Bush administration: Let's do more domestic spying

A spy program, dubious legal authority, and an agency head determined to go ahead regardless? Just the latest episode in the Bush Administration's serial: You Weren't Really Using Those Civil Liberties, Were You?

Here's my favorite part. After submitting woefully incomplete documents about the program to Congress, the Department of Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff said:

"There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans," Chertoff wrote..."I think we've fully addressed anybody's concerns,"

Now that you say it like that...

Domestic spying began BEFORE 9/11

Yeah, I got a shock when I read that. I figured the Bush Administration, for all its dictatorial hubris, had at least waited until after 9/11 to start assaulting civil liberties.

Nope.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [link]

The false dichotomy of privacy (or liberty) v. security

Think that we all have to give up some privacy to be safe from the 21st century threats of terrorism? You must work for the Bush Administration:

In order for cyberspace to be policed, internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with [Director of National Intelligence] McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

Most accept that dichtomy, says Bruce Schneier. Problem is, it's a false one. He starts with several examples, such as stronger cockpit doors on airplanes or deadbolt locks on homes. There's no loss of privacy.

Instead, the only conflicts occur when security involves issues of identity (e.g. national ID cards). And in these cases, the government has either lied or misled the public about their effectiveness. The most effective security measures are the few immediate post-9/11 ones:

Since 9/11, two -- or maybe three -- things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.

For more, read his entire 2-page essay.

President Bush: a French terrorist?

Nothing like a little historical perspective on our "War on Terror" to make you think twice about who the terrorists are. A historian compares today's war with the French Revolution, defined by the Jacobins.

The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.

Read on for more on how failing to understand history dooms us to repeat it.

Are Congressional Republicans that ashamed of the Constitution?

In response to legislation curtailing the warrantless wiretapping and other illegal surveillance techniques used by President Bush's administration, many Congressional Republicans have expressed dismay:

The measure "extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.).

I thought that Iraq represented an opportunity to spread democracy and American political values beyond our borders. So why would we be ashamed to extend our Constitution - the enumeration of our values - beyond American soil?

The correlation between royal edict and illegal behavior

In a small sample of laws that President Bush has issued signing statements regarding, the Government Accountability Office has found that in 6 of 19 cases, the federal agencies responsible for following the law have coincidentally decided to ignore it. This extra-legal action, done via "signing statements," happens when the President essentially tells federal agencies and departments that his executive authority allows him to void certain parts of Congressional acts. The president has issued more than 1100 such directives to federal agencies during his term, more than all prior presidents combined.

I previously blogged on the intellectual grounding of this philosophy, essentially that Mr Bush is a uniquely princely president who is simply taking up the previously unwielded - yet legitimate - executive power.

The GAO study doesn't reveal the full extent of the signing statements, because the study could only cover unclassified rulings:

In his signing statement of Oct. 18, 2005, Bush instructed the border patrol to view the "relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory" on the assertion that only the president has the constitutional authority to decide how to deploy law enforcement officers.

None of the laws the GAO investigated included the president's most controversial claims involving national security, such as his assertion that he can set aside a torture ban and new oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act because he is the commander in chief. Such material is classified.

In other words, it's still unclear as to whether rule of law or rule of Bush is governing the War on Terror. And sadly, the success rate of the latter is a lot lower.

The man who would be king

After viewing the Jon Stewart - Bill Moyers discussion yesterday, I was left pondering Stewart's argument about the President: that his underlings take the fall when the President steps on the law. Today I came across several interesting tidbits on the administration's assertion that Bush is above the law.

One writer at Dailykos notes that Bush's decision to veto the war legislation differs from his previous use of a signing statement to essentially ignore certain portions of the law. Previously, Bush has asserted the power of the executive by simply ignoring directives of Congress or laws that he feels impede his role as Commander-in-Chief. In this,

Another post from a Kossack says that the academic underpinning to Bush's extralegal manuevers is essentially this: by being President, Bush is above the law. He quotes extensively from blogger Glenn Greenwald, who digs through the academic-speak to the point:

In that article, Mansfied claimed, among other things, that our "enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force"; that the "Office of President" is "larger than the law"; that "the rule of law is not enough to run a government"; that "ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion"; that "with one person in charge we can have both secrecy and responsibility"; and most of all:

Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply.

"Law does not apply" -- that is Mansfield's belief, and the belief of the Bush movement. (emphasis from dKos)

And how do Americans respond to such actions? We could start by listing our grievances regarding President Bush:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records...He has obstructed the Administration of Justice...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people...He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

The last time we had these grievances, we took this action:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Or we could help Congress re-assert the rule of law.

RNC 2004: NYPD spied on dissenters

If you thought Michael Moore overdramatized the FBI spying on antiwar protesters in Fahrenheit 9/11, you should re-think. Recent news stories reveal that the NYPD spent two years prior to the Republican National Convention in 2004 spying on Americans who planned to protest or who demonstrated disagreement with the Republicans. Shadoweyes says it well:

I feel much more compelled to voice dissent to this political system that so consistently punishes dissent while bragging about being the most free country in the world.

So, once again the country's law enforcement shows little respect for free speech. But you didn't hear it from me...

Alberto Gonzales, this song's for you

In the Sunday talk shows (the Congressional opinion forecast service), a lot of Republicans are giving a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And although it's only been the recent scandal of firing U.S. attorneys general for political reasons, it's also worth noting our lead defender of justice's thoughts on the Geneva Conventions ("quaint") and warrantless wiretapping (it's good for us).

So, in honor of the pending ouster of Gonzales and the victory it represents for civil liberties, rule of law, and the American Way, I dedicate this song to you, Mr. Gonzales.

Update 11:15am: (ignore the video, it's the only way I could find this song)

Real American Hero

The breakup of unified Republican control of government has restored the checks and balances to our democracy and few examples have illustrated it as well as this letter from a citizen who was served a National Security Letter and refused to take it sitting down.

These letters have been sent to citizens by the FBI - over 140,000 of them since 2003 - to demand certain sensitive information. The letters, authorized by the "Patriot" Act, require no judicial oversight and are accompanied by a gag order preventing the recipient from telling anyone that they've even received the letter. In other words, it's something you'd expect to hear about in a spy movie about Communist Russia, not in the United States.

This citizen refused to give up his rights. He sought legal counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and was successful in getting the FBI to back off from its information request. However, the FBI refused to remove the gag order and this man is still prevented from telling his family and friends about the letter he received, its contents, or why he's been meeting with so many lawyers.

So, even after successfully defending his right to habeus corpus, the man continues the fight for civil liberties. In his anonymous letter to the Washington Post - anonymous to protect him from breaking the gag order - he argues that, among other things, the gag order violates his right to petition his representatives for changes to the Patriot Act, because he is barred from discussing his receipt of said letter.

This man, unlike the Republican-sponsored legislation, is no pretender to the term "patriot" and no stranger to the cause of liberty.

Please give Big Brother the smackdown

Seriously, how many times do we have to needlessly trample civil liberties and privacy before we stop letting government profile us?

The Homeland Security Department recently revealed its Automated Targeting System (ATS) that tracks things like what meal you asked for on the plane, when and where you flew, how you paid for your tickets, and seating preference. How useful is this information in catching terrorists?

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists.

If you haven't spoken bureaucratese lately, that means ZERO. But it does make sure that my dad gets padded down every time he flies and that despite sending in all sorts of information to the government to try to get off the "watch list," he still has to go through extra security rigmarole every time.

This revelation is in face of research at MIT suggesting (as it has for some time) that random searches will beat computerized profiling any day, especially when we're dealing with potential suicide bombers.

But instead of searching potential terrorists, we're recording their seat and meal preferences.

I feel safer.

Open the books, Uncle Sam

One of the main ideas behind American government is that the people rule. And flowing from this principle is the concept that people should be informed so that they make good choices. Laws like the Freedom of Information Act - turning 40 this year - were designed to ensure that the public has access to documentation of the government's business. So what's with the dramatically increasing level of government secrecy?

This kind of restriction is what's happening to American government, as increased secrecy removes a lot of public decisions from the scrutiny of citizens. And since citizens are supposed to hold the power in a country with democratic self-rule, secrecy is the enemy of effective and responsive government. If you don't buy it from me, check out Jimmy Carter's recent commentary or view the secrecy video at openthegovernment.org.