By now you have all read this:
The Justice Department said on Friday that it had opened a criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a secret National Security Agency program under which President Bush authorized eavesdropping on people in the United States without court warrants.
The investigation began in recent days after a formal referral from the security agency regarding the leak, federal officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the investigation.
The program, whose existence was revealed in an article in The New York Times on Dec. 16, has provoked sharp criticism from civil liberties groups, some members of Congress and some former intelligence officials who believe that it circumvents the law governing national security eavesdropping.
President Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales have vigorously defended the program as a legal, critical defense against terrorism that has helped prevent attacks in this country. They say Mr. Bush’s executive order authorizing the program is constitutional as part of his powers as commander in chief and under the resolution passed by Congress days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That resolution authorized the use of force against terrorists.
The White House said on Friday that it had played no role in the Justice Department’s decision. But in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush has been all week, a spokesman was sent to talk to reporters with a prepared statement about the decision.
Does this mean the Justice Department has taken the position that the Bush wiretapping bit was legal? The ACLU has taken the position (and I am sure it will soon be echoed around the left wng of the blogosphere) that the leakers are heroes and whistleblowers. If they are in fact whistleblowers, how can an investigation go forward? It would seem to me the first thing that needs to be done is that Justice has to determine the law was or was not broken, then they can investigate.
And since I am asking so many damned questions, do lions and big game cats purr like domesticated cats?
*** Update ***
A GINORMOUS round-up of reactions to the investigation can be found here.
marc
Yes they do.
capelza
“Lions do occasionally purr, but they are different from house cats in that purring is not common or important in their social life. Also, lions make a sound only as they exhale instead of continuously the way house cats do.”
Got that from a google search…I want to know if they “make biscuits” as well…that would be painful on my chest.
As I have been roving around I have seen this subject and it was noted that the Bush Admin knew last year that the NYT was working on this story. The talk was that they didn’t do it then because they didn’t know the damage would be so high. Whether this is true or not I don’t know, but it does seem to follow the classic Bush pattern.
ppGaz
Having this Justice Dept and administration essentially investigate itself, wrt the legality of the wiretaps, is a real confidence builder. I haven’t felt this warm and fuzzy toward those goodhearted folks in DC since Nixon and Mitchell.
Aside from the echomonkeys like Darrell and Stormy, is there anyone out there who doesn’t think that this new “investigation” is a planned diversion from the shitstorm that is coming their way in 2006? DeLay, Abramoff, Rove …
These lying buttheads have perfected the art of dividing America to govern it. It’s my sincere hope that they pay a steep price for it, and that 2006 is the year in which that begins to happen.
Paul Wartenberg
According to the Wiki entry on Purr, I found this:
We’ll just have to see what the Britannica says on the matter, eh?
CaseyL
I’m a former zoo docent, and know whereof I speak.
Cougars are the biggest cats that actually ‘purr.’ I have heard a cougar purr. It’s a wonderful bone-rattling sound.
The purr is a vibration of a specific bone (IIRC, it’s a bone, not a muscle) in the larynx – and that bone is just too big in the great cats to make a purr. They do make a happy noise, but it don’t sound like no purr.
demimondian
Hmm. Paul, from what I know of felidae (admittedly, never one of “my” experimental genera), I doubt that explanation. IIRC — and it’s been a while — the actual mechanism underlying purring is in some dispute. My personal opinion always lay with the Bernoulli effect that humans use for speaking, however.
demimondian
CL — a bone? Or a vibration of the bones of the larynx triggered by inhalation and exhalation?
Paddy O'Shea
All this kitty talk reminds me of a sign I saw in a tavern a while back: “So many cats, so few recipes.”
As far as the Justice Dept investigation into whoever it was that had the temerity to leak news of the boss’s espionage crime spree, pretty much strikes me as standard damage control. This is more about putting fear into the hearts of any potential future leakers than exacting any punishment upon those who did it in the past. Not that the Bushies have any love for whistleblowers, mind you. And I’m sure they’ll attempt to jump ugly with anyone they catch. But the first priority at the White House has to be making sure nothing else comes out. They’re attempting to lock the place down in anticipation of the hearings that will take place in the Senate come January.
Let’s not get too melodramatic over this. After all, none of this stuff worked for Dick Nixon.
jg
Doesn anyone expect the DOJ to say come to any conclusion except ‘You’re doing a grest job Bushie.’
Paddy O'Shea
Here’s an interesting piece of writing for the great intellects of Balloon Juice to ponder and speculate upon …
Barron’s on the possibility of impeaching George W. Bush over his NSA shenanigans: “The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws.”
Now this is big rightwing money talking. Why would so conservative a publication as Barron’s (owned by the Wall street Journal) be talking about the possibility of impeachment for the Vanity Ranch Cowboy?
Apparently Wall Street is just a little upset about the possibility of Bushies and their hirelings illegally snooping upon electronic trading data. Apparently they are not entirely convinced that these folks have limited themselves to listening in on Osama operatives alone.
If anything it shows that they do not hold these people in very high regard.
Anyway, I don’t know about you guys, but I’ll bet I could parlay the equity in my property into quite a fortune if I was able to listen in on some of that kind of stuff.
http://portlandleft.blogspot.com/2005/12/barrons-editorial-impeach.html
Emma Zahn
Aren’t there two (or more) laws being broken?
Didn’t Bush admit to breaking the law and even said he would continue in the interests of national security.
But revealing classified information is also illegal. Why do you have to prove the first to prosecute the second?
CaseyL
Well, that’s a really huge can of worms to open.
First, was the wiretap/datamining ‘classified’ because it was vital to national security – or because it was done illegally? The Bush Admin isn’t the first to use security classification to cover its own ass, but it sure has made a high art of the exercise.
And there are laws which protect whistleblowers, though I have no idea if that law protects whistleblowers who leak classified information.
For me, it simply comes down to what kind of country this is supposed to be.
If we’re a democratic republic, we as The People have to know what our government’s up to. Citizens can’t make intelligent political/electoral decisions in an information vacuum. This is especially, acutely true when politicians have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution – I think it’s pretty damned relevant when they break that oath, and I think we need to know about it.
If we’re a nation of laws-not-men, then using security classification to cover up illegal acts is an abuse of power. Period.
And saying ‘we’re at war’ doesn’t cut it, not one little bit. Putting the President above the law – and telling us it’s OK because we’re ‘at war’ – begs a lot of questions no one has answered:
Who, exactly, are we at war with?
How long, exactly, is the war supposed to last – and what are the conditions for victory?
Are we expected to put our civil liberties aside for the entire duration of that war – no matter how long it lasts?
Are we expected to allow the President unlimited powers for the duration of that war – no matter how long it lasts, and no matter what use the President makes of those unlimited powers?
I have yet to hear any Bush/WoT supporter answer any of those questions.
Paddy O'Shea
ACLU ad in the New York Times that apparently has the totalitarian right in a panty-twisting rage:
http://www.aclu.org/images/bushnixonwiretappingnytad.jpg
DwightKSchrute
Wait a second, so Bush talks to the NYT about a year ago pleadng with them not to break this story. At that point the fact there was a leak is clearly evident. But it’s only AFTER the story goes public and our dear leader has egg all over his face that they decide to investigate the leak. Actually from everything I’ve seen from this administration it seems about right. Move along these are not the droids you’re looking for.
Pooh
That’s about right. The illegality of the program doesn’t neccesarily bear on whether disclosure is a crime. (Remember, the senators who were briefed did so subject to a gag order.) I’m not sure, but I don’t think there is whistleblower protection for disclosing ‘classified’ stuff.
That being said, it’s slightly problematic (/understatement) that the investigation is stating now, not a year ago. However, just because the prosecution is transparently political, it doesn’t mean the law wasn’t broken.
As far as the President, the DoJ is hopelessly conflicted – this is the exact situation or which the Independant Prosecutor was created.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
You forgot: If we are truly at war, why hasn’t the president put America on a true wartime posture, with a draft, turnign the economy away from consumer production, etc.? Or are we fighting this war on the half-ass?
tbrosz
I thought the Department of Justice waded in on the legality issue a week ago.
I would like to see Fitzgerald on this case.
Pooh
Casey, those are good questions. HOWEVER, the rule of law has to apply to those who leak classified information as well. To my mind incentivizing classified leaks is, in general, a bad thing – you’d better be sure you are right and you are reporting actual lawbreaking.
dorkafork
“Does this mean the Justice Department has taken the position that the Bush wiretapping bit was legal?” Well, wasn’t that what that letter was all about?
p.lukasiak
Does this mean the Justice Department has taken the position that the Bush wiretapping bit was legal?
no, it doesn’t mean that, at least officially. Officially what has happened is that the NSA has decided that the wiretaps are legal (big shock there, since they were doing the warrantless wiretaps), and referred the matter to the Justice Department for investigation into possible violations of laws against leaking classified information.
(i.e. a course that is pretty much parrallel to the Plame investigation, in which the CIA referred the leak to the Justice Department based for investigation of possible violation of the law protecting covert agents.)
The question of whether or not the wiretaps were legal will not necessarily be decisive to actions taken pursuant to this case, because there are multiple sources involved, which means a potential for multiple motivations.
In other words, lets assume that the wiretaps were illegal. Source A who works for the NSA, and who believed the wiretaps were illegal talks to a reporter to “blow the whistle”. The reporter then calls source B in the NSA, who was involved in the wiretapping under the assumption that the wiretaps were legal, and who confirms their existence to the reporter, but points blame for any problems to a third person.
Source B might not be protected, because he isn’t motivated by “whistleblowing”, but is merely covering his ass.
Or lets say that the leaker is someone in the State Department, who upon finding out about the warrantless wiretaps asked State Department legal officials if it was hypothetically possible (and without disclosing that the question was anything more than hypothetical) for such wiretaps to be legal, and is told “no.” The source, believing that the wiretaps are illegal, blows the whistle, and may in fact be covered by “whistleblower” laws even if it is determined that the wiretaps are legal.
The fact that the Bush administration “cherry picked” the lawyers that it consulted to determine the “legality” of what it was doing is going to make it very difficult to prove that a leaker was not “whistleblowing”, given that the overwhelming majority of informed opinion on the issue of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens is that they aren’t legal.
Any finding by the Justice Department’s criminal investigations unit (and note here that these are lawyers who were not cherry picked) that asserts that the wiretaps were legal, and further asserts that the whistleblower laws are not relevant based on the finding that the wiretaps were legal is going to wind up in front of the courts….
— and the courts are likely to take an extremely skeptical view of an executive assertion that the President can over-ride the clear intent of the Fourth Amendment, especially given the fact that Congress had gone to considerable length to define the limits of security wiretaps in FISA, and had amended FISA to extend those limits in the wake of 9-11 in the Patriot Act.
p.lukasiak
BTW, because the Attorney General was involved in making the determination that it was legal to place wiretaps on American citizens without warrants, the obvious conflict of interest here will pretty much assure that any prosecutions will have to be taken out of the Justice Department bureaucracy, and placed under the control of a special prosecutor.
leefranke
Even if the DOJ determines the wiretaps were legal, who made the call; the career lawyers or the political appointees? Since we all know the political appointees would never overrule the career lawyers in the DoJ, I guess it really does not matter
/sarcasm off
James C.
Mr. Cole says: “…It would seem to me the first thing that needs to be done is that Justice has to determine the law was or was not broken, then they can investigate.”
That was most certainly NOT the process used in the Plame investigation. In the present case, virtually every legal expert, from both sides of the political spectrum, agree that such disclosures were a violation of Federal statutes. I recognize that some of the totally demented LEFT may disagree, but they have about as much credibility as Osama bin Laden does when he speaks of “peace and a better world.”
ppGaz
This story has all the earmarks of the Noise Machine on it.
All your blogs are belong to us: Does the existence of the Blahsphere create the need and the delivery system for the noise that goes with a story like this?
We’ve seen how Satan dba Bushco has co-opted the back end of the MSM delivery system. Is this how they move to co-opt the Blahsphere? If you know what the phrase “The sound of dynamite in the distance” means, then you know what I am talking about.
Is this not the new He Said – She Said, Tastes Great – Less Filling version of government communications?
John Cole, communications professor that you are … how does a democracy endure when the loudest noise in the comm channel is coming from a government intent on drowning what it doesn’t want you to notice?
Ancient Purple
Because words from an anonymous “James C.” carries so much weight.
Vladi G
This is the point that far too few people are making. They could have opened an investigation a year ago without making it public. But things like this only gain importance for this administration when it becomes politically expedient.
James C.
Well, I’m very happy to learn that “Ancient Purple” is not some pseudonym, but a real person’s name.
Pooh
Calm down kids,
Despite the bomb throwing at the end, James is correct. There is potentially plenty of law breaking to go around here.
Before we go all nuts would we really prefer Al “what me worry?” Gonzales to run the investigation.
As far as the ‘noise machine’ bit goes, it seems stupid, as all it does is ensure people saying ‘law breaking’ and ‘White House’ in the same sentance for a long time.
demimondian
As a matter of fact, John, I (this is the real me, the leftie) agree with James C. here. There’s a likely affirmative defense here based on necessity and/or the national interest, but I can’t see any way that the actual disclosures weren’t, technically, illegal.
That said, the investigation by the DoJ may well also be illegal: I would argue that the delay shows that the investigation was primarily intended to intimidate, which might bring it under the purview of the various whistleblower statutes.
Paddy O'Shea
Heh. Tell you what, I’d bet that if the NSA individual who leaked the current source of Snoop George’s embarrassment is ever forced to the surface, within days that person’s name will be known and celebrated by hundreds of millions of people from every corner of the world. There will be a book deal, a movie, thousands of articles, hours of television reports and, of course, vast megabytes of interesting speculation in places such as this.
The man who brought down the president who tried to destroy America’s freedoms. Hell, I’d send him a couple of bucks.
Which is why I suspect we’ll never know who it was. Martyr creation is not what the Bushies are looking for here.
This is all about intimidation and message control, a public relations stunt designed to keep this mess from getting any worse for Bush than it already has. They want to keep other potential whistleblowers from leaking any further revelations while giving the impression that they are working on the side of the law rather than defending themselves from accusations of violating it.
It’s really pretty laughable.
Brian
We had the warm-up to this investigation with the Plame “investigation”. Now THAT was credible, wasn’t it? Proof of its resounding success was the head of Libby on a stake for……..”lying” to the prosecutor about his his contacts!!!!! Fascinating. Just fascinating.
Now, we have someone out there (a senator, a gov’t employee?), known by at least one reporter, who has potentially risked countless lives. Ifs/he’s a “whitleblower”, then by all means s/he should come out into the open so that the American public can applaud his/her patriotism and fearlessness. To heck with their career, because they should be willing to risk all that for principle. That’s what principled people do. If not, will said reporter be willing to go to jail on a different principle?
The boomerang is on its return path. What started as a shout for an investigation into Wilson/Plame (because a LAW WAS BROKEN!) is now being followed by possibly a similar, and more far-reaching, crime that must be investigated for the same reasons. The “good” or “bad” about it is irrelevant.
Personally, I hope the media, namely the NYT and WaPo, get their noses rubbed in another of their failures, but the more important result may be that we realize that Bush is doing nothing illegal, that he does not possess unchecked powers (most reasonable people know this, but reasonable people are a minority on this site), and that the Left has demonstrated, once again, that it cannot be trusted with national security……period.
Happy New Year!
Pooh
Brian you are right, lying in an investigation is only a big deal when a democrat/president does it.
And whose lives were risked here, Col. Jessop?
demimondian
You want the truth, Pooh? *You can’t handle the truth.*
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Fixed.
(Of course, what Paddy wrote still stands but let’s not be naive – the knife cuts both ways.)
Otto Man
Nice post, Brian. I didn’t realize Bizarro World celebrated New Year the same time as our planet.
ppGaz
Well, watch Fox News. They are selling this thing like HSN sells pots and pans. And the meme is simple and obvious:
If Plame is a valid case, then the NSA leak is even more so. You can’t pimp the former and then try to dismiss the latter. It’s the talking point I predict you will hear the most in the coming weeks unless something even noisier happens to deflect from it.
You have to keep in mind that nothing these people do is done without an ulterior, manipluative motive. Nothing, ever.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Brian, has Fitzgerald wrapped up his investigation? Yes or no, please, and explain your answer.
Paddy O'Shea
Gold Star: Oh c’mon, the BS put out by the kooky right is the best kind of publicity you can possibly get.
Kind of like being hated by Snideley Whiplash or Yosemite Sam. Or Elmer Fudd.
Pooh
ppGaz, sure, but even Fox has to keep talking about “NSA leak story” which gets us back to “Bush broke the law” pretty quickly – the people who will forget the latter are nakedly partisan anyway, so who really cares if they get there world reinforced?
jg
The whistleblower deserves a medal. And they can give it to him between pick up basketball games in the prison yard.
demimondian
Hey, whaddya know! Fox News is right about something.
And you know what? If the NSA leakers did it for pure political gain, they should get the same thing that Libby’s going to get.
Brian
Nothing worth responding to, apparently. The responses are typically vacuous.
However, I will respond to the question about the Fitz investigation. It’s true that it’s not over, but if your fantasy of “Fitzmas” is any indication of where it’ll lead, the next phase of the Plame investigation will yield…..zilch. But keep on hopin’, will ya? It’s all you got.
Fantasy “Fitzmas” indictments, fantasy presidents on TV (West Wing, Commander in Chief), fantasies about Bush being impeached, and on and on. And who says that I live in Bizarro World?
Fantasies: they’re all you’ve got. We’re (conservatives and all others with backbones) dealing with the reality of this world while you dither away your lives on nonsense.
jg
Now that was funny, I don’t are what side of the aisle you’re on.
Pooh
That’s funny, you’re here dithering with us. So since we’re dithering, dither me this:
I’ll assume the leakers broke the law if you assume the NSA program also violated the law. Which is worse and why? Discuss…
Otto Man
Apparently, you didn’t get the memo. As Ron Suskind noted:
The White House thinks reality is for liberals and other losers. Get with the program, Brian. (Or Doug, I suppose.)
ppGaz
FOX’s audience does not hear “Bush broke the law.” That’s what you hear. It’s not a fact-based culture over there (on the right). It’s a gotcha-based worldview. Everything is somebody’s “gotcha.”
If his goal is to get back the 8 percent approval layer he loses by being basically silent, then the strategy is working. From 43%, he can just about govern after a fashion. From 33%, not so well. That particular ten percent can be had with a little manipulation. The fact that you and I aren’t in that layer notwithstanding.
They are buying points in an election cycle, and it’s a proven strategy.
Pooh
For those actually interested in the legal issues, Prof. Solove has a good starting place.
And for people not so interested, I give you Peanut Butter-Jelly Time.
Steve J.
And since I am asking so many damned questions, do lions and big game cats purr like domesticated cats?
Some do, as I was surprised to find out years ago when I was watching some PBS program. The cats in question were pretty big, maybe jaguars.
Thomas
This may get applause from the dumb zone of the internets, but it’s really quite stupid. The last thing the Bush administration should want is to put these leakers (all of whom are apparently career officers in the NSA and most likely, very serious about what they do and serious about classified info) in a live-or-die situation, but that’s what they’re going to get.
The really scary thing is maybe some half-wit schemer in the White House or the VP’s office wants a showdown. I can just imagine the NSA repopulated with hand-picked right-wing hacks, all furrowing their energy-executives brows while trying to understand the maths.
Ancient Purple
Right. Because no one on the right said that Fitzpatrick was going to be indicting Joseph Wilson up to the very moment when he indicted….
Joseph WilsonScooter Libby.demimondian
You know, Pooh, I don’t agree with Solove’s conclusions, although I largely agree with his arguments.
In particular, I think that a “journalist shield” law is one of the worst ideas I’ve read in a long time. This is the classic situation for which an affirmative defense is really the right answer. If you’re taking tips from an anonymous source, then you’d better make sure that he or she isn’t pulling a Scooter on you — that’s your responsibility.
ats
If NSA profis felt compelled to leak like this, there is more to this story than we know. Suppose the investigation touches upon the intercepst Bolton once requested?
Libby and Rove were leaking to gain political advantage. The motives of the NSA leakers are subject to conjecture. NSA operatives are not political.
My best guess is that the carreer people wanted to nail Director Hayden for selling them out for another star on his hat.
Pooh
FWIW, I agree to an extent dem – a journalist shield law would create huge definitional problem. Who qualifies? At what point does a partisan hack stop being a ‘journalist’ and start being, well, something else (this obviously goes both ways).
A defense based on good faith reasonable belief of illegality + some degree of frustration at using other channels would seem appropriate.
Pooh
The latest front in the War on
institutional competenceTerror? I might just buy that one…23abl
CONGRESS WANTS ITS OWN DOJ AND MORE FEDERAL UNION JOBS!
DOJ and Pentagon are required to report to the Director of CIA by Congress and this is unethical.
NSA or DIA are all a part of Pentagon and are supposed to report to the Director of CIA, which is controlled by Congress, not the President.
The next Dem President can LOSE the Presidential powers and they’ll be sold off to Congress. One day we can unionize the Pentagon too, but Congress just got WAY TOO GREEDY WITH PLAME/CIA AND FITZ. It is too late to hide their(dems) motives for putting Bush in office.
searp
I really like the comments that see this as a dumb move if the legality of the program is in question. Further detail is almost certain to surface if it helps the leakers.
The net is that the legality of the program is almost certain to get a thorough airing in the courts if someone is charged.
I am happy.
Sojourner
It’s fascinating to read the posts by folks who seem to be begging the administration to take away their rights.
Are you guys really that frightened?
Amazing.
Vladi G
I think former Illinois Governor George Ryan was quoted as saying almost the same thing once. Probably after the first person was indicted in that case. Of course, Ryan was the 66th, and the indictment came more than 5 years after the investigation began. But you just keep believing that Scooter is the only one going down, Brian. I need a good laugh every now and then.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
If the leaker(s) feel the heat, all it will take is exposure of a politically-motivated eavesdrop. Say, Daschel’s campaign HQ in late October 2002. I’d think many administration defenders would take pause after learning of that.
Pooh
No, they’re showing backbone…
Bob In Pacifica
There are bobcats in the area (Pacific Coast). I go walking in the hills and sometimes see one sunning itself out in the open spaces. Do bobcats purr? Do they mate with housecats?
I’m not sure how far the Bush Administration can take this investigation. If they try to prosecute anyone, the legality of the searches has to be adjudicated. Considering they are in the middle of a continuing investigation and indictments of top Administration officials regarding another intelligence leak, at best Bush clarifies his hypocrisy.
The more I read about the psychiatric profile of Adolf Hitler the more he reminds me of Bush. Hitler eventually made political and military decisions (invade the USSR instead of finishing off Britain) in order to annihilate those objects he designated as scapegoats for his self-loathing: Jews, Slavs, homosexuals.
Bush’s presidency has been marked by some really stupid self-destructive actions (also destroying the U.S.). I wonder what secret demons he has that Dubya has projected outside himself, and how his embrace of a doomed war, torture and an insane economic plan fits into his own personal insanity.
Bob In Pacifica
Pooh, that’s not backbone, that’s a stick up their ass.
Sojourner
Protect me, Daddy W!!! I’m afered of dem terruhists!
Boo!
Hiding under the table?
Sojourner
He’s just trying to prove to his daddy that he’s a real man.
We could have avoided a whole lot of tragedy if he’d just stayed on his ranch up to his eyeballs in brush.
Slide
the cat is out of the bag. We are going to get revelation after revelation on this story once everyone gets back from their Christmas vacation. Who was wiretapped? Based on what evidence? Any politicians ? Any Democrats? Any journalists? Did Bolton get intercepts from wiretapped Americans? Who were they? Its going to dribble out day after day. The Bush story that they were just wiretapping al Qaeda associates and people that want to blow up bridges is just not going to stand up. According to the original NYT’s story there were thousands of Americans wiretapped. Are we saying there are that many sleeper cells? How many arrests have their been?
This is a story with legs and no DOJ investigation is going to stop it. Those that bravely risked all and told the NY Times of these crimes are heroes. Their loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States of America and not some criminal temporarily residing in the White House.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Sojourner
Sorry, Slide. The chicken shits don’t understand this concept.
demimondian
No, that’s where the WMD’s are. Just ask the BBC
Pooh
Bob. Duh. I was gently (or not so) mocking Brian’s
The more I think, the more I am baffled as to why they didn’t do the investigation over the last year. Yeah, sure, they are doing ‘damage control’ now, but you can’t un-ring a bell.
Sojourner
Yeh, it’s even funnier now that another 1000 soldiers have died since this first aired.
Sojourner
I’m off to ring in (drink in?) the New Year.
My wish is that the American public will regain its senses and insist that its elected representatives put the best interests of the country ahead of their endless desire for power. May we find a way to get this country back on track so Maci and her generation will have a future to look forward to.
Happy New Year, everyone!
Brian
You have a great new year as well, Sojourner.
We get to enjoy another safe new year thanks to an administration with the balls to fight the fight. Looking back on how attacks from al Qaeda escalated over 8 years, mostly while Clinton was in office (attacks between 93 and 2000), if he was still there we’d be “feeling their pain” (al Qaeda’s) and likely would have experienced the meltdown of a major city. Sure, it’s a guess, but a good one based on history. No more a stretch for me to think this than you thinking Bush is a criminal who should be impeached, eh?
Thanks to your enemy George Bush, you and I can enjoy tonight’s celebration without a thought given in fear of an attack. How do you show your gratitude? Calling for his head and mimicing him as a daddy’s boy, implying he’s a sissy. Think about tipping your glass to this administration, and to the conservative movement, for keeping harm at bay, and for keeping the media honest.
Happy New Year!
demimondian
I don’t think it’s all that surprising.
Initially, I think they thought they had the NYT cowed, and they thought — probably correctly — that the story wasn’t coming out. At that point, doing an investigation would have worked against their goal (keeping the story quiet).
After _l’affaire Miller_, though, I think the NYT editorial staff gave serious thought to whether they were too much in the administration’s pocket, and resuscitated the story. Meanwhile, the administration had lost sight of the story — and were caught completely off-guard when it actually broke.
Pooh
Actually Brian, he was calling you a sissy, but why quibble?
Pooh
Dem, that’s probably about right. Of course, a competent adminstration would have crushed it anyway, just on principle (if that’s not a dirty word…)
Plunger
Generation Why? Answers:
CIA admitted that it had at least one Al Quaeda operative employed at CIA.
The Plame scenario of running and using Iraq based ‘freedom fighters,’ ‘Insurgents,’ ‘Counter Insurgents,’ or ‘Patriots’ in a CIA based operation using the Directorate of Operations and Operations Officers like the way Aimes was used by his CIA trainer to ‘expose’ the Russian ‘enemy’ is not something to pass when considering why these men were ‘tapped.’ They may have been ‘run’ by the CIA employee actually working for Al Queada and as the operative was being run by CIA; so were those who thought the operative was a loyal CIA employee. Plame or Aimes; they turn out the same: Outings of foreign operations officers or other agents or ‘spies.’ Outed because they trusted what they thought was a loyal CIA employee, when, in fact, the CIA employee was being ‘run’ by the Directorate of Operations as a ‘bad’ agent, which then used the CIA employee to out the persons who trusted them. The CIA employee is used by the Directorate of Operations to do the outing of the ‘enemy,’ regardless of their loyalty to the CIA and the US. It is rare that these are American citizens.
Al Maviva
P.Lukasiak stated:
>>>>The fact that the Bush administration “cherry picked” the lawyers that it consulted to determine the “legality” of what it was doing is going to make it very difficult to prove that a leaker was not “whistleblowing”,
According to the commanding general of NSA, the program was vetted through NSA Office of General Counsel, the NSA Inspector General, and WH Counsel, among others. You can cherry pick all you want in the Gonzalez WH Counsel’s Office or at DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel; but it’s much harder to cherry pick a subcabinet agency’s OGC, where maybe one person is a political appointee and the vast majority are career civil servants. Moreover, you cannot cherry pick IG’s offices, they live to embarass whoever happens to be president, or the head of the agency. Attempts to build friendly IG’s offices have generally been very unsuccessful. I’ll point to what Clark Kent Ervin (political appointee) and now ____ Skinner (career IG employee) have done as pretty typical. Y’know all the exposes about how bad DHS is? They are usually based on IG reports that the DHS IG has sent to Congress, which the media then picks up on. Have you checked out the reaming that the DOJ IG gave to Ashcroft, the DOJ and the WH in the wake of the 9/11 immigration related detentions? It’s one for the books. Sorry I don’t have all the names of all the IG’s handy for you, but you could go look up some IG reports, and I think you’d probably agree with my assessment of them. The words “squeal, boy, squeal” would not have seem out of place.
What this means presently is that if the NSA CG spoke accurately, then the NSA IG vetted the monitoring program and thought it was okay. The presence of IG staff in that process is the opposite of cherry picking, unless there is something unusual and wrong with that particular IG shop. You wouldn’t go to an IG, even a political appointee, if you believed your case was weak, and especially not if it was reasonably believed to be illegal. Any IG worth a damn, if he thought a program was illegal, would lay down the law, and if he didn’t get compliance, would run to Congress and the press pretty quickly. That’s how they operate. They don’t really answer to agency heads or the President; they answer in practice to Congress. For many, this means they are a walking violation of separation of powers, but they generally do function as a watchdog against official corruption.
Bob In Pacifica
Pooh, et al, I bet they did investigate. They illegally wiretapped whoever they suspected. It’s just that they can’t use it.
+++
We will be safe at home tonight. Half of the Bay Area is under water, the other half will be under the influence. I’m done pumping out the crawl space in anticipation of the next big rainstorm, which should arrive here around the time of the Bush Bowl at Candlestick tomorrow. Tonight I’m going to pour myself a tall Jameson’s and put my feet up do some reading while the Raiders lose to the Giants.
So, to the community here at Balloon Juice, Happy New Year everyone!
demimondian
Hmm. Good points, Al.
The core problem with the argument is that there was no independent review. Here’s the problem: given the number of scientific and legal reviews that this administration has rewritten, it’s hard to trust the reports from the DOJ. Given, also, the general response from people in the other branches, it’s hard to avoid concern that the executive branch reviews might have been excessively compliant.
Also, without knowing exactly what the terms of the review swere (for instance, if the reviewers were told “this is the opinion of the Office of the White House Counsel on issues a, b, and c”), we can’t gauge how closely the reviews are aligned with the broader understanding of the applicable statutes.
Slide
so if it were vetted so carefully then I guess the administration should have no problem letting the other two branches of government take a lookie see. You DO realize that there are three branches of government right AL? NSA, DOJ, WH Counsel… they are all in the Executive branch… right AL?
Checks and balances doesn’t mean that one guy you can fire will rule on what someone else you can fire did. Three branches AL….. thats our form of government, inconvenient though it must be for wannabe dictators.
Slide
this just blows Al Maviva’s argument to shreds (but what else is new)
if that ain’t fuckin cherry pickin I don’t know what cherry pickin is
Slide
yep, cherry picking at its finest:
Slide
you know Al Maviva I feel your pain. It must be really really hard to make excuses and be an apologist for this criminal administration but you always give it your college try no matter how devastating to your credibility it is. My hat is off to you, not many would be so blindly loyal.
demimondian
Do you mean “crushed the source”? In the middle of the Plame Affair? Karl Rove is not so stupid — the meme would have been “Twice now, this Administration has targetted someone who released a fact that they wanted hidden. Have they no decency?” (Err, sorry, channeling Joe Welch for a moment there.)
I suspect that the threat the WH used on the NYT might have been related to that, too — “So Judith Miller’s gone down. How many more of your reporters do you want to lose?” That kind of changed after the NYT editorial board decided that they’d have been better off without Miller in the first place.
Slide
Oh….. here is the link to the NYT’s story Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program.
Slide
well…. with that I will wish you all (even you Al) a happy New Year. I have a warm wife and a cold bottle of champagne waiting for me. See you all next year.
demimondian
I’m off to celebrate FDDD’s birthday (a day too late, but, hey), and to await the leap second (although, yes, I know that it’s already happened.)
Here’s wishing everyone a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year!
Ancient Purple
And that is really all you have: the fantasy that this administration is doing everything possible to protect you. Never mind the fact the ports are vulnerable or that the chemical plants in the US are sitting ducks. Everyone in Wingnuttia is all giddy with delight that somehow the Republic is uber safe from harm.
Meanwhile, it is still 60 degrees outside here in Phoenix at 9:20 PM and I am going to pour myself a cocktail and step outside and relax.
Happy New Year, all!
Brian
Your intelligence and sharp wit leave me breathless.
Don’t forget to raise a toast to us conservatives tonight, and express your thanks to us for allowing you a safe harbor to behave like a fool and express your idiocy so freely.
tzs
Brian, the problem is we don’t believe you so-called conservatives HAVE done anything to make us safer.
And we’re getting pretty sick of you waving 9-11 in our face and using it as an excuse to run rough-shod over our civil liberties and the checks and balances of this country.
Slide
oh, come on thats a bit unfair. I mean just look how competently FEMA responded to a natural disaster. The steps Bush has taken to put the very best people and resources in the agency that will respond in the event of a terrorist attack shows how much he has made us safer. Those US Citizens that DIED of dehydration in an American city in full view of numerous news crews but no federal aid shows how the great Father has protected us. Thank god conservatives are in power they are so much more efficient at these things. The CEO president has allowed me to sleep safely at night knowing that his all loving and protecting hand is watching over me. Literally.
Al Maviva
Slide, do you even read what anybody writes?
Apparently, three paragraphs are too much for you to read. What I wrote, boiled down into short words you might even read, is that while it is fair to call DOJ and WH Counsel opinions “cherry picking,” but seeking an opinion from the NSA IG would be the opposite of cherry picking, because IG interests are institutionally hostile to any administration’s interest, if that administration is straying from the law.
Got that? I don’t question that the politicals at Justice and at the WH Counsel’s Office are in the President’s pocket. The presence of an IG opinion, so long as it is informed, indicates that something more than mere cherry picking went on. Is this too subtle for you?
Demimondian, you have a fair enough point, but you need to check out the DOJ IG’s reports, which are straight up and not afraid to call “bullshit” on the Administration. Ashcroft was really bloodied by the 9/11 detainees report, which found legal basis for detention in most cases but maltreatment in many instances – overall a failing grade. An IG will occasionally be in an administration’s pocket, but it’s very unusual. IGs are typically call it as they see it, refer potential crimes for prosecution and very willing to speak with Congress, and as a result are feared by the political appointees (and most of the career employees), not used by them.
searp
There were real questions at Justice about the program – see the NYT article today.
Prediction: this one is headed for a long, drawn-out discussion in Congress and the courts. Hard to say what the result will be, but I’d bet that the Prez will have his hand slapped.
Sojourner
Thanks to the conservatives for ignoring all the warnings about 9/11.
Thanks to the conservatives for intentionally misrepresenting the intelligence data and bringing the country into an unnecessary war.
Thanks to the conservatives for re-paying the veterans by cutting their benefits.
Thanks to the conservatives for allowing so many people (including babies – good job, right-to-lifers) to die in New Orleans.
Thanks to the conservatives for tax cuts that have gutted the economy and left no reserve for critical security programs like strengthening ports and chemical plants.
Thanks to the conservatives for legislation that provides huge payoffs to corporations, such as the Medicare drug plan.
Thanks to the conservatives for dishonoring the government: Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney, Rice….
Thanks to the conservatives for undermining science and science education.
Thanks to the conservatives for demonstrating that the government can’t be trusted to do anything. Because with a conservative government, they’re exactly right.
Nah, I didn’t toast any conservatives last night.
Brian
You don’t feel safer now compared with 4 years ago? Okay. Is it because civil liberties have been trampled? Okay. Do you have the American public behind your fears or concerns? Not that I can see. I believe someone further up this thread commented that conservatives are the ones who are afraid, but I don’t feel afraid at all. I can, however, see this fear in comments about how “afraid” and “insecure” you are with Bush in office. To top it all off, you see all these boogeymen trampling over your precious liberties, but you cannot name how this is in fact impacting innocents domestically, or internationally. Bush is doing exactly what he (and Clinton) should have done up to 2001. It’s called “making the nation secure”, and it’s his job that he was elected to do.
Sojourner, you are faithful to the DLC talking points, I’ll give you that. Maybe you can include:
BUSH SPIED, PEOPLE DIED!
Has a great ring of fear, with a bumper-sticker mentality, doesn’t it?
Sojourner
Nope. I don’t. The reality is that baggage screener effectiveness is a joke. Chemical plants are clearly open targets. Getting across the border is a piece of cake. The major players in homeland security have failed to demonstrate any real effectiveness. And who the hell knows who the Bushies are spying on?
I’m not faithful to anybody’s talking points. Nor do I care if the American public is worried about giving up their rights or not. I’M NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP MY RIGHTS. Period. End of story. But then I grew up in a blue state so I am apparently braver than my red state brethren.
He is thoroughly incompetent but I’m not afraid or insecure where Bush is concerned. Frankly, I don’t worry a whole lot about the possibility of my being injured/killed in a terrorist attack. But I do worry about the erosion of rights being pushed by this corrupt administration. Note that folks on the left and the right are concerned about this.
This is an example of the idiotic thinking of the right:
The problem is that WE DON’T KNOW WHO THEY’RE SPYING ON. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Libraries were not allowed to tell anyone if they were required to give up circulation records. Then the Bushies turn around and claim it’s not a problem because no library complained. Maybe you’re stupid enough to fall for that nonsense but I’m not.
Sojourner
And let’s not forget the government’s infiltration of a noted terrorist organization, Quakers against the Iraqi war.
Why are you afraid of Quakers?
demimondian
Why aren’t we hearing about the good things the Quakers are doing?
Err…wait…that doesn’t work, does it?
Sojourner
Good try but… no.
capelza
Don’t forget the terroristic Vegans!
whatsleft
Wow Brian – your willful ignorance of the facts is indeed breathtaking. The polls show that the American people do indeed think that we are less safe, Bush is a lying asshole and conservatives are destroying America. In fact, it is ONLY conservatives that feel differently. The majority of Americans can see past party. It is only those with elephant-colored glasses that refuse to acknowledge what is happening.
As for “toasting” conservatives, I can envision President Hillary (not my choice but your worst nightmare) with her unlimited Presidential powers, courtesy of your benighted party, “toasting” conservatives over a slow fire, because obviously conservatives have been helping terrorists with their refusal to safeguard America in favor of lining their pockets, and the Executive power has the right to torture in the name of freedom. Snap!
Gold Star for Robot Boy
And gay law students!
demimondian
Yeah, gotta be careful about those Vegans with their Miso of Mass Destruction.
ppGaz
Not quite as safe as I felt on September 10, 2001. I had no reason to fear anything that day, did I?
AAMOF, I had tickets to fly across the country on Sept 12. Didn’t get to use ’em though …….
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes, the joke only gets better with “age”!
Bush is so
notfunny, he is such a geniunedickhead of state.Ancient Purple
Yet another shining example of someone who has no concept or understanding of Constitutional law – not even the basic premise.
The thing is, Brian, I don’t need to demonstrate anything at all in order show my “precious liberties” are being trampled upon. There has never been a litmus test to demonstrate that you need your rights. They are my rights. I won’t give them up to appease King George or you or anyone else.
If you want to give up your liberties, please be my guest. (And while you are at it, take your damn curtains/blinds off your windows because if you don’t have anything to hide, you certain don’t need them.) But for myself and others, if you want to step on my liberties, you better expect a fight.
demimondian
No.
I’m sorry, but there’s one peculiar thing that you don’t have the right to do: give up your liberties — and I speak as someone who has lots of things “he can’t say”. I didn’t sign away any liberties when I started handling classified information — instead, I took on additional responsibilities. There’s a world of difference.
I’m sorry, Brian, but I will still fight for your liberties, even if you don’t want them. First, there might come a time when you *do* want them. Second, and more importantly, if I let you give them up, then you become an example of “why they don’t help”. I’ll be glad to let you not exercise them, or to exercise other liberties which add extra burdens to you, but I will not let you give them up.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Is this the Right’s newest talking point: Prove you need your liberties?
Wow. Simply wow.
AP, you live in Arizona too – did you just hear Barry Goldwater do a double backflip in his grave?
James C.
Following are a few brief excerpts from today’s New York Times front page story on the NSA wiretap story:
“…What is known is that in early 2004, about the time of the hospital meeting, the White House suspended parts of the surveillance program for several months and moved ahead with more stringent requirements on the National Security Agency on how the program was used, in part to guard against possible abuses. The Justice Department’s concerns appear to have led, at least in part, to the suspension, and it was the Justice Department that oversaw an audit conducted on the program.
“The audit examined a selection of cases to see how the N.S.A. went about determining that it had probable cause to believe that someone in the United States, including American citizens, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to justify the extraordinary step of eavesdropping on their phone calls and e-mail messages without a court warrant. That review is not known to have found any instances of documented abuses.”
And so according to the New York Times itself….Ancient Purple and you other dimwits that can’t even spell “constitutional law,” let alone understand any aspect of it…”King George” went to extraordinary lengths to seek the DOJ’s approval, suspended parts of the program to address civil liberties concerns, subjected the program to more stringent NSA requirements, and submitted to an audit that is not known to have found any instances of documented abuses.
capelza
Why do I hear “Better Red than Dead” when some folks here talk about trading even the smallest of civil liberites for some nebulous sense of false security?
The tables are turned, or the world is upside down, shoe on the other foot…something like that.
It sounds to me that these same folks would be more comfortable in China. Huge economic growth, but still a society where civil liberties are not part of the program. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what the worry, right?
And yes, I engage in hyperbole…but I do see this trend.
whatsleft
Shorter James C. – “The President’s circle jerk said there were no abuses while they were breaking the law.”
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh, yea!
Well since the “completely independent” DoJ–which has no Bush appointees working there–approves of the program then it must be legal!
And the Bible is inerrant because it says so and since it is inerrant it can’t be wrong.
JesusTap-dancingChrist.
ppGaz
Best line of the year.
Okay, it’s January 1, but that’s just a great line. Funny thing is, it’s the same thick heads saying “b-b-b-but there’s turrists out there!” now as were saying “better DEAD than red” back in the day.
When did those chest-beaters turn into whimpering cowards?
searp
The Prez can have his people sign off from now until the end of time. That does not give him the right to ignore FISA.
The only real issue here is whether the President has the right to ignore existing law, and I’d say that will be judged in the courts. I bet a judge would say that any internal review is simply immaterial.
I also work with security and with secrets. Security and secrets are used to protect our liberties. The Prez seems to misunderstand this as protecting “us”. Big difference, in my opinion. I don’t need his protection, I need him to protect my liberty.
Jason
Well, the notion that one can receive a phone call from an Al Qaeda operative abroad and have any reasonable expectation of privacy is a curious one indeed.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Strap on those jackboots already, Jason.
Richard Bottoms
If some patriots go to jail for revealing the truth, we’ll just welcome them with jobs and book deals when they get out.
Fuck George Bush.
Pat R.
Sure hope someone at FBI is taking down names and numbers of some of the traitors posting on these blogs!
Ancient Purple
Everytime I hear neo-cons claim they are bona fide “conservatives.”
Ancient Purple
How clever of you, James, to completely skip over the paragraph right before the two you quoted. Let me fill in that gap for you:
So, a department oversees itself and does a “secret audit” and you accept it as gospel that there were no abuses.
I am more than willing to be proven wrong that Bush didn’t step on the Constitution in order to get the wiretaps, et. al. The best way for that to happen is for Congressional hearings to shine some light on this issue.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
ats
Sojourner provides a long ironic list of things we should “thank” the conservatives for, but he ignores my top reason.
Thank you, conservatives (starting with Lee Atwater), for so thoroughly poisoning the well of American politics that half the US population goes to bed thinking their neighbors are traitors.
Even in McCarthy’s time most conservatives used the term “dupe” (or at worst “pinko” of “comsymp).” Now even that modest decorum is in the past, as we witnessed a multiple amputee veteran Senator accused of being a friend to terrorists.
It is hard to wax cynical or ironic about something so very low. So low I have never heard anyone attempt any real justification for it (given that Karl’s hands are tied just now).
I have lived in Washington thirty years, and also in Berlin, East and West, but the only real traitor to this nation I ever met was Jonathan Jay Pollard. It is noteworthy that the traitorphobic neocons would like nothing better than to let HIM go.
Now that is irony of the first order.
Sojourner
I agree completely.
T Mag
The leakers are heros? Give me a break. I believe that James Comey was the main source for the story and he leaked the info because he was pissed he was passed over in favor of Gonzales. He’s the same guy who appointed Fitzgerald. He’s got a bone to pick. But there’s no way he gets away with this.
Sojourner
What a shame that the Bush are no longer able to understand that some Americans put country ahead of party. Of course, the Bushies respect only one motive: the drive for power.
How far they have fallen to support this corrupt and incompetent administration.
Pooh
Because, without oversight, we know it’s only those calls that are monitored right? The police would never search your house without good reason right, so why should they have to get a warrant?
Next meme, “Well, the NYT reported that calls are subject to warrant;ess monitoring, so you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in anything you say over the phone.”
demimondian
Amazing. Kind of like the curious idea that you need to…oh, have a reason for imprisioning someone.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Scratch two Republicans: Illinois Sen. Dick Lugar and NY Times columnist William Safire.
And for Safire, it’s personal, dating back to his time in Nixon’s White House:
(Hat tip: Crooks and Liars)
Paddy O'Shea
You can only conclude from reading the thoughtful missives from the Bush Uber Alles crowd here that true believer apologists for this administration are extremist radicals who wouldn’t think twice about destroying the United States Constitution if it meant furthering the consolidation of all governmental power around the interests that control their beloved Vanity Ranch Cowboy.
The mysterious part in all of this is why is it Bush commands such irrational loyalty from these people. It’s not like he wouldn’t sic his dogs on them if they were caught trespassing on a Bush family estate somewhere. Hell, given his noted taste for executions and torture, he’d probably run them over with his pickup truck and charge their families for the tire damage.
Maybe its that Marlboro Man get-up he wears from time to time that gets to them. Makes them feel vulnerable and needy.
ppGaz
Well, IMO, it is not a mystery, and it is not really about Bush at all. Bush is just the current custodian of something larger. I’d explain it to you but I am not particularly interested in hearing a bunch of screeching from the enraged turkeys on the other side.
My email address is the first three letters of my handle, plus “ooding” at rocketmail dot com. Drop me a line and I will send you my Bushmonkey decoder ring.
T Mag
Well, IMO, it is not a mystery, and it is not really about Bush at all. Bush is just the current custodian of something larger.
That is right. It is not a cult of personality.
Paddy O'Shea
W’all ah don’ know what I agrees wid chew, Mr. Guaze. Seems ta me lotta these same folk wuzzn’t all thet in awe ’bout the orifice ah th’ prezzydunt whan Mister Clinton held the diadem. Or Mister Bushy’s pappy, neither.
Y’know what ahm sayin’?
Paddy O'Shea
Now here’s a real shocker. The Daily Kos is handicapping the 2006 elections for MSNBC.
I wonder if MSNBC understands the danger to their reputation here given all the heated controversy about KOS on blogs such as this one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10629288/site/newsweek/
ppGaz
They aren’t in awe of any office or officeholder. They just don’t like the fact that modern liberalism has pretty much swept the western world. They hate it and they’ll root for anything or anyone that sticks it to the modern world. It’s all a zero-sum game to them.
As for MSNBC, they are after page views and cable eyeballs. If references to Kos give them that, they’ll take it.
Sojourner
So what? It’s clearly indicated that he’s a liberal blogger. It’s not like they’re hiding anything – unlike when they used Frank Luntz as a pollster and forgot to mention that he was a hired hack for the Repubs.
Paddy O'Shea
You guys aren’t all that long on the sarcasm tip, are you…
ATS
Why was the FISA court set up at all if it were in any way “understood” that the President had inherent powers to direct NSA to disregard it?
You needn’t look any farther for motivations for the NSA people to leak. The Intel agencies have come to loath this administration (and, take note, they are mostly conservative).
TBone
Being a “whistleblower” in this case isn’t against the law if he is blowing his whistle to someone with a proper security clearance. There are places he could have gone to expose criminal activity (i.e. intelligence committee in congress, FBI, etc.) without violating his non-disclosure agreement, or breaking espionage laws.
However, if the “whistleblower” decided to reveal National Security secrets to someone without the proper clearance…that is a crime no matter how important he thought it was to reveal the information. Bottom line: if that dude gets found out, he will be blowing more than a whistle when he gets to prison.