Republicans' naked power grabs needed coordinated opposition. I then joined the Democrats. If the Democrats do not oppose the Republicans on issues like the NSA program, they will lose me.
And I'm not the only one they will lose.
michael birk: I've enabled my profile.
ReplyDeletewould you care to specifically mention the possible gestures and quote the exact italian word and it's translations or would you like to continue to be a pompous ass?
ReplyDeleteThe word mentioned by the Boston Herald is 'Vaffanculo'. That has two meanings - the colloquial is 'Fuck off', and the literal is, 'Up your ass!'. As far as possible gestures, the picture is inconclusive, but to suggest that one would use a gesture that indicates a lack of caring with 'Fuck off' is a bit illogical.
Sen. Feingold was absolutely first class in his interview with the annoying, but predicable Chris Wallace.
ReplyDeleteIt demonstrated to me once again that it's not enough to be right, to be moral and to be passionate, a person also has to be highly intelligent to win those types of interactions in which most guests are blindsided by the despicable tactics of the hosts.
Sen. Feingold was more than up to that, and it was one of the few times I saw one of those Fox exchanges where the person who was being interviewed and who was in the right not only resoundingly won the debate, but was also able to not be derailed by the junk and instead succeeded wonderfully in getting across and driving home his main points.
Very smart man.
An interesting example, however, of another smart man, but one whose intelligence is perverted by his desire to promote an evil agenda is Bill Kristol, who condemned Republicans for not coming out against the censure motion by adopting their own motion praising the President for his illegal NSA activities.
What a totally corrupt person.
Vafanunculo has a third meaning according to the Urban Dictionary:
ReplyDelete3. Va' fa' un culo
"Va' fa'n-culo" in the roman pronunciation.
Like "get lost" or "get out of here"
"don't bother me"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Va%27+fa%27+un+culo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190226,00.html
ReplyDeleteTranscript Wallace/Feingold
gosh -- if laws become unconstitutional if chimpy breaks them, what happens to the wall of the white house when chimpy pee's on them.
ReplyDeleteI understand he used them as urinals when daddy was in the WH and I am pretty sure he is drinking or drugging at least as much now.
Vafanunculo has a third meaning according to the Urban Dictionary
ReplyDeleteUh huh. The Urban Dictionary. Ooookay.
I'd rather look at the etymoligy of the word itself - specifically the word culo. I'm sure you can figure that one out without having to resort to an Urban Dictionary insert with more down votes than up.
Wait, given that you're trying to defend this, maybe you can't figure that one out without help....
Golden Oldy on Bush and the Constitution:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue, when the Patriot Act was up for renewal:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
"would you care to specifically mention the possible gestures and quote the exact italian word and it's translations or would you like to continue to be a pompous ass?"
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know what the word was, then you are indeed underinformed. Check "vaffanculo" at urbandictionary.com, and tell me that the meaning of the accompanying gesture was innocent. And I'm so sorry that it makes you uncomfortable to be called out for posting ridiculous BS. The best way to avoid that is to stop posting ridiculous BS.
Hatch has been in office way too long and should be voted out of office.
ReplyDeleteI have never liked Hatch.
Mike Sylvester
Bart writes:
ReplyDeleteLet this be a test case. The facts are very favorable for a decision by the government.
I agree this case is going to prove favorable for the government. I also think this case is part of the "disinformation" program of Bushco, who are completely in control of this case and working with all involved.
I can't understand why people don't see that. Doesn't anyone use logic anymore?
The Boston Globe editorial does make a very valuable point:“It should not take a censure resolution to get the members of Congress to stick up for themselves. If they do not, they are as culpable as Bush.
ReplyDeleteThey also make this point, “Senator Lindsey Graham countered at the hearing that Nixon's motive was base self-interest, while Bush is seeking to strengthen national security. This is a worthwhile distinction from the South Carolina Republican, but it only underlines the cavalier manner in which Bush brushes off congressional actions and mandates.”
The trouble is we don’t know if this program is not “base self-interest” – if it wasn’t they had no reason not to go to FISA court (other than pushing their all-powerful and unaccountable chief executive theory) which certainly could be considered “base self-interest.”
But this assumption of “national security” underlies their attempt to stifle debate and even criticism of the President – which is what Hatch tried to do at the hearings.
Dave Lindorff called him on that point:
"Wartime is not a time to weaken the commander in chief," says paramount partisan hack Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), responding to the testimony of former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean at Friday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sen. Russ Feingold's Bush censure motion.
A good question for the senator might be this: if the war in question is the so-called "War on Terror," when exactly might we consider it an appropriate time for "weakening" the commander in chief?”
They have no response for that. Since we must always be vigilant against terrorism, the “war on terrorism” will never end, we will never be able to criticize our President again – just how is that compatible with democracy?
Hatch and the rest of the partisan hacks making this point don’t care about that – they want to protect the President and their party, not democracy. And for this reason, they are, like the Boston Globe says, just as culpable as the president.
Michael Birk: “... you are using that self-interest to dismiss the importance of this issue, despite my (and others') protestations.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s true, but in politics one never gets to be pure. The campaign Democrats have set this issue up so that one either resists setting off their circus or one goes along with it. Is finding out about the spying a good thing? Yes. Will the campaign Democrats let us do that without the circus? No. So, here’s the deal: Circus or No Circus. Is a circus a good thing? Democrats: Yes! Republicans: No! Others: Not so much.
There is room in politics for the starry-eyed. Their role is to be manipulated by the pros. Next question.
Speaking of manipulating the voters, I never thought before of how few times one sees images on network news from 9/11. A new movie apparently contains graphic images and the anti-Bush crowd is up in arms:
ReplyDelete“...offending the liberal sensibilities and ostrich mentality is ...long overdue. The Democrat Party and their collaborators at the TV network news divisions have tried to bleach from our memories those horrific images of 9/11/2001. I thank God that director Paul Greengrass and Universal Pictures have the guts to show some of our American heroes during the hours of our nation’s darkest day. ...This is an American story that must be told. I hope to be first in line on April 28 to see United 93.”
Maybe Universal Pictures is just hyping the issue to get Wingers to buy tickets?
Refreshing. Notherbob2 actually makes a degree of sense for once with regard to the right-side of the isle and its viewing habits.
ReplyDeleteMost refreshing.
This is one of the hallmarks of the cult of personality. If the cult leader says the sun doesn't emit light, then lo and behold! The cult followers proclaim joyously that the sun has turned dark by the miraculous godlike power of their shaman.
ReplyDeleteIf the cult leader says that humans don't need to breathe oxygen, the cult folowers drown one another while singing delighted praises for the leader's wisdom in cleverly realizing that people can breathe underwater.
We must recall that highly intellegent well-educated graduate chemistry students worked under the Aum Shin Rikyo cult to create sarin nerve gas. These highly educated graduate students smiled with delight when cult leader Shoko Asahara informed them that many innocent women and children would be murdered by sarin nerve gas in the saubway, because the cult followers knew that this meant many women and children would have their lived greatly enhanced by being exposed to lethal nerve gas.
As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the Republican Party is no longer a political organization, but rather has turned into a pseudo-religious one. It is now a cult of personality. But it is not an ordinary cult of personality, for leader-worship typically arises when a leader shows unusual competence and skill. (For example, we encounter a cult of personality around Stephen Hawking, as we should expect. After all, Stephen Hawking has achieved remarkable accomplishments in theoretical physics.)
But when we encounter a cult of personality around someone who has demonstrated nothing but the most gross incompetence, as Shoko Asahara did and as the drunk-driving C student in the oval office did, then we find oursel\ves in different territory. This is no longer the ordinary cult of personality. It is something quite different.
At this point, when deluded followers praise an obviously inept and ignorant cult guru fir his self-evident incompetence, we must recognize that we have exited the realm of politics and entered into the demense of the crackpot cult led by the kook cult leader. History abounds with examples of such aberrations. From Cyrus Teed, the hollow earth guru of 19th century Florida, to Charles Manson, the incompetent guitar-playing failed songwriter who retreated to an abandoned shack in the desert, we see the same pattern over and over again. When a person encounters nothing but dismal failure in life, adn then creates a cult and makes himself its guru and celebrates his incompetence as though it's a great triumph, we're dealing with someone in the throes of hopeless dementia.
This is clearly what has happened with the drunk-driving C studnet in the oval office. After a life of unremitting failure, the drunken failed student and failed businessman has finally found his niche...as the crackpot guru of a kook lunatic-fringe cult. Unfortuantely for America, this particular cult was formerly named "The Republican Party."
When we study the proncouncement of Charles Manson or Shoko Asahara, we quickly realize that these people were mentally deranged. They spouted gibberish. Manson thought he would ignite a worldwide race war by killing an actress in the Hollywood Hills. But that doesn't make sense. Shoko Asahahra claimed the world would be reborn by killing a few dozen Japanese on a subway train: even a small child can tell you that's just nutty. And the drunk-driving C student in the oval office has said that he believes that he's going to float up to the sky nude after God thunders down from heaven to rapture him away, and incidentally God told him personally to attack Iraq.
Is that the behaviour of a sensible rational person? Or are we dealing with a crackpot, just like Charles Manson or Shoko Asahara?
Since it should be wholly evidnet that we have got another Shoko Asahara in the oval office, we must examine the weirdly twisted cult called hte Republican Party a little more closely. Clearly, this is not a group of people who are living in the real world. Orrin Hatch and his fellow cult members belong to another Manson family. They prcolaim "Charlie is love" / "America is peaceful" even as they perpetrate the most horiffic violence against innocent womena nd children.
Crackpot cultists like Orrin Hatch have chosen as their godlike guru a drunk-driving C student who gives every evidence of being a kook. This is a clear sign that we're out where the busses dont' run, so that at this point no amount of insanity dribbling out these people's mouths should surprise us. Remember, please, that the drunk-driving C student in the oval office is someone who has accomlpished nothing and produced nothing and created nothing of any value in his entire life and who has only managed to fumble and stumble and bungle and bumble his way from one failed enterprise to another in his miserable life:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp
Accordingly, it should be clear that the worship of the semi-divine leader in the cult formerly known as the Republican Party is based not on reason, but on the kind of contagious group dementia we find so often in lunatic fringe groups like the Heavens Gate cult,or Cyrus Teed's hollow earth cult.
We must therefore expect that cult followers like Orrin Hatch will say the most completely insane things imaginable. Viz., any law is unconstitutional if the drunk-driving C student in the oval office violates it. Members of Teed's hollow earth said exactly the same kind of insane things -- "the earth is obviously hollow,and the horizon is merely an optical illusion." Well, of course. What else do you expect form a group of demented cranks living in Florida marshland and following a hollow-earth guru?
"Charlie is love," chanted Manson's crackpot "family" outside the courthouse during Manson's murder trial. Naturally. How else would you show love but by sending people out to carve a foetus out of its pregnant mother's womb? Absolutely typical for a cult.
Orrin Hatch's insane behaviour is standard stuff, and perfectly predictable. After all, the very definition of a cult is that it is a twisted mindset which induces sane people to say and do insane things. A cult, by definition, makes smart people say dumb things. This should help bring the behaviour of the Republicans into sharp focus. We are dealing with crackpots, deluded cult members who gibber mindless drivel like "the war in Iraq is going well" because their brains have been warped by the cult of which they have become members. If the cult demands that Republicans look at 30 corpses a day being dropped off in front of police stations in Iraq and proclaim this spectacle a wonderful healthy democracy on the path to englihtenment and peace and freedom, they'll say it. If the cult requires that they kill their children, they'll do it. (Kooks in the Red States actually swell with pride at killing their children in the meaningless debacle in Iraq. Such is the nature of a crackpot cult.) If the cult demands they hand each other poisoned Kool Aid and drink it while they drop dead foaming at the mouth, why, they'll do that too.
That's what a cult is. It's a bizarrely warped mindset in which people's minds no longer function rationally, and in which their normal intelligence turns inward and becomes entirely self-destructive. People in the cult no longer perceive the real world. Instead, they see and hear an imaginary delusional world that the cult leader tells them about.
Cults usually end with the leader arrested and most of the cult members committing suicide. Cults typically exhibit intense paranoia and often confect weird fantasies about "End Times" and various alleged signs of the apocalypse. Such was the fate of hte Heavens Gate cult, the Aum Shin Rikyo cult, the Solar Temple cult, the Charlie Manson "family," and most of the other cults led by megalomaniacal crackpots.
Accordingly, we need not worry overmuch about the crackpot cult formerly named the Republican Party. The process of self-destruction is well underway, and the mass suicides are only a few years away (if that far off). As for the kook who styles hismelf leader of the cult formerly known as the Republican party, we can confidently look forward to the same fate befalling him as befell Shoko Ashara, who currently wanders around naked in a Japanese jail soiling himself while he gibbers mindless drivel to his jailors.
Hey asurvivorinutah--What do you mean Pete Ashdown is "an arrogant rich jerk"? I DARE YOU TO JUSTIFY ANY OF THOSE RIDICULOUS COMMENTS! First, Pete is not arrogant; how can he be arrogant when he believe he DOESN'T have all of the solutions and ISN'T an expert in every issue. That's why he started the wiki where anyone can contribute ideas and discuss policy. Second, he is not rich; he is not self-funding his campaign, but only contributing the campaign office which he owns. Third, you, not Pete are the jerk and the asshole; I bet you have never met him. Once again, the challenge is out there.
ReplyDeleteFor everyone else, I urge you to check out Pete Ashdown's website at www.peteashdown.org. I think you will love it.
Hatch's intellectual honesty turned rancid early in his political career with his crude, cruel denigration of Anita Hill. During the Thomas hearings, Hatch and Specter elevated politics over civil rights, just as with the NSA spying scandal. Even more illuminating is this response from Joe Biden in 1992, regarding his lackluster defense of Hill:
ReplyDeleteBIDEN: Do I have any regrets (about the hearings)? That I didn't attack the attackers more. Some of the articles that have been written say, `Why didn't I do what the Republicans did?' If I had done what the Republicans did, I would have made a lie of everything I think I stand for. I ran for the United States Senate in part because I truly believed the one hallmark of my 20-year career is that civil liberties mean a great deal to me.
Yeah. Right.
Evening everyone
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of lawlessness that has broken out in the land I think we should all contribute our fair share. After all everyone else seems to be breaking the law now. Well, actually that should be clarified somewhat because we have always had lawbreakers, the difference is now that a lot of people are doing it with impunity, or should that be immunity.
The president breaks the law and most everyone seems to overlook it, present company excepted. We have millions of people that break into the country every year. The penalty; nothing. In fact they are rewarded with free medical care, free education, and numerous other benefits; some even that our own citizens aren't entitled too.
Now in a country such as ours where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law that just doesn't somehow seem fair. So I got to thinking about how we could even things up and make them fair again. And then it hit me like a lightning bolt. We should all write our congressional representatives and ask that each one of us be exempted from some law that we don't like or don't agree with.
I thought about my own personal choice for quite some time. My first choice was to ne able to loot the treasury. After all, that is where the money is. But no, I think our congressional representatives and outfits like Haliburton already beat me and everyone else to that one. Then I thought about how much fun it would be to drive as fast as I want anytime and anywhere I want to, but no, the Governors of Texas and New Mexico beat me to that one too.
Anyway to make a long story not too long, I finally decided I want to be able to rob banks legally. It does have a couple of drawbacks, it isn't as lucrative as looting the treasury, and you do have to stick a gun in somebody's face and say "stick em up". But as crimes go it will certainly pay the bills so anyway that is my choice.
Having finally settled on bank robbery I have fired off (no pun intended) a letter to my Republican representative and have asked him to write it into law as soon as possible so that I can get started right away.
I would suggest that you all make your choices soon and do the same before all the good ones are gone.
Good night and good luck.
reagan + bush I was hardly the "height of the cold war" . . .
ReplyDelete