The vile J. Edgar Hoover spied on his political enemies and

allies. Dick Nixon felt he was above the law in dealing with his enemies. Thanks to the excesses of both, laws were passed in the 1970’s

to help curtail abuse of power and intimidation of citizens. Thirty years later, Duhbya, who makes Nixon look like a civil libertarian,

began rolling back the Freedom of Information Act on day one of his presidency — long before he heard of Al Qaeda. BushCo is a secretive

bunch who feel empowered to do anything to “protect America,” including undermining the very system they claim to protect.

9/11

had a devastating impact on many. It has left very real scars on many. It is understandable that would include people at the top, who

must feel real guilt for failing to stop 9/11 in the first place (I am not blaming them; I believe they blame themselves). That guilt and

fear drives BushCo to make countless errors. They are in no position to fix anything. Time to retire and let the healing begin. mjh

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts – New York Times
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC

LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency

to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved

warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

The previously undisclosed decision

to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering

practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some

officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed,

constitutional limits on legal searches.

“This is really a sea change,” said a former senior official who specializes in

national security law. “It’s almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches.”

Nearly a dozen

current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for

The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation’s legality and oversight. …

The White House asked The New York

Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they

might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed

publication for a year to conduct additional reporting.
[mjh: A year? What was going on a year ago. Oh,

yeah, an election in which the electorate was kept in the dark by collusion between the State and the Press. The advesarial and “liberal”

press was kept in check by claims of national security — a blanket used to cover anything the imperial President wishes to do.]

…

Widespread abuses – including eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists – by American intelligence

agencies became public in the 1970’s and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed strict limits on

intelligence gathering on American soil.

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying By Dan Eggen, Washington Post

Staff Writer

The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-

terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches

and surveillance in the United States.

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at

Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA’s operation

is outside that court’s purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court

was made aware of NSA activities.
—–
On Hill, Anger

and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance By Dan Eggen and Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Some

prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. “I don’t agree with the libertarians,”

said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “I want my security first. I’ll deal with all the details after that.” [mjh: How can Lott still be a Senator?]
—–

Part of the unchanging mantra BushCo

has spewed against those who feel war was shoved down our throats has been that everyone saw the same intelligence reports. Yet another

lie. mjh

Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress By Dafna

Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner

circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the

authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush’s contention that lawmakers saw all the

evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers “have access to a far

greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information.” …

Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. “Some

of the most irresponsible comments — about manipulating intelligence — have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw

and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein,” he said this week.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is

on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed. “The report demonstrates that Congress routinely is denied access to intelligence

sources, intelligence collection and analysis,” she said.

2nd Senator to Return Abramoff Funds; Lobbyist Paid Columnist By

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washington Post Staff Writer

Copley News Service syndicated columnist Doug Bandow admitted accepting

money from Abramoff for writing as many as 24 op-ed articles favorable to some of Abramoff’s clients. Copley suspended the

column pending a review and Bandow resigned as a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. …

Jamie Dettmer, Cato’s

communications director, said officials at the think tank learned of the payments Tuesday when contacted by a reporter for Business Week,

which reported the story on its Web site yesterday. Bandow admitted writing as many as two dozen articles for payments from Abramoff of

between $1,000 to $2,000 per piece, Dettmer said.

“We accepted his resignation,” Dettmer said. “Doug acknowledges it was a serious

lapse in judgment. This is a think tank that has a lot of integrity, and we are very zealous guardians of the reputation of this think

tank. . . . We are secure in the knowledge that our other scholars have not been doing this.” [mjh:

why are they so sure?]

Bandow, who was hospitalized in San Diego for knee surgery, could not be reached for comment.

Another person who has admitted accepting payment from Abramoff for favorable op-ed pieces is Peter J. Ferrara, a

Social Security expert and senior policy adviser at the Institute for Policy Innovation, Business Week reported. In a telephone

interview, Ferrara said he has stopped writing columns for lobbying firms but sees nothing wrong with the practice as long as he is

expressing his own views.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) became the first Republican to call for an overhaul of

lobbying laws as a way to clean up in the wake of the Abramoff scandals. Previously, only Democrats had proposed tightening the

rules in reaction to the ties between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Pelosi Hails Democrats’

Diverse War Stances by Dan Balz, Washington Post

Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the

war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent

threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126

Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.

…

In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress “the most corrupt in history”

and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the

country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.

If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration

on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.
=====

Time for a House-Cleaning By David S.

Broder

If the House of Representatives were a person, it would be blushing these days. Unfortunately, the House is beyond

embarrassment.

Its once (and maybe future) majority leader, Tom DeLay, is under indictment on money-laundering charges in

Texas. One of its more colorful members, Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California, resigned last week after pleading guilty to shaking down

lobbyists and contractors for $2.4 million in cash and gifts.

DeLay’s former press secretary, lobbyist Michael Scanlon, has

copped a plea and is busy explaining to federal prosecutors how he funneled money to perhaps half a dozen other compliant members of the

House. Scanlon’s former partner, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is at the center of separate investigations that could implicate still other

legislators of both parties. …

The place needs a good scrubbing, and that is what it would get if the leadership were somehow to

embrace a set of rules changes put forward this week by several longtime members. But because the authors are Democrats — and in some

cases liberal as well — the receptivity of the Republicans managing the House is not likely to be great.

The four members

involved — David Obey of Wisconsin, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, David Price of North Carolina and Tom Allen of Maine — held a news

conference on Monday at the Center for American Progress to introduce their 14-point plan. It is

strong medicine — a stiff enough dose of salts that even a watered-down version would mark a major change in the ethical environment of

Capitol Hill.

A Proposal to Make Congress Work

Again