New American Dark Ages
Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying
“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program
in a time of war,” Bush said. “The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
[mjh: You
are under arrest for reading this.]
Spying
‘This Is a Different Era, a Different War,’ He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe
By Peter Baker and Charles Babington,
Washington Post Staff Writers
“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war,” he
said. “The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
Bush: I want to
make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we’re doing that and
at the time protecting your civil liberties. Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, ‘Here’s what
we’re going to do.’ And this is an enemy which adjusts.
QUESTION: You say you have an obligation to protect us. Then why not
monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? If the threat is so great and you use the same logic, why not monitor those calls?
Americans thought they weren’t being spied on in calls overseas; why not within the country if the threat is so great?
BUSH: We
will, under current law, if we have to. We will monitor those calls.
This is not an argument for an
unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President
Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn’t. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric
about “imperial” presidents and “monarchic” pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and
irresponsible.
[William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.]
WEBCommentary(tm) – Bush Goes on
Offense…Finally
During Monday’s presser, Bush could be seen attempting to suppress his anger over the leaking of the NSA
operation. Hopefully he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate this truly damaging leak. He must stay on the
offensive. We spent two years investigating the leak of a bozo’s CIA wife’s name. These were two people using the CIA for
their own politically leftist agenda, yet the Democrats and their lapdogs in the news media displayed feigned concern regarding
national security over the woman’s identity being revealed.
As expected, liberals from the Democrat and Republican parties
called for congressional investigations into President Bush’s decision after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic
eavesdropping without court approval. They appeared disinterested in finding out the truth about the leaker in this obvious case
of treachery. …
Now that Bush and his administration are finally taking the offense, they should deal with the liberals
and backstabbers in their own party. And keep up the pressure to investigate the New York Times hack who broke the story and find out the
identities of the treasonous leakers. The media want a special prosecutor leak investigation? Give ’em one they can choke on, Mr.
President. — Jim Kouri, CPP
[mjh: The famously “leftist” New York Times capitulated to a presidential request
to keep silent on this domestic spying for more than a year.]
Spying
‘This Is a Different Era, a Different War,’ He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe
By Peter Baker and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Nor did he explain why the current system is not quick enough to meet the needs of the fight
against terrorism. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA in urgent situations can already eavesdrop on international
telephone calls for 72 hours without a warrant, as long as it goes to a secret intelligence court by the end of that period for
retroactive permission. Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of
18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government.
Eugene Robinson
It seems that the Imperial Presidency has been restored. The nation’s highest office was cut down to
constitutional size three decades ago, when Richard Nixon helicoptered out of town, but listening to George W. Bush in his latest come-
out-swinging media blitz has been like an audience with an impatient monarch whose ungrateful subjects won’t just shut up and do as he
says.
On Saturday, he was wrathful. How dare someone reveal that for years his administration has been eavesdropping on the phone
calls and e-mails of American citizens? How dare the New York Times publish its story about the illegal surveillance?
Investigations would be convened, he warned, and the leakers could be outed.
[Washington Post Editorial]
[I]f Mr. Bush claims the authority to defy acts of Congress, he invites a constitutional clash of the
highest order. In a constitutional democracy, laws are meant to be followed until they can be changed — even laws that, a president
feels, encumber his ability to wage war. …
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales … acknowledged that the administration discussed
introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it “would be difficult, if not
impossible” to pass.
don’t matter much ‘after you’re dead,’ Cornyn says on spy case By Jonathan Allen
“None of your civil liberties matter
much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the
Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot
Act, quoted Patrick Henry, an icon of the American Revolution, in response: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
He called Cornyn’s
comments “a retreat from who we are and who we should be.” …
Cornyn, who agreed with the White House analysis
of the president’s powers, called for an investigation into how the Times obtained its information.
Are domestic terrorists in legitimate organizations like
PETA. Probably. Probably also in the NRA. Where do we draw the line on spying? I thought the “war on terror” (an indefinite extension of
presidential fiat) was against Islamists, not vegans. mjh
Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer
FBI counterterrorism
investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the
American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity.
The documents, disclosed as part of a lawsuit that challenges FBI treatment of groups that planned demonstrations at last year’s
political conventions, show the bureau has opened a preliminary terrorism investigation into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
the well-known animal rights group based in Norfolk.
The papers offer no proof of PETA’s involvement in illegal activity. But
more than 100 pages of heavily censored FBI files show the agency used secret informants and tracked the group’s events for years,
including an animal rights conference in Washington in July 2000, a community meeting at an Indiana college in spring 2003 and a planned
August 2004 protest of a celebrity fur endorser. …
The FBI also kept information on Greenpeace and the American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, the papers show. …
PETA general counsel Jeff Kerr called the FBI’s conduct an abuse of power that
punishes activists for speaking out.
“These documents show a disturbing erosion of freedom of association and freedom of speech
that we’ve taken for granted and that set us apart from oppressive countries like the former Iraq,” Kerr said, adding that the documents
show no illegal activity by PETA. “You shouldn’t have to wonder when you go to a speech at a college campus, or when you go to a
meeting, whether you’re being surveilled by the FBI. It goes back to the dark days of Nixon and the enemies list.”
Let me state the obvious: all humans are fallible; most human activities will
involve mistakes. So, I pick these two incidents not because I feel holier than those who screwed up. What I do feel is frustration that
we live in a country increasingly afraid of its own shadow and, at the same time, incapable of protecting anything. The highest standards
set by Our Beloved Leader, The Great Protector, don’t seem to be trickling down very far. mjh
Physical Safety
at Site of Explosives Theft By T.J. Wilham. Journal Staff Writer
No guards. No lights. No cameras. No alarms.
A
barbed-wire fence, a gate, a few warning signs and some locks are what guarded several hundred pounds of explosives, enough to blow up a
large building.
The security measures, which meet federal regulations, are what a thief faced sometime last week when the
plastic explosives, 2,500 blasting caps and explosive detonator cords were stolen from a Bernalillo County storage depot.
The
explosives belonged to Cherry Engineering. The company is owned by Chris Cherry, one of the nation’s most respected bomb
experts and a Sandia National Laboratories employee. …
The site was broken into in 2003, when
someone stole seven 50-pound bags of ammonium nitrate— the same material used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.
[mjh: Interesting to note that the paper version of this article was more specific as to how much stuff was
stolen and how the detonator cord could be used without explosives. I don’t know if the Journal just left that out because online
articles don’t have to match originals or if they modified the info after someone complained — I hope it was not the latter.]
Virtual Safety
Security Software Firm’s Customer Database Hacked By Brian
Krebs, Special to the Washington Post
Guidance Software Inc. — a leading provider of software used to diagnose hacker break-ins
— has itself been hacked, exposing financial and personal data connected to thousands of law enforcement officials and network-security
professionals. …
Hackers got access to company employees’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, card
expiration dates and the three-digit verification numbers on the backs of credit cards, according to Guidance. …
Guidance’s
EnCase software is used by hundreds of security researchers and law enforcement agencies worldwide, including the Secret Service, the FBI
and New York City police. John Colbert, the company’s chief executive, said Secret Service and FBI customers were among those whose
information was included in the hacked database, but he declined to say whether credit card information belonging to those agencies was
compromised. …
Guidance had stored customer records in unencrypted databases and indefinitely retained
customers’ three-digit verification codes, according to Colbert and the notification letter sent to customers.
Merchant
guidelines published by both Visa and MasterCard require sellers to encrypt customer credit card databases and to discard verification
numbers after using them in a transaction.
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.
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