Domestic Espionage=Check Please

The only Congressional bill addressing the domestic espionage issue to receive much traction is one proposed by Senator Specter (R) which gives the President the option of having the program reviewed by the FISA court for its constitutionality. Senator Specter believes his bill will balance the need for judicial review of the program while honoring the Bush administration's need for secrecy. This reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons:

The FISA court has no precedent to form an arguable case for or against the legality of this program; They approve or deny wiretapping requests, they don't argue constitutional law. You may ask, what about the Supreme Court? This law and it's effects will be exempt from oversight by the Supreme Court as the FISA court will be the sole judiciary body responsible for oversight of

..any case before any court challenging the legality of classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign threat ... or in which the legality of any such activity or program is in issue.

Why the hoopla?
Not only is President Bush breaking established law by wiretapping American citizens, he is doing so under a flawed and unconstitutional premise of power. The NSA program in question violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and more importantly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The President claims however that he has inherent and Congressionally mandated authority to bypass the FISA court (break the law) as a result of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', a divergent view of the Executive Branch which vests all powers not delegated by Congress or the Constitution to the President, in direct violation of the 'All Powers' clause of the Constitution, which delegates these powers to the people, NOT the President.

By allowing the President to maintain a shroud of secrecy over this program, Senator Specter is giving in to the President's claim that the constitutional authority inherent in the Office of the President is enough to ignore, circumvent and deride Congressionally enacted law and our system of checks and balances.

Should this bill pass, Senator Specter and the rest of Congress will have given the President the authority to spy on the international phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. This is a dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt us when President Bush next pushes for warrantless eavesdropping on domestic communications. The argument now is that if al-Qaeda is calling into the U.S., Bush wants to know who they are calling. The argument soon will be that if al-Qaeda is calling from within the U.S., Bush wants to know about it. We will see an increased focus on domestic terror cells in the coming months, with a push to erase all checks on the President's authority related to eavesdropping.

A quote from Senator Specter's bill:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.

Without a definition of 'foreign powers and agents of foreign powers' Senator Specter is creating an obvious loophole for future and increased domestic espionage by the Bush administration.

With a complicit Congress, President Bush is poised to realize the greatest coup of all time: the creation of a fascist America.

President Bush, 12/18/2000: If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Domestic Espionage=Check Please

Technorati Profile

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

President Bush announced that the US has been keeping suspected terrorists at CIA run black sites in foreign countries. He said that some of the main players responsible for 9/11 will be moved to Guantanamo, as the CIA has extracted as much information from them as they are going to get. I've heard and read different reactions, ranging from finally President Bush is being honest to President Bush is being strong on terrorism.

The real reason for the sudden announcement? Dirty politics. By moving the people directly responsible for 9/11 to Guantanamo, President Bush is challenging Congress to now defy his requests for legislation authorizing him to prosecute using military tribunals. The Supreme Court already shot him down, and now he needs Congress to make it legal.

The scenario should play out this way: the Republican Bloc will create rubber-stamp legislation giving the President too much authority. The Dems won't go along with it and the Republicans will start in with their 'Democrats are soft on terror' tirade just in time for the November elections. He isn't being either honest or strong on terror, he is once again politicizing 9/11 and putting America last.

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

President Bush Press Conference

From CBS News.

Molten Carbon

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

Here's a short and incomplete comparison of various statements by President Bush and statements made by President Nixon during his November 3, 1969 televised speech. At least we know where he gets his talking points, and they aren't from Rove. I've highlighted some of the more egregious examples of plagiarism:

Nixon:

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

Bush:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Nixon:

The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Bush:

As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory.

Nixon:

We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at the time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.

Bush: via Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman:

There should not be hard and fast timetables associated with our force adjustments..the commanders on the ground need the flexibility to be able to adjust the troop levels based on the conditions that exist.

Nixon:

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand...an announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

Bush:

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

Nixon:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.

Bush:

There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done. Period. And they're wrong.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me...this has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

$230 Million = Chump Change

President Bush is playing big politics with the announcement that he will make available $230 million for the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon. One estimate puts the reconstruction costs at $3.6 billion and lost tourism revenue at $1.5 billion, with the Jiyahh power station oil spill clean up efforts alone to top $64 million.

What about other countries? How are they helping out? Kuwait has pledged almost 3.5 times as much as the US to the tune of $800 million. Saudi Arabia? 2 times with $500 million guaranteed. The interesting thing is that Lebanon was founded as an enclave for Christians who still make up 40 percent of the population, but these Arab countries don't seem to have any problem with that. From the Kuwaiti Times:

"We Kuwaitis support all the Lebanese people from Muslims to Christians and donating is the least we can do," said Abdullah, a Kuwaiti who owns a summer home in Lebanon.

We spend $250 million a DAY in Iraq, not to mention the $110 BILLION alloted to the Katrina cleanup efforts/scandal. Is $230 million really going to do anything? Its a strange and duplicitous person who gives political cover to one government as they destroy another country and then offers a consolance package worth a couple hundred million for the trouble.

$230 Million = Chump Change

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

I received an update on the liquid explosives debacle from a commenter on a diary post over at Kos' place. Here's how it starts, from the Associated Press:

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the
Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

Who'd a Thunk?

How can it be that after spending billions of dollars on the 'War on Terror' that this week, 5 years after 9/11, we collectively as a nation found out that the Department of Homeland Security hasn't equipped a single airport with the technology to detect liquid explosives? It must have been a small threat, less likely than someone taking over a plane with nail clippers because while I've had my clippers confiscated, they've looked the other way when it came to my sun tan lotion or that big bottle of green Gatorade tucked into the outside pocket of my backpack. Do we really trust that it just wasn't on their radar? The first return from a Google search of the phrase 'liquid explosives' is a site with a recipe for:

Astrolite A-1-5, said to be the world's MOST POWERFUL NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, and Astrolite-G, claimed to be the world's highest detonation-velocity liquid explosive

There are plenty of reports coming to the defense of DHS claiming that they knew about this risk and have been planning for it, but if so, why didn't they start confiscating liquids and gels prior to this week? Are we waiting on technology to protect us from a threat that now the DHS believes can be eliminated by asking people to voluntarily hand over the banned items? The only way to deal with this right is by using the Israeli method: hand search everything.

If the Bush administration is serious about defeating terrorists, then they'd better start getting serious about how they manage the problem. Throwing more money at Iraq to referee a centuries old grudge-match between Sunni and Shia isn't going to stop the real al-Qaeda threat, but then again it appears that neither will the current DHS strategies, or lack thereof.

Molten Carbon DailyKos Diary Entry

This clip, though funny, is actually about right>>