Wash Times columnist: President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law

Ok, the guy who wrote this column, Bruce Fein, was a Justice Dept official under Ronald Reagan and recently wrote a piece for the Wash Times about how Alito is fabulous because he's just like Scalia and Thomas. This guy is no liberal in conservative clothing. In fact, he's a constitutional scholar. The conservative wing of the Republican party is clearly not happy with what Bush is doing, and thank God. We may have some surprising allies.

Forget our base. We ought to be targeting THEIR base:

President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms....

But there are no checks on NSA errors or abuses, the hallmark of a rule of law as opposed to a rule of men. Truth and accuracy are the first casualties of war. President Bush assured the world Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He was wrong. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared Americans of Japanese ancestry were security threats to justify interning them in concentration camps during World War II. He was wrong. President Lyndon Johnson maintained communists masterminded and funded the massive Vietnam War protests in the United States. He was wrong. To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan's remark to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, President Bush can be trusted in wartime, but only with independent verification....

Mr. Bush acclaimed the secret surveillance as "crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies." But if that were justified, why was Congress not asked for legislative authorization in light of the legal cloud created by FISA and the legislative branch's sympathies shown in the Patriot Act and joint resolution for war? FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute."

....The president maintained that, "As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk." But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?

Read More......

FISA Judge quits over concerns about Bush spying operation

The scandal surrounding Bush's criminal spying program continues to expand and the credibility of the Bush Administration continues to disintegrate:

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Read More......

They were spying on "purely domestic communications"

Okay, so now we learn that there was some "accidental" spying on communications that took place solely within the U.S.

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

Now, how soon before we find out that these weren't accidental or technical glitches? They've already lied about it:

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former N.S.A. director who is now the second-ranking intelligence official in the country, was asked at a White House briefing this week whether there had been any "purely domestic" intercepts under the program.

"The authorization given to N.S.A. by the president requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States," General Hayden answered. "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States."

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales also emphasized that the order only applied to international communications. "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors," he said. "Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States."

Very, very imporant to understand that Gonzales lies.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Oh, yeah, I feel much better now. Bush isn't spying on you when you talk to your neighbor, he's spying on you when you call your friends in France (or Canada). Well I feel much better knowing that. I mean, who cares if the Bush administration illegally spies on me, an American citizen, when I dare to call a fur-in country. I must be some kind of threat, calling those damn foreigners. Read More......

Bush, Frist, Mehlman continue to attack 4 GOP Senators

Craig, Murkowski, Sununu and Hagel have been on the end of vociferous attacks by Bush, Frist and Mehlman over the Patriot act, but they are all standing firm:

For this week, at least, the most striking thing they have in common is an unshaken resolve to oppose the law's proposed renewal despite heated appeals by President Bush. "The senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act must stop their delaying tactics," Bush said Monday. He said he will not sign a temporary extension of the existing law, a plan pushed by Democrats who want to allow House-Senate negotiators to resume talks in hopes of a four-year renewal.

When you have the head of the Republican Party in the mix, you know the whole issue is being set up as partisan politics. That manly stud, Ken Mehlman, sounds just shrill in his outrage, except, the outrage must also be aimed at his own people:

"It's wrong to put politics before national security," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in an interview yesterday, as he visited the Capitol to seek a break in the legislative logjam.

Ken, Ken, Ken, calm down...listen to Senator Sununu who said it's not a partisan issue. Read More......

No surprise, but Bush's Iraqi Elections spin was wrong

Just yesterday, the Criminal-in-Chief praised the Iraqi elections as a major success:

Last night I addressed the nation about our strategy for victory in Iraq, and the historic elections that took place in the country last week. In a nation that once lived by the whims of a brutal dictator, the Iraqi people now enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms, and their leaders now derive their powers from the consent of the government. Millions of Iraqis are looking forward to a future with hope and optimism.

But, today, we learn that might not be so true...and it looks like trouble is brewing:

Sunni and secular political parties angrily claimed Tuesday that last week's Iraqi national election was rigged, demanding a new vote and threatening to leave in shambles the delicate plan to bring Iraq's wary factions together in a new government.

Faced with preliminary vote counts that suggest a strong victory by the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shiite religious parties that dominates the outgoing government, political leaders of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority hinted that insurgent violence would be accelerated by the suspicions of fraud.

Read More......

GOP and Dem. Senators call for investigation of Bush spying

Five Senators, two GOPer and three Dems., want an investigation:

Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority."

Read More......

It'$ Good to Be Tom DeLay

Because you live like royalty, and everyone else pays:

As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants - all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.

E! needs to do an episode because DeLay's been living the life of "filthy rich and famous". Read More......

Open Thread

Been another busy day. Read More......

Conservative scholars say it's impeachable

Hat tip to Think Progress for bringing to our attention the fact that Bruce Fein, who worked in the Reagan Justice Department, and Norm Ornstein, who is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (where Lynne Cheney works) both seem to think Bush's criminal domestic spying operation constitutes an impeachable offense. Read More......

One-day shipping is still available for Christmas. Our newest design.

Read More......

Cheney is right

From AP

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years."

Cheney is right. It's not an accident we haven't been hit since Bush started spying on Americans. Bush always said the terrorist hated us for our freedom. And now that we don't have our freedom anymore, the terrorists got the message they won. Read More......

It's the Constitution, Stupid

The more rational voices in spy discussion (hint hint media, this is your job) might ask a simple question. If this spying is really all about terrorism then isn't it the President's constitutional responsibility to go to Congress and ask that laws - like FISA - be changed to protect America? (Wasn't that where the Patriot Act came from?)

From my perspective, the reason he didn't ask for laws to be changed is quite simple. It's because what they are doing isn't illegal (i.e. it breaks a law), it's unconstitutional. To bring this program into compliance with U.S. law, he would have to change the Constitution.

Funny, it's going to be strict construction that brings this Presidency to an early end. Prohibition on illegal search and seizure is a very clear and basic part of the Constitution (as opposed to the more attenuated logic of the Second Amendment):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-- United States Constitution, Amendment IV

Holy moly, that's clarity! Our Founding Fathers left little room for ambiguity. Let's break it down for a moment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,

It is my constitutionally defined RIGHT to be secure in my home against not just illegal, but "unreasonable", search. Moreover, the government may not infringe my rights unless it meets a very clear and unambiguous standard of probable cause, with further instruction that what is to be searched must be identified ahead of time:

but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's a fundamental right with a clear framework providing what is protected (persons, houses, papers, and effects) and limit upon the government's ability to infringe on that right.

If the NSA tapped the communications of all Americans with overseas contact and simply scanned it all for certain keywords, then this President by his own admission has violated the constitutional rights of what could be millions of Americans.

Here's a question that pundits could ramble on about for a while: What is the punishment of a President when he breaks the Constitution?

Setting aside the constitutional question for a moment, it seems fairly clear the President personally violated FISA. Unlike the constitutional breach, the punishment of the President under FISA is clear:

�§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

The President has already admitted that he personally approved the program without the oversight of a search warrant or a court order.

Democrats - and all rational Americans - have a right to be angry. Abuse of power and violations of the Constitution don't get much clearer than this. The President talks a lot about amending the Constitution for things like gay marriage, but he can't ask for laws that protect Americans from terrorism? I'm not buying it. Read More......

Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a "credible threat" of terrorism

Jesus f-in Christ. This has gone far beyond the pale. We need to do something now, and in massive numbers. I've been talking with several of the blogs and politicos in the last few days. This is even worse than I thought.

From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a great organization that was created ten years ago to help overturn the military's anti-gay Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring. "The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

"The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Osburn. "First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is time for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century America."

SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD's total database of information has been made public.

Sources that show the Pentagon keeping tabs on gay groups include this news report:

A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat.

Read More......

Bill Kristol, tell me again why Bush didn't get the warrants AFTER he conducted the searches, which is allowed under current law?

Current law permits Bush to conduct an emergency "search" immediately, without seeking a warrant, and then seek the warrant in the next 72 hours AFTER he conducted the search. i.e., get a retroactive warrant. So why didn't Bush ever go to the court and get the retroactive warrant? It's a federal crime not to do so.

But oh, that question is so inconvenient, so let's not address it when we write op eds in the Washington Post defending Bush's criminality. Read More......

And how is Karl?

Read More......

Judge Rules Against so-called "Intelligent Design"

CNN is reporting that the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania ruled that "Intelligent Design" cannot be taught in public schools in the state. AP has the story:

A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Read More......

Now that we know our government is spying on us, what's the best email/IM encyrption software?

Suggestions? I think we can all use this. Also, is there any encryption for Vonage? Read More......

Rick Santorum: President can do "whatever is necessary"

Really Rick? So that would include taking people's guns away, having background checks at gun shows, keeping permanent federal records on gunowners, repealing the 2nd Amendment? You said "whatever is necessary"?

Just wait until the first shopping mall is attacked by some Saudi with a machine gun, then kiss your guns goodbye. And the best part is that Congress won't have to fire a shot, so to speak - Bush will do it all by executive order and pro-gun Republicans like Rick Santorum will say "hey, whatever is necessary."

From the Philly Inquirer:

"The senator recognizes that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," Santorum spokesman Robert L. Traynham said. "He fully supports the President's ability to protect American lives by going this step in terms of listening in on conversations."

Read More......

Bush is on an anti-leak rampage and the press finds no disconnect

Hello. With all this feigend outrage about leaks, does anyone in the media remember that the White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent who worked on WMD? Quick refresher for the MSM: Two of the most senior White House officials, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were the leakers. So, how does Bush have any credibility ranting about leakers:

Mr. Bush strongly hinted that the government was beginning a leak investigation into how the existence of the program was disclosed. It was first revealed in an article published on The New York Times Web site on Thursday night, though some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists had been omitted.

"We're at war, and we must protect America's secrets," Mr. Bush said. "And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation."

I swear, the media, including too many reporters who cover the White House, are just pathetically weak and incapable of any serious reporting. If they're mean, they might not get a pet nickname from the President. That would ruin their credibility.

I keep thinking about what John Murtha said about the Bush team: Just because they said it, doesn't make it true. That is, unless you're in the MSM. Read More......

Open Thread

Start threading the news... Read More......

New York Transit Strike is on

Haven't seen a labor action like this for a long, long time:

Subways and buses ground to a halt Tuesday morning as transit workers walked off the job at the height of the holiday shopping and tourist season, threatening to plunge the city into chaos by forcing about 7 million daily riders to find new ways to get around.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority has a billion dollar surplus. That should have made negotiating go a lot more smoothly. Pataki's playing hardball to build his political profile. He wants to be your President. Read More......

El Presidente

For those Americans who always dreamed of living in a banana republic, your dream is now a reality. Whether you want to call him King George or El Presidente, it's all the same anyway. Since the Bush team loves talking about the American Revolution so much, did they miss the part where America fought back against a king who wanted absolute power over them? Read More......

Will on the internal spying debate

Bush is going to have his hands full for a while on this one. No wonder he went on the offensive to quickly because when he can't even get the support of George Will he is in trouble. Oh boy, conservative theory is now being thrown into Bush's face again showing that he is not the conservative that he made himself out to be. (He's also not very compassionate.)

The intellectual vigor of conservatism was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck -- de Gaulle was thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War -- that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing.

I'd just say the guy is arrogant and drunk with power. Read More......

NYT: FBI watched Greenpeace, PETA, others for possible terrorist ties

It's time to get mad, really mad. Read More......

Open thread

I'm off to bed Read More......

SCATHING Newsweek piece says Bush committed a crime

I don't think I've ever read anything as scathing as this from the mainstream media. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter lays it on the line and spells out a damn good case for impeachment, which I suspect is what he intended.

I've tried to excerpt the article, but it's impossible - it's that good. Here are some samples, but please read this entire article and pass it around:

President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act....

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism....

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Read More......