Oh what the hell

From tomorrow's Post:

Last week the publication I work for, the German newsweekly Die Zeit, printed one of the controversial caricatures of the prophet Muhammad....

In this jihad over humor, tolerance is disdained by people who demand it of others. The authoritarian governments that claim to speak on behalf of Europe's supposedly oppressed Muslim minorities practice systematic repression against their own religious minorities. They have radicalized what was at first a difficult question. Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules.

Have at it. Read the rest of this post...

While you were out...

Now that blogger has rebooted - man, what a pain - I have slews of updates for you. So, Markos-style, I'm gonne rip through several in one post:

- "Suggest a Humorous Way to Kill Ann Coulter Contest" - about 1 minute 50 into the video.

- What electronic communications was President Washington intercepting?

- What would Osama do?

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program," [Gonzales] said [in his testimony today]. "How can anyone conclude that it is not necessary and appropriate to intercept al Qaeda phone calls?"

Yeah, and I suspect Osama laughs out loud when he sees women having the right to vote in America. So, your point would be, what? No rights that Osama wouldn't approve of?

- Those other presidents who conducted searches during war time, the ones Gonzales repeatedly cited today as proof that what Bush was doing was in line with other presidents, weren't doing it in violation of a federal statute saying they needed to get a warrant. The statute came AFTER all of those other wars. Gonzales knows this, Bush knows this. They're simply bringing up the point to confuse the American public. That's not a serious attempt to explain themselves, it's an attempt to lie. Why do Republicans continue to accept being lied to by their own government?

- Send O'Reilly to Africa.

- Ah freedom. Tastes like... tastes like... dry mouth:

"It's the first time we don't have water during winter," said Jawad Hakeem, resident of a Baghdad suburb. "They say it's a problem with the pipes, but I believe that careless maintenance and corruption are the main factors behind the shortage.

- More domestic spying analysis from Glenn on this morning's C-SPAN before the hearing. Read the rest of this post...

Gonzales: Osama sometimes forgets

Was it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that Gonzales was not quite ready for prime time today? I kept thinking "Harriet Miers in drag." He just seemed like some very sweet guy in way over his head who probably should have never left Texas. And this is the guy Bush wants to put on the Supreme Court? Like I said, Harriet in drag.

From the DCCC:

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)

And you're amazed at some of the communications that exist. And so when you keep sticking it in their face that we're involved in some kind of surveillance, even if it's unclear in these stories, it can't help but make a difference, I think.

BIDEN: Well, I hope you and my distinguished friend from Alabama are right, that they're that stupid and naive because we're much better off if that's the case.

Think they're kidding? The transcript is here. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Oops, I run to a thing and then no one blogs. Too hot, too cold, never right... Read the rest of this post...

Transcript of tonight's ABC News story on phone record privacy is already online

This is on ABC's "World News Tonight" this evening. This is their national evening news broadcast with Bob Woodruff and Elizabeth Vargas (who replaced Peter Jennings), not to be confused with your local hometown news show.

Cool, they did a good job.

Why Are Your Cell Phone Records for Sale?
by Ned Potter

Gen. Wesley Clark — former presidential candidate and the former head of NATO — is a busy man.

He makes a lot of cell phone calls, as documented by the Internet blogger who got his complete bill.

It may be the last thing you think of when using your cell phone, but online information "brokers" have been providing the name and address connected to a cell phone number, an individual's phone number, and even the complete record of outgoing and incoming calls — all for a nominal fee.

"It's a bad feeling," Clark said. "It's like having someone say, you know, 'Here's your wallet. I've been through all of it, and I think we ought to show what all of your credit cards are and how much money you carry around.' It's just a feeling of your privacy is invaded, and it feels that something that is personal, that belongs to you, is just thrown out there."

John Aravosis, the blogger who found Clark's bill, says he's surprised how easy it was. For $89.95, he was able to go to a Web site and get the bill in a single day — no questions asked.

"I wanted to show people that if you can get a general and a presidential candidate's phone records, anybody's privacy could be violated," Aravosis said....

And let me say again what a stand-up guy General Wesley Clark has been on this issue. We really didn't intend to drag him into all this. We put in for the records of a number of famous Washington political types, including George Stephanopoulos of ABC, Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, but General Clark's records were the first ones we got a hit on. And rather than respond by suing us (our fingers remain crossed), or simply refusing to talk about the issue, the general is now taking the lead in advocating for change.

That was never our intent, for him to end up an advocate, but it says something about his character that he chose to become one. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Still watching Gonzales. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senator Graham says Bush's domestic spying justification makes Congress and the court no longer relevant

From ThinkProgress:

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explains the danger of the administration’s legal position:

All I’m saying is the inherent authority argument in its application to me seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war, it deals the Congress and courts out, Mr. Attorney General.

The problem isn’t that the administration is monitoring communications with al Qaeda. That is not only appropriate, it’s essential. The problem is that the legal underpinnings of this particular program, if accepted, would allow for unchecked executive authority.

No president should have unchecked authority, especially not this one.

Read the rest of this post...

AT&T;, MCI and Sprint cooperate with NSA

While you are watching or reading about the Gonzales hearing, think about this... the major telephone companies -- some of the very same companies who can't figure out how web-based companies are able to poach your private cell phone records --they're hot on the trail of "terrorists":

The National Security Agency has secured the cooperation of large telecommunications companies, including AT&T;, MCI and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls by suspected terrorists, according to seven telecommunications executives.

Read the rest of this post...

Ongoing open thread about the domestic spying hearings

Blog away. Read the rest of this post...

I might be on ABC News this evening regarding the phone privacy story

ABC News is slated to run a piece at the end of World News Tonight this evening about the phone records privacy story. They interviewed me for the piece. As always, you never know if something is going to air until it airs, and even then, things get cut. But, if you're interested, check it out and we'll see :-) Read the rest of this post...

Please Support AMERICAblog

It's the first week of the month, and that means it's fundraising week. If you like our work, please support AMERICAblog with a donation, which is the same kind of subscription you'd pay to a newspaper or magazine you like, or the same kind of donation you'd give to an advocacy group whose work you like. We do both, reporting and advocacy, and would appreciate your support.

You can use the yellow boxes in the left-hand column of the blog to make a one-time donation (billed only ONCE) or a recurring donation (billed to you automatically once a month). Either way, thanks as always for your support.

JOHN Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senator Sessions says the newspaper reports on Bush's domestic spy program are wrong

Well, if the news reports are wrong, then Dick Cheney was wrong in saying last week that the NYT story hurt national security by informing our enemies of exactly how we eavesdrop on them. So, Sessions thinks Cheney was wrong. Read the rest of this post...

Feinstein asks Gonzales about Bush saying he never wiretaps without a search warrant

Now Gonzales is saying the president's comments were taken out of context. Uh huh. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senator Grassley now minimizing Valerie Plame leak

Grassley says that he's outraged that no one complains about this program being leaked but they're all upset about Valerie Plame's CIA identity being leaked.

Well, gee, Senator. I can understand how today's breed of Republican, who can't seem to understand why it's important to follow the rule of law, wouldn't understand the difference between outing a CIA agent for personal and political gain, versus outing an illegal program where the US government is spying on American citizens in violation of everything our country stands for. The second case is called whistle-blowing, and it's protected by US law. Why do we have laws on the books protecting something that you now claim is so bad?

I suppose Grassley is also very upset about that leak back in the early 1970s where we had a president breaking into his political opponents' party headquarters. Can we retroactively prosecute Woodward and Bernstein for publishing that terrible leak? Read the rest of this post...

Senator Sessions: 3,000 Americans no longer have their civil rights because they're no longer with us

How low can the Republicans go? Pretty low. Sessions and Cornyn are holding a press event with a family members of the pilot of the American Airlines jet that flew into the Pentagon. And Sessions literally said that there are 3,000 Americans who no longer have civil rights. So, that means, we throw everybody else's civil rights out the window? I can't believe we're being lectured to about civil rights from two Southern Republicans. Astounding.

And, interestingly, the co-pilot of that flight didn't have civil rights when he was alive - he was gay - I'm guessing Sessions and Cornyn aren't too worried about him. Read the rest of this post...

Hearing Open Thread #2

Post-Gonzales opening statement.

SPECTER: Why not take your entire program to the FISA court?

GONZ: (Tries to filibuster, Specter says get to my question)

SPECTER: Why don't you go to FISA court, what do you have to lose if you think you're right?

GONZ: No clear answer. Always considering methods of fighting the war effectively

SPECTER: I would urge the pres to take this matter to the FISA courts.

SPECTER: Member or agent or affiliate of Al Qaeda. So, before there's an interception you're determining that one of the parties is one of the 3.

GONZ: I believe Gen Hayden confirmed that before interception, there is a determination made that we have reasonable grounds to believe that.

SPEC: Can you give us an assurance that this is true. Seems to me that that is a very important statement, and if we were really sure there was an agent or affiliate of Al Qaeda on the line, that would be one thing (I still want to know what is an "affiliate" or "agent" of Al Qaeda?)

SPEC: We contacted Ashcroft, he hasn't said yes or no about testifying (geez why didn't you subpoeana him?). Any objection to Ashcroft testifying?

GONZ: No.

SPEC: Congressional intent about the resolution authorizing force. If it's something you could not likely get then how can you say Congress gave you the authority.

GONZ: In the same press conf I clarified that statement. I said that legislation couldn't be obtained without exposing the program and killing it (Uh, I don't think so, but let's pull up his old quotes).

GONZ: We were attacked...

LEAHY: Yeah, I know we were attacked, I was here when we were attacked. Now answer my question... did you come to the conclusion that you had the authority to spy on Americans without FISA approval pre-9/11.

GONZ: Was shortly after authorization to use military force was passed.

LEAHY: Before or after NSA began spying? (Gonz says his understanding that NSA didn't start spying like this until the prez approved it)

(So here's a question - has any US president wiretapped US citizens in violation of a federal law, and subsequently been found to have done so legally?)

(Gag me, Hatch is now talking about how this war is so different from any other war. Really?)

KENNEDY: We faced a nuclear threat during the cold war (basically, how was that not an equal threat to terrorism, the destruction of the planet?) Read the rest of this post...

Gonzales spy hearing - open thread

UPDATE: See the latest liveblog thread here.

WATCH THE HEARING ONLINE: I can't get it to work, but it's here. You can also watch it here.

SPECTER: FISA has a blanket prohibition against electronic surveillance without a court order.

Probable causes has substantial flexibility.

FISA court has a great reputation, no leaks. When that court has secrets, they keep the secrets. Whether the administration will consider sending this entire program to the court for their evalution? (this was one of the questions we posed last night.)

Ooh, now Specter is warning Gonzales about lying to Congress, it's against the law, and the penalties are equivalent to the penalties for perjury. Yowza. Shot across that bow.

This is the first of a series of hearings, there will be at least two more.

FEINGOLD: Asking why in this case Gonzales is not being sworn, but was sworn in during confirmation. The reason you'd want him sworn is that certain statements were made under oath during confirmation hearing. We'd want him sworn in to answer those sworn statements.

LEAHY: I'd asked earlier that he be sworn in today. Especially because of what he said to Feingold previously, I think he should be sworn.

SPECTER: I reviewed the Feingold transcript, I've reviewed what Gonzales said, I've reviewed the case where Poindexter was convicted of lying under oath, I've reviewed where Oliver North was convicted of perjury, it is my judgment that it is unnecessary to sear the witness?

(why? So is Specter downplaying the lying?)

I asked the Attorney General if he'd mind being sworn in, he said he wouldn't.

(so why is Specter saying no?)

LEAHY: Keeps pushing about swearing him in.

(now they're having a roll call vote to get the Republicans on the record protecting Gonzales from being sworn in.)

FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators. (yowza! that's bitchy. he's questioning whether the proxies given by the missing gop senators really exist and were for the current vote.)

SESSIONS: How dare we question poor Mr. Gonzales' credibility! (uh, because he lied?) It's a question of propriety and good taste (and what do you call lying to congress?)

LEAHY: Question isn't whether the govt should have all the tools necessary to protect the American people, of course it should! President has decided to do it illegally instead of legally.

(okay this is interesting, Specter is letting Leahy rip into Gonzales before the testimony even starts. Yes, the minority gets opening statements, but this iddn't seem to be an opening statement, and now is, I just think it's interesting that Leahy is really ripping into Gonz and calling what he and Bush did illegal outright, and that Specter isn't saying anything (Specter may want to use the Dems to do his dirty work that he's too afraid to do).)

I wish Bush had done a better job and caught bin Laden. My concern is when we see peaceful Quakers being spied upon. When we have babies and nuns being put on special watch lists not being able to fly.

First let me give you a message. Under our Constitution the Congress is an equal branch of government. You need new laws, to amend the law, you come to us and we decide. You have to follow the law. The rule of law. It's the rule under which our nation was followed.

(no response/defense from specter - interesting)

GONZALES: Osama bin Laden, Osama, Osama, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. We're chicken shit, we're chicken shit, we're chicken shit. America has never faced an enemy before, the Revolutionary War was easy, so was the Civil War, and those two World Wars, no big deal - cake walk. This war is different and we're really scared. (Ok, he didn't quite say that, I'm paraphrasing)

Only international communications are allowed to be listened to.

Only if a professional at the NSA deems that one person on the end is Al Qaeda or an affiliate (whatever that means).

(Okay, now he's just lying. So we're to believe that this super secret program that no one could guessed existed (otherwise leaking it wouldn't harm America, and Cheney and Bush told us it did), only involves spying on Al Qaeda phone calls. Uh, then why wouldn't your own deputy attorney general approve it? Why is the fact that this program exists now a problem because Al Qaeda now knows about it - Al Qaeda didn't think we were trying to bug their phone calls into the US?)

Presidents have authorized warrantless searches.

General Washington, letters between british operatives.

Lincoln, warrantless wiretapping of telegraph messages during civil war.

Wilson during WWI, each and every cable, telephone and telegraph into and out of US.

WWII, used listening devices to find spies in US.

(Of course, uh, did we have a FISA law in place that said you couldn't do this? No. Now we have the law in place and it's illegall for Bush to do what he did. You can't say that something was legal 200 years ago but now even when there's a law against it, we're still gonna do it because sGeorge Washington did it.)

Now he's saying the resolution authorizing war is exactly the thing that authorized all of this. So now "all necessary and appropriate force" means spy on Americans without a search warrant. How can anyone say it's not necessary and appropriate to intercept Al Qaeda phone calls?

(Well here's a thought. You guys seem to have a pretty crappy track record hitting your targets. You arrest innocent people, you invade the wrong country, and now you'd like us to assume that you don't need a court order to eavesdrop because you're ONLY going to be spying on Al Qaeda, no mistakes, no Americans accidentally caught up in your net, no over-reaching by your agents. Uh huh.)

Hamdi? Funny, Hamdi was caught on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Kind of different from spying on Quakers in the US.

Oh, now Gonzales is saying that our enemy is watching and smiling because anyone would question Lord God Bush. So the Dems and Specter are making Osama smile. Funny, but had Bush caught Osama, he wouldn't be smiling anymore. Read the rest of this post...

Because the NSA -- and Cheney and Rummy -- would never spy on Americans

The NY Times reminds us that in the pre-FISA days, the NSA had a rich history of spying on Americans:

In 1975, a Senate committee led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho revealed that the N.S.A. had intercepted the phone calls and telegrams of Americans. Then, as now, intelligence officials insisted that only international communications of people linked to dangerous activities were the targets, and that the spying was authorized under the president's constitutional powers. Then, as now, some Republicans complained that the government's most sensitive secrets were being splashed on the front pages of newspapers, while Democrats emphasized the danger to civil liberties.

Both in 1975 and today, officials defending the N.S.A. operation said it had prevented terrorist attacks. And Dick Cheney, who as vice president has overseen secret briefings for selected members of Congress on the N.S.A. program, was in the White House then, too, serving as a deputy to President Gerald R. Ford before succeeding Donald H. Rumsfeld as chief of staff.

What a coincidence. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

This morning, AP's headline reads "Gonzales to Answer Eavesdropping Questions." Hmm. He may "answer" the questions, but there's nothing to say his "answers" will be truthful. In fact, given the history of Gonzales testifying before Congress, it's safe to assume he will lie.

And does anybody really think that the Bush Administration wasn't spying on their political enemies and the media? Read the rest of this post...