Civil Libertarians Created ‘The Wall’ That Aided 9-11 By Heather Mac Donald, LATimes

It’s time to connect the dots: Decades of unjustified and unnecessary restrictions — pushed through by hysterical civil libertarians — paralyzed U.S. counterterrorism capacities before 9/11. And despite the terrible price we paid for it on that day, the nation appears poised to repeat those mistakes….

As the recent 9/11 commission hearings showed, no impediment to national security was more deadly or nonsensical than the ”wall” separating intelligence and criminal terrorism investigators.

The wall grew out of the post-Watergate belief that U.S. citizens face no greater enemy than their own government. …

But getting a terrorism wiretap against a U.S. citizen requires virtually the same level of evidence as a criminal wiretap. …

Before 9/11, the specter of civil-liberties violations reliably defeated sound national-security policy. We are heading in that dangerous direction again.

[Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.]

So, who is to blame for 9-11? Civil libertarians, that’s who! Democracy is too hard to defend; it will be easier under fascism.

The 9/11 hearings have shown no such thing about this already destroyed ‘wall.’ That was merely the contention of John Ashcroft, who went beyond shirking responsibility to putting it all on others — the craven coward was as asleep as the rest of us; once awakened, he has rushed to bar the door and blame others. By parroting AssKraft without mentioning him, Mac Donald uses a classic tactic: a lie told many times becomes the truth.

The post-Watergate fears seem to have been justified. Remember that Republican President who won re-election by campaigning on fear (and an enemies list). Remember also the shame in which he resigned.

Finally, to the lie and nonsense that terrorism wiretaps are in any way difficult to obtain, read the following piece. mjh

Use of secret surveillance warrants soars By Shannon McCaffrey, NIGHT RIDDER

The government’s use of secret surveillance warrants to track spies and terrorists surged to a record high in 2003, surpassing for the first time the number of wiretaps sought by law enforcement in traditional criminal cases. …

Federal agents sought 1,727 warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic eavesdropping and physical searches last year, said a Justice Department filing with Congress. Four applications were rejected [mjh: .2%], although two of them were later revised and approved.

The number of so-called FISA warrants jumped by 500 from 2002 and has almost doubled since 2001 when 934 applications were approved.

By comparison, there were 1,442 wiretap petitions in federal and state courts for crimes related to drugs and racketeering, according to a separate report from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. …

Passed by Congress in 1978 [mjh: Jimmy Carter’s Democratic Presidency], the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a new court to oversee highly sensitive law enforcement activities related to espionage or terrorism. The Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, broadened the government’s ability to seek warrants through the secretive 11-member court by essentially knocking down the once-sacrosanct wall that divided intelligence and law enforcement.

Question: do you think there are more drug crimes or acts of terrorism going on in America at this moment? How can there be so many terrorism warrants? Fewer than a dozen Saudis (not Iraqis) perpetrated the 9-11 crimes. Are there really thousands of terrorists in the country biding their time? Well, maybe, if you call a ”terrorist” anyone who opposes this right-wing power grab. mjh

The Press and Freedom: Some disturbing trends by Bob Edwards, NPR
(Adapted from the annual Joe Creason Lecture at the University of Kentucky.)

It’s kind of a cruel, ironic joke. The rise of cable TV and the Internet were supposed to democratize the media and give us many voices and numerous points of view. Instead, market forces and deregulation have clobbered diversity. The networks and cable channels have the same owners — Hollywood studios, mainly — and the most popular Web sites for news are those of news organizations firmly established before the Web was spun.

We are currently a nation at war and the free flow of information and ideas is never more important than it is at times like these. But monopolies choke that flow, allowing only the information and ideas that facilitate that other flow — the flow of dollars into their pockets. …

A Cleveland company called McVay Media describes itself as the largest radio consulting firm in the world. McVay developed a memo to its client stations advising them on how to use the war to their best business advantage. Called a ”War Manual,” the memo says the stations should ”Get the following production pieces into the studio NOW . . . patriotic music that makes you cry, salute, get cold chills! Go for the emotion. . . . Air the National Anthem at a specified time each day as long as the U.S.A. is at war.” The article also quotes Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers,a journal for the radio talk business. Harrison says, ”It’s counterintuitive for hosts and program directors to pay too much attention to the antiwar movement right now.”

Some months after this speech, Bob Edwards was ”promoted” out of his job on Morning Edition, a few months before his 25th anniversary (thoughtful act). Bob Edwards’ last day on the job was also the day that a media conglomerate that donates to Bush refused to broadcast on all of their stations a news report they felt was anti-war. These bums are shameless. Time to muck out the stables. mjh

Inside Politics – The Washington Times: Inside Politics – April 30, 2004

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, chastised Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, yesterday for omitting the words ”under God” while leading the House in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance on Tuesday. …

Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, accused Mr. McDermott of ”embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the Pledge.”

McDermott spokesman Mike DeCesare said his boss learned the Pledge without the phrase ”under God.” The two words have been in the Pledge since 1954; Mr. McDermott was born in 1936.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi–

I want an apology. I don’t care what sentiment impelled you to chastise McDermott for leading the Pledge as it was for many, many years. You have exhibited religious intolerance in a public forum and, in a most unDemocratic manner, have punished someone for being different and taken pains to assure it never happens again. Shame on you. mjh

Congressman Pete Sessions–

It is far more embarrassing, and alarming, how intolerant Americans have become. Your party has contributed much to this while reaping power from this ugliness. Shame on you, too. mjh

Congressman Jim McDermott-–

Thank you for saying the Pledge as it should be said. You and I are not the only other people in the country who believe that is the correct form. I imagine you’re getting beaten up right now — I want you to know you did the right thing. mjh

Contact these three and your own Representative:
United States House of Representatives – Member Website Listing – By State

Alpert’s Truth

Since the phrase was added in the 1950s, not one World War II soldier, sailor or flier had pledged allegiance to the nation ”under God.” Yet, somehow, they did what they had to so well that we call them the ”Greatest Generation.” The dead and the living both. May God save us from the religious.

Who’s Really ‘Playing Politics’? by Timothy Karr, Media for Democracy 2004

Sinclair executives give overwhelmingly to Republican causes and candidates. Of the top twenty TV and Radio companies to make political contributions in 2004, Sinclair Broadcasting Group is among the most conservative, giving 98 percent of its $65,434 in political contributions to GOP candidates. Sinclair CEO and President David Smith personally gave $2,000, the maximum individual contribution, to President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. …

Sinclair’s snub of “Nightline” — and their disingenuous rationale for the action — smacks of censorship and political manipulation.

McCain Calls Nightline Nix ‘Deeply Offensive’ By CARL HULSE, NYTimes

”There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq,” Mr. McCain wrote. ”War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.” …

”I supported the president’s decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision,” Mr. McCain’s letter said. ”But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us.”

Sinclair Responds to Senator McCain

In fact, we will be replacing ”Nightline” this evening with a balanced report addressing both sides of this controversy. … lest there be any doubt about ”Nightline’s” motivation, both Mr. Koppel and ”Nightline’s” executive producer have acknowledged that tonight’s episode was
influenced by the Life Magazine article listing the names of dead soldiers in Vietnam, which article was widely credited with furthering the opposition to the Vietnam war and with creating a backlash of public opinion against the members of the U.S. military who had proudly served in that conflict.

Sincerely yours,
David D. Smith
CEO [and Bush contributor]

The Jesus Factor: Understanding the President and His God By ALESSANDRA STANLEY, NYTimes

The question is not, When did George W. Bush accept Jesus as his personal savior? The ”Frontline” documentary ”The Jesus Factor,” on PBS tonight, raises a different issue: Do most Americans realize just how fervent the president’s evangelical faith really is?

[T]he program reminds viewers that this ”faith-based” president has blurred the line between religion and state more than any of his recent predecessors: a vision that affects the Iraq conflict as well as domestic policy. …

Once the younger Mr. Bush’s faith took hold, it spread to his political ambitions. ”I believe that God wants me to be president.” …

The

Jesus Factor: Understanding the President and His God By ALESSANDRA STANLEY, NYTimes

The question is not, When did George W. Bush

accept Jesus as his personal savior? The ”Frontline” documentary ”The Jesus Factor,” on PBS tonight, raises a different

issue: Do most Americans realize just how fervent the president’s evangelical faith really is?

[T]he program reminds viewers that

this ”faith-based” president has blurred the line between religion and state more than any of his recent predecessors: a vision

that affects the Iraq conflict as well as domestic policy. …

Once the younger Mr. Bush’s faith took hold, it spread to his

political ambitions. ”I believe that God wants me to be president.” …

This is a completely unscientific, untrustworthy poll. Still, you may want to see the results. To vote, you have to register with an email and postal address. mjh

Pledge your Vote – Pledge Statistics Congress.Org

If the Presidential election were held today, who would America choose? Who would your state pick?