Nick got his 1099s yesterday - and went ballistic. I thought it was funny. He blew up my phone for hours, and then sent me text messages telling me that he figured I was afraid of him (fat chance,) that he insisted that I talk to him - which I decided to assign the same priority that he's always given me - and THEN, he called me a fat F(*#^. Oh, boo hoo.
Spent the afternoon yesterday with James from Denver, who was overnighting. We had some fun hanging out, but there was just no chemistry. Which is fine; one can't assume that there will be. Talked about the charter airline that he works for - seems that they have an aircraft or two that would be ideal for Fabulair's use.
While out, I had to make a stop at the bank, and opened up the Fabulair bank accounts. That was a rewarding experience. Next week, I'm opening another account for my consulting business. Also, looked at becoming a regiatered QuickBooks consultant. Just the software discount is worthwhile.
Went to the car show last night, and was just shocked at how awful the quality of US cars seems to be. The Acura RL is the most exquisite and reachable car on the market. VW is now VERY plasticy in the manner of GM cars with their new Jetta and Passat.
Then, I spent a bunch of time last night researching the costs of ownership for the Acrua RL, the Infiniti M35 and (my favorite choice) a used Phaeton. Found a lease assumption on a Phaeton - my cost would be a DOLLAR A MILE with insurance and gasoline. Amazing. Ruby's driver's door is now not working correctly, which is an annoyance, but .. when I add up the costs of keeping her and driving that .. it's a hands-down deal.
And I still want the Phaeton..
Started contemplating ways to generate more income from my consulting website today and yesterday. I think I can do it, but I need some help from some people with better web skills than I have.
Have church tomorrow morning, of course, and then more client work.
I had something relatively profound to talk about, but it's gone.
DJHJD
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
Friday's the last day of the week, isn't it?
What a day I have lined up - hanging out with James from Denver, and trying to haul in the cabbage.
Going to the auto show tonight - that should be fun.
Going to the auto show tonight - that should be fun.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
It just keeps getting funnier
Administration: Nevermind what Bush said yesterday
By kos on George W. Bush
Why are we supposed to believe anything Bush said yesterday when his own administration claims it was all bullshit?
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
Maybe the White House press corps can ask Scotty which parts of the speech Bush meant literally, and which parts were, um, not literal.
By kos on George W. Bush
Why are we supposed to believe anything Bush said yesterday when his own administration claims it was all bullshit?
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
Maybe the White House press corps can ask Scotty which parts of the speech Bush meant literally, and which parts were, um, not literal.
Deju vu - Nixon and the White House tapes ver. 2.01
source article
Fitzgerald Reveals Someone's Been Tampering With Evidence?
by georgia10
Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:17:28 PM PDT
It's only February 1st, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is already having a bad month. First, he has Feingold breathing down his neck about his apparent perjury at his confirmation hearing. Then, Senator Leahy sends him a letter challenging him to explain why the Patriot Act should be reauthorized if the President claims he already has the authority to act unilaterally in the War on Terrorism. Then, Google still refuses to hand over Americans' porn data. And just when poor Alberto thought it couldn't get any worse, Patrick Fitzgerald resurfaces with a startling revelation: someone's been having fun with the delete button at the White House.
Scooter Libby's attorney has requested access to basically all of Fitzgerald's evidence. Mind you, this is an obstruction of justice charge. Yet Libby wants access to essentially all the transcripts and evidence so he can "prove" that he really did just forget about certain conversations. Well, in denying one of Libby's requests, Fitzgerald, in an oh-so-subtle manner, drops a bombshell:
"In an abundance of caution," he writes, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."
How does Fitzgerald know of the existence of emails which have been deleted? Speculation leads us to conclude that either someone told him about the emails, or someone has copies of them. Notice Fitzgerald refers to multiple emails in both the Vice-President's and President's office. Were the emails communications between the two offices? It's also important to note that Fitzgerald states that no evidence "pertinent to the charges against the defendant" have been destroyed. This is a beautiful move by Fitzgerald, because remember, the charges against Libby are obstruction of justice and perjury.
So how does this make the sweat glisten on Gonzales' brow? We all know about the 12 hour gap, that twilight zone between the evening of September 23, 2003 (when Gonzales was informed of the order to preserve evidence) and September 24, 2003 (when Gonzales actually gave the order to retain evidence). But it's not just a 12 hour gap that provided a chance to tamper with the evidence. It's a two week gap. Recall that Gonzales and the rest of the White House lawyers screened every communication before handing it over to Fitzgerald. Democrats at the time cried foul:
Read their reaction on the flip...
* ::
*
"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."
Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.
Gonzales testified about the Plame leak in June 2004. I guarantee Fitzgerald asked him about the destruction of evidence. How can I guarantee that? Well, remember that Fitzgerald wrote to then Acting Attorney General Comey to clarify the scope of his investigation. Comey replied to Fitzgerald as follows (PDF):
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...
I've always wondered why Fitzgerald requested the clarification. The request took place in early 2004. Around the same time, Fitzgerald subpoenaed the records of Air Force One. It is possible that Fitzgerald has known about the existence of deleted communications early on. Did Gonzales' explanation of why he waited 12 hours hold up at the grand jury? Does Fitzgerald indeed have proof that evidence was destroyed? If so, does Fitzgerald have evidence that the Department of Justice tipped the Administration to destroy that evidence?
Whatever the answers, this latest bombshell proves that the CIA leak scandal is still simmering--and administration officials are still squirming.
Fitzgerald Reveals Someone's Been Tampering With Evidence?
by georgia10
Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:17:28 PM PDT
It's only February 1st, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is already having a bad month. First, he has Feingold breathing down his neck about his apparent perjury at his confirmation hearing. Then, Senator Leahy sends him a letter challenging him to explain why the Patriot Act should be reauthorized if the President claims he already has the authority to act unilaterally in the War on Terrorism. Then, Google still refuses to hand over Americans' porn data. And just when poor Alberto thought it couldn't get any worse, Patrick Fitzgerald resurfaces with a startling revelation: someone's been having fun with the delete button at the White House.
Scooter Libby's attorney has requested access to basically all of Fitzgerald's evidence. Mind you, this is an obstruction of justice charge. Yet Libby wants access to essentially all the transcripts and evidence so he can "prove" that he really did just forget about certain conversations. Well, in denying one of Libby's requests, Fitzgerald, in an oh-so-subtle manner, drops a bombshell:
"In an abundance of caution," he writes, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."
How does Fitzgerald know of the existence of emails which have been deleted? Speculation leads us to conclude that either someone told him about the emails, or someone has copies of them. Notice Fitzgerald refers to multiple emails in both the Vice-President's and President's office. Were the emails communications between the two offices? It's also important to note that Fitzgerald states that no evidence "pertinent to the charges against the defendant" have been destroyed. This is a beautiful move by Fitzgerald, because remember, the charges against Libby are obstruction of justice and perjury.
So how does this make the sweat glisten on Gonzales' brow? We all know about the 12 hour gap, that twilight zone between the evening of September 23, 2003 (when Gonzales was informed of the order to preserve evidence) and September 24, 2003 (when Gonzales actually gave the order to retain evidence). But it's not just a 12 hour gap that provided a chance to tamper with the evidence. It's a two week gap. Recall that Gonzales and the rest of the White House lawyers screened every communication before handing it over to Fitzgerald. Democrats at the time cried foul:
Read their reaction on the flip...
* ::
*
"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."
Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.
Gonzales testified about the Plame leak in June 2004. I guarantee Fitzgerald asked him about the destruction of evidence. How can I guarantee that? Well, remember that Fitzgerald wrote to then Acting Attorney General Comey to clarify the scope of his investigation. Comey replied to Fitzgerald as follows (PDF):
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...
I've always wondered why Fitzgerald requested the clarification. The request took place in early 2004. Around the same time, Fitzgerald subpoenaed the records of Air Force One. It is possible that Fitzgerald has known about the existence of deleted communications early on. Did Gonzales' explanation of why he waited 12 hours hold up at the grand jury? Does Fitzgerald indeed have proof that evidence was destroyed? If so, does Fitzgerald have evidence that the Department of Justice tipped the Administration to destroy that evidence?
Whatever the answers, this latest bombshell proves that the CIA leak scandal is still simmering--and administration officials are still squirming.
So, here's why things is the way they is ..
source article
Abramoff and gaming Indians: Just the tip of the iceberg [Updated]
For a couple of weeks now, I've been writing about what I've come to view as the much bigger scandal involving everyone from Jack Abramoff to Gale Norton to Richard Pombo to Grover Norquist, and generally every major Republican in between. It too has to do with Indians, but not only those with gaming operations. In fact, the real actors in this drama are the poorest of Indians, mostly in the West and Plains.
This morning, I tried to summarize the issues in a comment thread at MyDD. It was the first time since starting my research that I've tried to put the "story" down in as few words as possible. Because the fact is, unless people can actually grasp the basics of this scandal, and how it effects not just a few hundred thousand Indians, but everyone in this country, I think it will never make it past a few interested links on Technorati.
So below the jump is my best try to do just that.
* mbw's diary :: ::
*
The story of Jack Abramoff's buying of influence goes well beyond a few Congressional players. While those relationships are key to the story, they're secondary to his cosy relationship with CREA director Italia Federici, her former boss, Sec. of the Interior, Gale Norton, and Deputy Sec. Steven Griles, and this seedy gang's take-over of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). This move, however, was not just to help a few gaming tribes expand their operations - remember, Abramoff dismissed his tribal clients as morons. He was using their money to screw not only tribes in direct competition for part of the gaming pie, but, probably unwittingly, to subvert justice for nearly half the Indians in the country.
The front-burner issue in the Interior Department during this Administration has been the foot-dragging, subverting and outright sabotaging of the largest class action case in US history, Cobell v. Norton. Norton was even slapped with a contempt charge by Judge Royce Lamberth for her part in the matter. Clinton Sec. Bruce Babbitt was also charged with contempt, but the plaintiffs in Cobell assert that while Clinton's people were just incompetent and trying to drag out the clock so they could hand off the problem, Norton has been downright hostile to settling the case, willing to use extreme measures to subvert the court ordered judgment.
Why? Colorado native Norton is of the James Watt school of pillage the environment (she entered the Reagan Administration to work for him) and her entire career has been to forward the interests of oil and gas, mining and forestry industries. And in the West, that means easy access to cheap federal land leases, hundreds of millions of acres of land rich with natural resources.
A large chunk of those federal lands are Indian Trust Fund lands, taken into trust in the late 1800s via the Dawes Act, and leased out to industries, ranchers and farmers at cut-rate prices. The money was then to be managed by Interior and paid out to native landowners. Of course, that didn't happen - hence Cobell v. Norton.
The courts have ordered a full accounting of the Trust. Problem is, many of the documents were destroyed, including a slew of them under Norton. So the plaintiffs decided a few years back that the only way to get a real accounting is to audit the industries' books. That's what makes everyone so nervous, as plaintiff experts, having done some sampling, estimate we're talking over $150 billion in underpayments and fraud, along with interest, of course. Yes, $150 BILLION. And the pressure would be huge for Congress to force a repayment by the guilty. If not, then it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, as the courts have already ordered the accounts be properly audited and brought up to date. Hence, the concern of the oil/gas, mining, ranching, forestry and agriculture interests which use/abuse the land lease process.
So Norton did what she could to subvert the case, but as the heat was turned up, and the Administration losing appeal after appeal, she started pushing for Congressional Republicans to take the case and force a settlement. A settlement for a fraction of the potential amount, but one which would prevent an audit of industry accounts. Who is the chief supporter of a Congressional settlement? None other than the puppet of the oil, gas and mining industry, Richard Pombo. Twice Pombo has written legislation ordering a settlement (both times with no settlement figures, of course), but Delay intervened. Not because he likes Indians, but because he figures that it's safer to stall than to provide even the smallest chance the industry books will be audited. (Delay and most oilmen Congressmen voted against the original Indian Trust Accountability Act back in 1994 - only 36 Reps did.) So from 2002 to 2005, Delay ordered, despite a court order, that no accounting of the trust fund occur (or at least there'd be no funding for it, which, of course, means it doesn't happen.)
This is where Abramoff comes in. He was the slush fund operator. Indians thought they were paying Pombo and others on House Resources and Senate Indian Affairs, et al., for help with gaming issues, and Abramoff was in fact padding coffers necessary to protect the industry from auditing.
Think this is all too far-fetched? Just last week, the NYTimes posted an article on three months' of research into federal land leases (including Indian trust lands) and found rampant fraud and underpayment. In addition, numerous whistleblowers were fired, including Norton and Griles trustee for the BIA, who refused to testify before Congress that the Trust was fine. Accountants and fund managers were fired for doing a good job and finding fraud.
McCain and Pombo are once again pushing for a settlement, and in the increasingly hostile environment for Indians due to success in portraying Abramoff's tribal clients as villains, not victims, they'll most likely get it, at rock-bottom prices. And the industry books will remain safely closed.
That's it in a nutshell. There are a lot of details I left off (Griles' oil/gas/mining lobbying history, the industry's financial support for CREA, which Abramoff used to launder tribal money for anti-environmental causes, the Western Shoshone case, now in front of the UN, payments to key House Resources members just prior to Trust votes, Pombo's bill to sell off the West, etc.) But as I said, if one doesn't understand the underlying motivation, that these industries, which give millions, overwhelmingly to Republicans, are potentially liable for over a hundred billion in fraudulent underpayments, then Abramoff is nothing more than a guy who wanted to pocket some money from stupid Indians, not the slush fund manager in a much bigger game.
Most of the background and links can be found in articles over at Wampum.
[Update:] In case you weren't convinced this isn't a hot button issue for the Bushies, this story just came up on Indianz.com:
Bush punishes BIA budget to pay for Cobell
Thursday, February 2, 2006
The Bush administration has made an across-the-board cut to the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, blaming the reduction on the Cobell trust fund lawsuit.
In an unprecedented letter to tribal leaders, associate Interior deputy secretary Jim Cason announced a $3 million cut to the BIA budget. He said the administration failed to plan for attorney's fees awarded as part of the Cobell case even though the request for fees was pending for more than a year.
As a result, Cason said the BIA forked over $2 million from an account used to "reimburse tribal attorney's fees" and an additional $1 million came from an across-the-board rescission of tribal programs.
This will be more fodder for Congress to "fix Interior's mess and save the Indians", all the while saving their corporate bankrollers.
Abramoff and gaming Indians: Just the tip of the iceberg [Updated]
For a couple of weeks now, I've been writing about what I've come to view as the much bigger scandal involving everyone from Jack Abramoff to Gale Norton to Richard Pombo to Grover Norquist, and generally every major Republican in between. It too has to do with Indians, but not only those with gaming operations. In fact, the real actors in this drama are the poorest of Indians, mostly in the West and Plains.
This morning, I tried to summarize the issues in a comment thread at MyDD. It was the first time since starting my research that I've tried to put the "story" down in as few words as possible. Because the fact is, unless people can actually grasp the basics of this scandal, and how it effects not just a few hundred thousand Indians, but everyone in this country, I think it will never make it past a few interested links on Technorati.
So below the jump is my best try to do just that.
* mbw's diary :: ::
*
The story of Jack Abramoff's buying of influence goes well beyond a few Congressional players. While those relationships are key to the story, they're secondary to his cosy relationship with CREA director Italia Federici, her former boss, Sec. of the Interior, Gale Norton, and Deputy Sec. Steven Griles, and this seedy gang's take-over of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). This move, however, was not just to help a few gaming tribes expand their operations - remember, Abramoff dismissed his tribal clients as morons. He was using their money to screw not only tribes in direct competition for part of the gaming pie, but, probably unwittingly, to subvert justice for nearly half the Indians in the country.
The front-burner issue in the Interior Department during this Administration has been the foot-dragging, subverting and outright sabotaging of the largest class action case in US history, Cobell v. Norton. Norton was even slapped with a contempt charge by Judge Royce Lamberth for her part in the matter. Clinton Sec. Bruce Babbitt was also charged with contempt, but the plaintiffs in Cobell assert that while Clinton's people were just incompetent and trying to drag out the clock so they could hand off the problem, Norton has been downright hostile to settling the case, willing to use extreme measures to subvert the court ordered judgment.
Why? Colorado native Norton is of the James Watt school of pillage the environment (she entered the Reagan Administration to work for him) and her entire career has been to forward the interests of oil and gas, mining and forestry industries. And in the West, that means easy access to cheap federal land leases, hundreds of millions of acres of land rich with natural resources.
A large chunk of those federal lands are Indian Trust Fund lands, taken into trust in the late 1800s via the Dawes Act, and leased out to industries, ranchers and farmers at cut-rate prices. The money was then to be managed by Interior and paid out to native landowners. Of course, that didn't happen - hence Cobell v. Norton.
The courts have ordered a full accounting of the Trust. Problem is, many of the documents were destroyed, including a slew of them under Norton. So the plaintiffs decided a few years back that the only way to get a real accounting is to audit the industries' books. That's what makes everyone so nervous, as plaintiff experts, having done some sampling, estimate we're talking over $150 billion in underpayments and fraud, along with interest, of course. Yes, $150 BILLION. And the pressure would be huge for Congress to force a repayment by the guilty. If not, then it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, as the courts have already ordered the accounts be properly audited and brought up to date. Hence, the concern of the oil/gas, mining, ranching, forestry and agriculture interests which use/abuse the land lease process.
So Norton did what she could to subvert the case, but as the heat was turned up, and the Administration losing appeal after appeal, she started pushing for Congressional Republicans to take the case and force a settlement. A settlement for a fraction of the potential amount, but one which would prevent an audit of industry accounts. Who is the chief supporter of a Congressional settlement? None other than the puppet of the oil, gas and mining industry, Richard Pombo. Twice Pombo has written legislation ordering a settlement (both times with no settlement figures, of course), but Delay intervened. Not because he likes Indians, but because he figures that it's safer to stall than to provide even the smallest chance the industry books will be audited. (Delay and most oilmen Congressmen voted against the original Indian Trust Accountability Act back in 1994 - only 36 Reps did.) So from 2002 to 2005, Delay ordered, despite a court order, that no accounting of the trust fund occur (or at least there'd be no funding for it, which, of course, means it doesn't happen.)
This is where Abramoff comes in. He was the slush fund operator. Indians thought they were paying Pombo and others on House Resources and Senate Indian Affairs, et al., for help with gaming issues, and Abramoff was in fact padding coffers necessary to protect the industry from auditing.
Think this is all too far-fetched? Just last week, the NYTimes posted an article on three months' of research into federal land leases (including Indian trust lands) and found rampant fraud and underpayment. In addition, numerous whistleblowers were fired, including Norton and Griles trustee for the BIA, who refused to testify before Congress that the Trust was fine. Accountants and fund managers were fired for doing a good job and finding fraud.
McCain and Pombo are once again pushing for a settlement, and in the increasingly hostile environment for Indians due to success in portraying Abramoff's tribal clients as villains, not victims, they'll most likely get it, at rock-bottom prices. And the industry books will remain safely closed.
That's it in a nutshell. There are a lot of details I left off (Griles' oil/gas/mining lobbying history, the industry's financial support for CREA, which Abramoff used to launder tribal money for anti-environmental causes, the Western Shoshone case, now in front of the UN, payments to key House Resources members just prior to Trust votes, Pombo's bill to sell off the West, etc.) But as I said, if one doesn't understand the underlying motivation, that these industries, which give millions, overwhelmingly to Republicans, are potentially liable for over a hundred billion in fraudulent underpayments, then Abramoff is nothing more than a guy who wanted to pocket some money from stupid Indians, not the slush fund manager in a much bigger game.
Most of the background and links can be found in articles over at Wampum.
[Update:] In case you weren't convinced this isn't a hot button issue for the Bushies, this story just came up on Indianz.com:
Bush punishes BIA budget to pay for Cobell
Thursday, February 2, 2006
The Bush administration has made an across-the-board cut to the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, blaming the reduction on the Cobell trust fund lawsuit.
In an unprecedented letter to tribal leaders, associate Interior deputy secretary Jim Cason announced a $3 million cut to the BIA budget. He said the administration failed to plan for attorney's fees awarded as part of the Cobell case even though the request for fees was pending for more than a year.
As a result, Cason said the BIA forked over $2 million from an account used to "reimburse tribal attorney's fees" and an additional $1 million came from an across-the-board rescission of tribal programs.
This will be more fodder for Congress to "fix Interior's mess and save the Indians", all the while saving their corporate bankrollers.
Thursday ..
Last night's New Vision board meeting went very well - longer than I had planned; I didn't get out of there until after 11:00 last night, which throws off my whole program for today. I have a ton of work to do that HAS to be done today, not the least of which is getting ready for tonight's class.
How about a quote from "Today's Papers," published by Slate Magazine - which reviews the major US newspapers each morning and prints a synopsis.
Aren't you proud to be a Republican NOW? How do you feel about fiscal responsibility in action?
It's pretty clear to me that we at New Vision have found ourselves a new space to hang our hats. I'm very excited about that. While we've committed to staying where we are through June, I think we also have to be clear about the fact that where we are is very unstable, and they have four months to get it together. If they haven't gotten it together in the last seven months, why should we move forward thinking that they'll get it together now?
We have new people coming in who are very excited and involved, which is a great feeling. And, I was greatly acknowledged by Jesse last Thursday for making things happen down in Clear Lake.
Which reminds me of ALL of the homework I have to do today, and the prep work to be ready for the class on Tuesday night AND the service on Sunday.
My broker approached me about setting up a processing center for all of his offices and running it. I'm weighing the choices.
And, I'm chosing, starting today, to not do work for people who haven't paid. I have been nursing clients along who haven't been paying, or have paid partially, and are still needing new work but paying with excuses.
How about a quote from "Today's Papers," published by Slate Magazine - which reviews the major US newspapers each morning and prints a synopsis.
The New York Times and Washington Post all lead with the House barely passing $40 billion in cuts, mostly to student loans, crop subsidies, and Medicaid. The Senate passed the bill in December, so now it goes to the White House for the president's signature. The Los Angeles Times also leads with the cuts, but focuses on the roughly $2 billion in aid California is expected to lose. USA Today leads with U.S. plan to rehab Iraq's healthcare system running into serious snafus. One hundred eighty clinics were supposed to have been built by December 2005. Number actually finished so far: four. Number that have opened: zero. USAT doesn't mention it, but it appears the administration will not ask for any more Iraq reconstruction money.
The budget bill, which passed by only two votes and got no Democratic support, was pitched by Republican leaders as a key part of a big push to rein in the deficit. It wasn't. As the Post notes, "The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years." That bit of reality comes well-past-the-fold. Instead, higher up we're treated to that ever-informative practice of dueling quotes, including this fine bit of flab from a Republican rep., "American taxpayers, and anyone concerned with the nation's long-term fiscal stability, have won a great victory today."
The NYT plays up the politics of the close vote, then plays dumb: "The vote helped President Bush deliver on his promise to rein in federal spending." The LAT isn't so slow. It notes that not only were the cuts themselves "mild," Congress is about to pump up the deficit a bit. As the House was voting on the budget tweaking, "the Senate was debating a $56-billion tax cut that the House had already passed." The net result of the two measures would "add $16 billion to federal deficits."
Aren't you proud to be a Republican NOW? How do you feel about fiscal responsibility in action?
"Yesterday at a press conference President Bush said he had not seen 'Brokeback Mountain.' However, he did express an interest in drilling for oil there"
---David Letterman
It's pretty clear to me that we at New Vision have found ourselves a new space to hang our hats. I'm very excited about that. While we've committed to staying where we are through June, I think we also have to be clear about the fact that where we are is very unstable, and they have four months to get it together. If they haven't gotten it together in the last seven months, why should we move forward thinking that they'll get it together now?
We have new people coming in who are very excited and involved, which is a great feeling. And, I was greatly acknowledged by Jesse last Thursday for making things happen down in Clear Lake.
Which reminds me of ALL of the homework I have to do today, and the prep work to be ready for the class on Tuesday night AND the service on Sunday.
My broker approached me about setting up a processing center for all of his offices and running it. I'm weighing the choices.
And, I'm chosing, starting today, to not do work for people who haven't paid. I have been nursing clients along who haven't been paying, or have paid partially, and are still needing new work but paying with excuses.
"President Bush is urging all nations to cut off aid to Hamas, including $234 million dollars we were going to send them. In fact, to make sure the money doesn't get there, he's putting FEMA in charge of it."
---Jay Leno
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Those pesky "old laws..."
source article
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
"The FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. ... I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do."
---President Bush on January 27, 2006
C&J agrees wholeheartedly. What this country needs is a good scrubbing behind the ears. It's time to jettison any law that's not laser-etched on 21st Century titanium. If it's over 10 years old, toss it. And we can start with these old laws, since they're just gumming up the works:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Abracadabra! The fourth amendment was written in 1789. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
"Shazam! The seventeenth amendment was written in 1912. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
"Bada-boom Bada-bing! The twenty second amendment was written in 1951. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
Wheee, that was fun! Go ahead and try it. Pick an old law (any old law will do), say the magic words, and watch it---Zzzzzzzing!!!---disappear! And don't forget---there are probably a bunch of city and state laws that are pretty old, too. I said the magic words and now I can shake down old ladies on the street for gas money. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna see what kind of "laws" govern open liquor containers---they must be gettin' pretty old by now too, right?
Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
"The FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. ... I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do."
---President Bush on January 27, 2006
C&J agrees wholeheartedly. What this country needs is a good scrubbing behind the ears. It's time to jettison any law that's not laser-etched on 21st Century titanium. If it's over 10 years old, toss it. And we can start with these old laws, since they're just gumming up the works:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Abracadabra! The fourth amendment was written in 1789. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
"Shazam! The seventeenth amendment was written in 1912. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
"Bada-boom Bada-bing! The twenty second amendment was written in 1951. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."
Wheee, that was fun! Go ahead and try it. Pick an old law (any old law will do), say the magic words, and watch it---Zzzzzzzing!!!---disappear! And don't forget---there are probably a bunch of city and state laws that are pretty old, too. I said the magic words and now I can shake down old ladies on the street for gas money. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna see what kind of "laws" govern open liquor containers---they must be gettin' pretty old by now too, right?
Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]
Let's nuke Iran!!!
source article
Last Friday, I, along with Ron Glick, the co-host of our KDVS 90.3 FM program, Speaking in Tongues, had the opportunity to interview Jorge Hirsch, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego. He discusses the Iranian nuclear energy program, the frightening relaxation of American policy in regard to the first use of nuclear weapons and the prospect that a preemptive war against Iran could result in the use of such weapons by the United States, subjects that he has written about extensively at antiwar.com. A profoundly troubling interview, as war hysteria intensifies.
Go here to listen or download the archived program. It will be available through this Friday, February 3rd, 5pm, Pacific time.
Or, I downloaded it and you can check with me.
Last Friday, I, along with Ron Glick, the co-host of our KDVS 90.3 FM program, Speaking in Tongues, had the opportunity to interview Jorge Hirsch, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego. He discusses the Iranian nuclear energy program, the frightening relaxation of American policy in regard to the first use of nuclear weapons and the prospect that a preemptive war against Iran could result in the use of such weapons by the United States, subjects that he has written about extensively at antiwar.com. A profoundly troubling interview, as war hysteria intensifies.
Go here to listen or download the archived program. It will be available through this Friday, February 3rd, 5pm, Pacific time.
Or, I downloaded it and you can check with me.
Human-animal hybrids?
source article
How many times can this guy give the same speech?
The call for an end to tyranny was straight from his second term inaugural address. The talking heads in the State of the Union postmortems seemed to be enchanted by Bush's distinction between the good war critics and the bad war critics; however, that whole line was boiler-plate from the nineteen thousand terrorists-rejectionists-and-Saddamists speeches he gave in the fall after his numbers dipped below forty. I guess the phrase "addiction to oil" was new, but then again two years ago -- I think it was two years ... it's all starting to blur together -- such sentiments led to an incredibly convincing call for hydrogen cars. Remember that? This year all we got were human-animal hybrids.
Truly a bold stand on that one, by the way. Who exactly is for human-animal hybrids? -- you know what, screw it: I, Joe of American Leftist, am hereby coming out in favor of human-animal hybrids... I think they're desperately important for the good of the human race. We need to focus our best and brightest on that age old goal of mankind: creating a sardonic talking monkey who smokes a pipe and sounds like James Mason.
Perhaps the bold new proposals that Bush didn't propose were of more interest than the rehashed tripe that he did. If you would have asked me three months ago to predict the centerpiece of this year's State of the Union I would have guessed that Bush was going to announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq -- which would have turned out not to be a withdrawal at all but would have coincidentally begun right around the 2006 elections. I bet Karl Rove would have made a similar prediction -- alas, the reality on the ground in Iraq has always had an anti-Bush bias.
UPDATE: The British are, apparently, pro-Human-animal hybrid ... my people, my people.
How many times can this guy give the same speech?
The call for an end to tyranny was straight from his second term inaugural address. The talking heads in the State of the Union postmortems seemed to be enchanted by Bush's distinction between the good war critics and the bad war critics; however, that whole line was boiler-plate from the nineteen thousand terrorists-rejectionists-and-Saddamists speeches he gave in the fall after his numbers dipped below forty. I guess the phrase "addiction to oil" was new, but then again two years ago -- I think it was two years ... it's all starting to blur together -- such sentiments led to an incredibly convincing call for hydrogen cars. Remember that? This year all we got were human-animal hybrids.
Truly a bold stand on that one, by the way. Who exactly is for human-animal hybrids? -- you know what, screw it: I, Joe of American Leftist, am hereby coming out in favor of human-animal hybrids... I think they're desperately important for the good of the human race. We need to focus our best and brightest on that age old goal of mankind: creating a sardonic talking monkey who smokes a pipe and sounds like James Mason.
Perhaps the bold new proposals that Bush didn't propose were of more interest than the rehashed tripe that he did. If you would have asked me three months ago to predict the centerpiece of this year's State of the Union I would have guessed that Bush was going to announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq -- which would have turned out not to be a withdrawal at all but would have coincidentally begun right around the 2006 elections. I bet Karl Rove would have made a similar prediction -- alas, the reality on the ground in Iraq has always had an anti-Bush bias.
UPDATE: The British are, apparently, pro-Human-animal hybrid ... my people, my people.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
More Tuesday thoughts - it's SoU day!
Things that Remind Gore Vidal of his Favorite Roman Emperor
Waste Paper Basket has Gore Vidal's State of the Union Address. Here's an excerpt:
And now here we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. [...] This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected. [ ... ]
I think demonstrations across the country could be very useful on this famous Tuesday. Just say no. We've had enough of you. Go home to Crawford. We'll help you raise the money for a library, and you won't even ever have to read a book. We're not cruel. We just want to get rid of you and let you be an ex-president with his own library, which you can fill up with friends of yours who can neither read nor write, but they'll be well served and well paid, we hope, by corporate America, which will love you forever.
So I think it is really up to us to give some resonance to the State of the Union, which will be largely babble. He's not going really try to do anything about Social Security, we read in the papers. He has no major moves, other than going on and on about the legality of his illegal warrantless eavesdroppings and other breakings of the law.
I had a piece on the internet some of you may have seen a few days ago, and there's a story about Tiberius, who’s one of my favorite Roman emperors. He's had a very bad press, because the wrong people perhaps have written history. But when he became emperor, the Senate of Rome sent him congratulations with the comment, “Any law that you want us to pass, we shall do so automatically.” And he sent a message back. He said, “This is outrageous! Suppose I go mad. Suppose I don't know what I'm doing. Suppose I'm dead and somebody is pretending to be me. Never do that! Never accept something like preemptive war,” which luckily the Senate did not propose preemptive wars against places they didn't like. But Mr. Bush has done that.
Waste Paper Basket has Gore Vidal's State of the Union Address. Here's an excerpt:
And now here we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. [...] This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected. [ ... ]
I think demonstrations across the country could be very useful on this famous Tuesday. Just say no. We've had enough of you. Go home to Crawford. We'll help you raise the money for a library, and you won't even ever have to read a book. We're not cruel. We just want to get rid of you and let you be an ex-president with his own library, which you can fill up with friends of yours who can neither read nor write, but they'll be well served and well paid, we hope, by corporate America, which will love you forever.
So I think it is really up to us to give some resonance to the State of the Union, which will be largely babble. He's not going really try to do anything about Social Security, we read in the papers. He has no major moves, other than going on and on about the legality of his illegal warrantless eavesdroppings and other breakings of the law.
I had a piece on the internet some of you may have seen a few days ago, and there's a story about Tiberius, who’s one of my favorite Roman emperors. He's had a very bad press, because the wrong people perhaps have written history. But when he became emperor, the Senate of Rome sent him congratulations with the comment, “Any law that you want us to pass, we shall do so automatically.” And he sent a message back. He said, “This is outrageous! Suppose I go mad. Suppose I don't know what I'm doing. Suppose I'm dead and somebody is pretending to be me. Never do that! Never accept something like preemptive war,” which luckily the Senate did not propose preemptive wars against places they didn't like. But Mr. Bush has done that.
Tuesday developments
I wonder why Donna sent this to me .. (ulp!)
Cellphone Rudeness
By Michael Masterson
I was waiting in line at my neighborhood bookstore when I became aware of a struggle going on behind me.
"I thought I told you to turn that thing off," snapped a woman in gray slacks. She was scolding her son, whose cellphone was ringing. I hadn't even noticed the sound - a sad testament to how cellphones have become woven into the tapestry of everyday life.
The kid - high school age, scuffed sneakers and baggy jeans - started fumbling around in his backpack, trying to find the offending item.
"Out!" his mother commanded. "Go wait in the car." She practically threw her keys at the boy, who slunk out the door.
To my surprise, the woman turned to me and apologized. "I don't mean to yell. I'm just so fed up with cellphones!"
The woman - who introduced herself as Beth - explained that she teaches math at a local community college. And, she told me, she is constantly reprimanding her students for paying more attention to their cellphones than to their work. "This morning," she said, "one student actually answered her phone to tell the caller that she was in the middle of her calculus test! And even if they turn off the ringers, they still text-message one another."
The blatant use of cellphones, anywhere and any time, has become commonly accepted behavior. Perhaps that's why Beth's students seem to be unaware of what they are doing. And while I've never personally experienced such an egregious display of rudeness, I have noticed that most people have few to no manners when it comes to their mobile phones.
It's the damnedest thing. You are having a conversation with someone, their cellphone starts ringing, and - without even excusing themselves - they open it up and start talking to someone else. You stand there, feeling like a fool ... and wait.
Cellphone calls routinely disrupt personal conversations, business conversations, meetings, speeches, ceremonies, and even religious services. The only attempts made to curtail this modern menace are in theaters and concert halls - as if entertainment were the only thing more important than instant communication.
In the old days, we followed an informal set of rules. The first rule was universal: Except in dire emergencies, ongoing conversations should not be interrupted. If you wanted to say something, you would wait your turn. There was also a rule that related to the intensity of the conversation: The more serious it was, the stricter the prohibitions against butting in. And, finally, there was an acknowledged hierarchy: Children deferred to adults, students to teachers, employees to their bosses, and so on.
Call it respect ... call it courtesy ... all that is out the window. Any conversation, regardless of how important, intimate, or urgent, is now brought to a screeching halt the moment someone's phone goes off.
Of course, I am something of a hypocrite when it comes to most causes I advocate - and this one is no exception. Although I feel mistreated when someone I'm speaking with answers his cellphone, I have the strongest urge to answer mine whenever and wherever it rings.
Most of the time, I'm happy to say, I resist the temptation. My phone is set to vibrate silently before it starts ringing. So if it starts vibrating during a conversation, I reach into my pocket and cancel the call ... without my conversation partner even knowing that I got it. (On most cellphones, you can do this simply by pressing an external button.)
But few people have any sense of manners when it comes to their cellphones. Which is why I'd like to offer you six rules for polite cellphone use":
1. If you must be available to callers, put your phone on vibrate. Leave the room immediately if a call comes in.
2. Never talk on the phone while conducting business face to face with someone else.
3. If the lights are out, turn off your phone. Audiences in playhouses, theaters, cinemas, and observatories want to concentrate on what they're watching/listening to.
4. Keep your voice down. No need for everyone in the room to hear what you're saying.
5. Do not discuss private business or personal matters in the presence of other people. Put the caller on hold and move to an isolated area. Or reschedule the conversation.
6. Don't bring your cellphone to job interviews, weddings, funerals, church, business meetings, presentations, court, museums, or the library.
Follow these suggestions and your friends and colleagues will appreciate your full attention. Your fellow theater-goers will appreciate your silence. And you and your dinner companion will enjoy an uninterrupted meal.
[Ed. Note: We know of two laws banning the public use of cellphones - one in New York City performance venues (with a fine of $50) and one in Huntington Beach, California libraries (with a fine of up to $1,000). Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know what you think on Speak Out.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Action Plan
If you and your cellphone are joined at the hip (so to speak), try to reduce your dependence on it by leaving the thing at home once in a while. You may find that you relish the freedom from people who want "just a minute of your time" - at the worst possible times. And you may find that you'll enjoy that meeting/evening/event more fully without worrying that it will ring at an awkward moment or constantly checking for calls.
Cellphone Rudeness
By Michael Masterson
I was waiting in line at my neighborhood bookstore when I became aware of a struggle going on behind me.
"I thought I told you to turn that thing off," snapped a woman in gray slacks. She was scolding her son, whose cellphone was ringing. I hadn't even noticed the sound - a sad testament to how cellphones have become woven into the tapestry of everyday life.
The kid - high school age, scuffed sneakers and baggy jeans - started fumbling around in his backpack, trying to find the offending item.
"Out!" his mother commanded. "Go wait in the car." She practically threw her keys at the boy, who slunk out the door.
To my surprise, the woman turned to me and apologized. "I don't mean to yell. I'm just so fed up with cellphones!"
The woman - who introduced herself as Beth - explained that she teaches math at a local community college. And, she told me, she is constantly reprimanding her students for paying more attention to their cellphones than to their work. "This morning," she said, "one student actually answered her phone to tell the caller that she was in the middle of her calculus test! And even if they turn off the ringers, they still text-message one another."
The blatant use of cellphones, anywhere and any time, has become commonly accepted behavior. Perhaps that's why Beth's students seem to be unaware of what they are doing. And while I've never personally experienced such an egregious display of rudeness, I have noticed that most people have few to no manners when it comes to their mobile phones.
It's the damnedest thing. You are having a conversation with someone, their cellphone starts ringing, and - without even excusing themselves - they open it up and start talking to someone else. You stand there, feeling like a fool ... and wait.
Cellphone calls routinely disrupt personal conversations, business conversations, meetings, speeches, ceremonies, and even religious services. The only attempts made to curtail this modern menace are in theaters and concert halls - as if entertainment were the only thing more important than instant communication.
In the old days, we followed an informal set of rules. The first rule was universal: Except in dire emergencies, ongoing conversations should not be interrupted. If you wanted to say something, you would wait your turn. There was also a rule that related to the intensity of the conversation: The more serious it was, the stricter the prohibitions against butting in. And, finally, there was an acknowledged hierarchy: Children deferred to adults, students to teachers, employees to their bosses, and so on.
Call it respect ... call it courtesy ... all that is out the window. Any conversation, regardless of how important, intimate, or urgent, is now brought to a screeching halt the moment someone's phone goes off.
Of course, I am something of a hypocrite when it comes to most causes I advocate - and this one is no exception. Although I feel mistreated when someone I'm speaking with answers his cellphone, I have the strongest urge to answer mine whenever and wherever it rings.
Most of the time, I'm happy to say, I resist the temptation. My phone is set to vibrate silently before it starts ringing. So if it starts vibrating during a conversation, I reach into my pocket and cancel the call ... without my conversation partner even knowing that I got it. (On most cellphones, you can do this simply by pressing an external button.)
But few people have any sense of manners when it comes to their cellphones. Which is why I'd like to offer you six rules for polite cellphone use":
1. If you must be available to callers, put your phone on vibrate. Leave the room immediately if a call comes in.
2. Never talk on the phone while conducting business face to face with someone else.
3. If the lights are out, turn off your phone. Audiences in playhouses, theaters, cinemas, and observatories want to concentrate on what they're watching/listening to.
4. Keep your voice down. No need for everyone in the room to hear what you're saying.
5. Do not discuss private business or personal matters in the presence of other people. Put the caller on hold and move to an isolated area. Or reschedule the conversation.
6. Don't bring your cellphone to job interviews, weddings, funerals, church, business meetings, presentations, court, museums, or the library.
Follow these suggestions and your friends and colleagues will appreciate your full attention. Your fellow theater-goers will appreciate your silence. And you and your dinner companion will enjoy an uninterrupted meal.
[Ed. Note: We know of two laws banning the public use of cellphones - one in New York City performance venues (with a fine of $50) and one in Huntington Beach, California libraries (with a fine of up to $1,000). Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know what you think on Speak Out.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Action Plan
If you and your cellphone are joined at the hip (so to speak), try to reduce your dependence on it by leaving the thing at home once in a while. You may find that you relish the freedom from people who want "just a minute of your time" - at the worst possible times. And you may find that you'll enjoy that meeting/evening/event more fully without worrying that it will ring at an awkward moment or constantly checking for calls.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
A Reasonable Suspicion of Illegality
source blog
The first thing that struck me when General Hayden made the ignorant observation that the Fourth Amendment didn't include a probable cause standard was that someone needed to tattoo the Bill of Rights on his chest, backwards, so he could read it every time he looked in the mirror in the morning. The second thing that struck me about his insistence that a "reasonable suspicion" standard prevails over probable cause for the spying program was that this Administration and the Congress already rejected a reasonable suspicion standard.
In 2002, Republican Senator DeWine introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT ACT that would have lowered the FISA warrant standard for non-U.S. citizens from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion." The DeWine amendment, S. 2659, was rejected in Committee. Glenn Greenwald has a must-read, excellent post on the DeWine amendment here. DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard ONLY for non-U.S. citizens. The administration expressed serious misgiving about the constitutionality of DeWine's amendment. In the end, his amendment did not pass.
The admission that Bush's spying program uses a "reasonable suspicion" standard rather than a "probable cause" standard is explosive and damning. Why? Because the Bush administration knew--indeed, took the position--that a reasonable suspicion standard with respect to non-U.S. citizens was probably unconstitutional. Yet the administration now applies that same unconstitutional standard to United States citizens?
In the summer of 2002--well after Bush's spying program was already secretly implemented- the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a hearing on the DeWine amendment. (Hearing Report PDF) What transpired at that hearing proves that the Bush administration (a) knew that wiretaps of United States citizens are, pursuant to the Constitution, always subject to a probable cause standard; and (b) Congress explicitly rejected a lower standard for non-U.S. citizens.
DeWine himself limited his amendment to apply only to non-U.S. citizens, recognizing that "we must be cautious not to endorse an overly permissive use of the surveillance powers of FISA." The Committee heard testimony from the administration's top lawyers, and from top legal scholars in the field of eavesdropping and criminal law.
James Baker was then counsel for intelligence policy at the Department of Justice and head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the office that prepares and presents to the FISA court "all the applications under the FISA Act for electronic surveillance and physical search of foreign powers and their agents." If there was any expert on FISA warrant and applications at the time, it was Baker. He began his testimony by praising the PATRIOT ACT FISA changes, testifying as follows:
In my view, the changes have allowed us to move more quickly and more effectively and to also be more focused in our approach in dealing with the kinds of threats that Mr. Bowman made reference to. So we at the Department are grateful for the changes that Congress made in the statute, because I believe they've been important and have been employed effectively.
No word of how "ineffective" FISA is there. No testimony there from the Bush' top FISA guy about being hamstrung by the requirements of FISA. Baker then stated the DeWine Amendment "raises both significant legal and practical issues." In his formal statement to the Committee, Baker wrote:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. [Baker testified twice at the hearing that the administration made "aggressive" use of the FISA process, and that the FISA court had not rejected ONE of its warrants under the probable cause standard]. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.
More below the fold...
* ::
*
So, as of July 31, 2002, the Administration was not sold on the constitutionality of a "reasonable suspicion" standard for non-U.S. citizens. Keep that in mind as we continue through the testimony.
The Committee also heard testimony from Jerry Berman, former chief legal counsel for the ACLU and the man who helped draft FISA. Professor Charles Fishman, Professor of Law at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, also testified and was described as having "extensive trial experience and is a published author on issues of evidence and wire-tapping."
Mr. Berman testified that lowering the standard, in addition to changing the definition of "agent of foreign power" would be clearly illegal:
[I]f we put the two together and lowered the standard to reasonable suspicion, as Mr. DeWine proposes, I believe that is clearly unconstitutional. One: the Abel case says the Constitution applies to aliens. The Keith case, which ruled that intelligence--that wiretaps--can be applied to domestic cases said lower standards can be used. But we are talking about a new mixed statute, which is not only intelligence but criminal and can be used for criminal prosecution purposes. And if the court finds that you're using FISA to get criminal prosecutions, there will be great questioning of the basis on which you gather that information and the Constitution, Fourth Amendment, says ``probable cause'' and I agree, in final, with the Attorney General said it is the Constitution is getting in our way and that's the point. And that's the point--the Constitution here--and it is in your way.
Meanwhile, Professor Fishman, who reluctantly supported a reasonable suspicion standard for non-U.S. citizens, had this to say about the DeWine Amendment:
FISHMAN: What's unusual, perhaps even radical, about Senator DeWine's proposal is that it would take the reasonable suspicion standard and apply it to an extremely intrusive form of surveillance. There's nothing more intrusive than surreptitious electronic surveillance of communications. It would be a radical change from the current state of the law. I think it would nonetheless be upheld as constitutional because it is very tightly drawn and because of necessity in which we find ourselves, given the sick and dangerous world that we exist in. But it clearly is a significant departure from the entire range of reasonable suspicion jurisprudence the Supreme Court has given us to date.
Wow...if lowering the standard for non-U.S. citizens was described as a "radical" and "significant" departure from the law, then how would Fisherman dare to describe applying that standard to United States citizens, who traditionally are afforded much greater legal protection than non-U.S. citizens? As Professor Fisherman testified:
It is a well established principle that people who are in the United States illegally or only temporarily enjoy somewhat less legal protection than citizens and green card holders. This supports the constitutionality of requiring less information--that is, only reasonable suspicion--to authorize surveillance of such people than is required to surveil U.S. persons.
We must remember moreover that such electronic surveillance and physical searches inevitably would intrude into the privacy not only of the non-U.S. person who was the target but of many U.S. persons as well--anyone the target talks to on his telephone or shares space with or communicates with by computer, depending upon the type of surveillance. Until now the law has not permitted that degree of intrusion into anyone without a search warrant or interception order based on probable cause. Thus, this proposal boldly goes where no law has gone before.
Re-read his testimony again. The law does not permit warrantless surveillance searches without probable cause. The Supreme Court has held that police frisks and other more limited forms of searches could be held to a "reasonable suspicion" standard. But as to the pervasive, highly intrusive search that occurs when the government wiretaps or intercepts the communications of its citizens, a probable cause standard is constitutionally required.
DeWine's proposal, a proposal which "boldly went where no law has gone before," was rejected. And in that rejection, the Congress put the administration on notice that it was not prepared to violate the Constitution and abrogate the rights of non-U.S. citizens. What then makes the administration think Congress approved such abrogation of rights for United States citizens, who enjoy the highest level of protection under the law?
Mark my words, Hayden's revelation that a reasonable suspicion standard is being applied to United States citizens is perhaps the most damaging admission by a government official to date about the program. With a single exchange, Hayden demonstrated that indeed, Bush's program violates established case law and the Constitution. With a single statement, Hayden proved that Congress did not, would not, and will not approve of this program. And with his revelation, Hayden revealed that this administration knew what it was doing was just plain wrong.
The excuse that the FISA court wasn't flexible enough is a lie. The excuse that there was too much paperwork to push around--despite a 72 safe harbor--was a lie. And the excuse that probable cause was too high a standard to fulfill was also a lie.
The truth is that Bush went outside the law because he sought to impose a standard which the administration itself rejected in 2002. It knew full well that, if such a standard were illegal as applied to non-U.S. citizens, its illegality would be beyond doubt when applied to those who enjoy the full force of 4th Amendment.
A reasonable suspicion of illegality indeed.
The first thing that struck me when General Hayden made the ignorant observation that the Fourth Amendment didn't include a probable cause standard was that someone needed to tattoo the Bill of Rights on his chest, backwards, so he could read it every time he looked in the mirror in the morning. The second thing that struck me about his insistence that a "reasonable suspicion" standard prevails over probable cause for the spying program was that this Administration and the Congress already rejected a reasonable suspicion standard.
In 2002, Republican Senator DeWine introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT ACT that would have lowered the FISA warrant standard for non-U.S. citizens from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion." The DeWine amendment, S. 2659, was rejected in Committee. Glenn Greenwald has a must-read, excellent post on the DeWine amendment here. DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard ONLY for non-U.S. citizens. The administration expressed serious misgiving about the constitutionality of DeWine's amendment. In the end, his amendment did not pass.
The admission that Bush's spying program uses a "reasonable suspicion" standard rather than a "probable cause" standard is explosive and damning. Why? Because the Bush administration knew--indeed, took the position--that a reasonable suspicion standard with respect to non-U.S. citizens was probably unconstitutional. Yet the administration now applies that same unconstitutional standard to United States citizens?
In the summer of 2002--well after Bush's spying program was already secretly implemented- the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a hearing on the DeWine amendment. (Hearing Report PDF) What transpired at that hearing proves that the Bush administration (a) knew that wiretaps of United States citizens are, pursuant to the Constitution, always subject to a probable cause standard; and (b) Congress explicitly rejected a lower standard for non-U.S. citizens.
DeWine himself limited his amendment to apply only to non-U.S. citizens, recognizing that "we must be cautious not to endorse an overly permissive use of the surveillance powers of FISA." The Committee heard testimony from the administration's top lawyers, and from top legal scholars in the field of eavesdropping and criminal law.
James Baker was then counsel for intelligence policy at the Department of Justice and head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the office that prepares and presents to the FISA court "all the applications under the FISA Act for electronic surveillance and physical search of foreign powers and their agents." If there was any expert on FISA warrant and applications at the time, it was Baker. He began his testimony by praising the PATRIOT ACT FISA changes, testifying as follows:
In my view, the changes have allowed us to move more quickly and more effectively and to also be more focused in our approach in dealing with the kinds of threats that Mr. Bowman made reference to. So we at the Department are grateful for the changes that Congress made in the statute, because I believe they've been important and have been employed effectively.
No word of how "ineffective" FISA is there. No testimony there from the Bush' top FISA guy about being hamstrung by the requirements of FISA. Baker then stated the DeWine Amendment "raises both significant legal and practical issues." In his formal statement to the Committee, Baker wrote:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. [Baker testified twice at the hearing that the administration made "aggressive" use of the FISA process, and that the FISA court had not rejected ONE of its warrants under the probable cause standard]. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.
More below the fold...
* ::
*
So, as of July 31, 2002, the Administration was not sold on the constitutionality of a "reasonable suspicion" standard for non-U.S. citizens. Keep that in mind as we continue through the testimony.
The Committee also heard testimony from Jerry Berman, former chief legal counsel for the ACLU and the man who helped draft FISA. Professor Charles Fishman, Professor of Law at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, also testified and was described as having "extensive trial experience and is a published author on issues of evidence and wire-tapping."
Mr. Berman testified that lowering the standard, in addition to changing the definition of "agent of foreign power" would be clearly illegal:
[I]f we put the two together and lowered the standard to reasonable suspicion, as Mr. DeWine proposes, I believe that is clearly unconstitutional. One: the Abel case says the Constitution applies to aliens. The Keith case, which ruled that intelligence--that wiretaps--can be applied to domestic cases said lower standards can be used. But we are talking about a new mixed statute, which is not only intelligence but criminal and can be used for criminal prosecution purposes. And if the court finds that you're using FISA to get criminal prosecutions, there will be great questioning of the basis on which you gather that information and the Constitution, Fourth Amendment, says ``probable cause'' and I agree, in final, with the Attorney General said it is the Constitution is getting in our way and that's the point. And that's the point--the Constitution here--and it is in your way.
Meanwhile, Professor Fishman, who reluctantly supported a reasonable suspicion standard for non-U.S. citizens, had this to say about the DeWine Amendment:
FISHMAN: What's unusual, perhaps even radical, about Senator DeWine's proposal is that it would take the reasonable suspicion standard and apply it to an extremely intrusive form of surveillance. There's nothing more intrusive than surreptitious electronic surveillance of communications. It would be a radical change from the current state of the law. I think it would nonetheless be upheld as constitutional because it is very tightly drawn and because of necessity in which we find ourselves, given the sick and dangerous world that we exist in. But it clearly is a significant departure from the entire range of reasonable suspicion jurisprudence the Supreme Court has given us to date.
Wow...if lowering the standard for non-U.S. citizens was described as a "radical" and "significant" departure from the law, then how would Fisherman dare to describe applying that standard to United States citizens, who traditionally are afforded much greater legal protection than non-U.S. citizens? As Professor Fisherman testified:
It is a well established principle that people who are in the United States illegally or only temporarily enjoy somewhat less legal protection than citizens and green card holders. This supports the constitutionality of requiring less information--that is, only reasonable suspicion--to authorize surveillance of such people than is required to surveil U.S. persons.
We must remember moreover that such electronic surveillance and physical searches inevitably would intrude into the privacy not only of the non-U.S. person who was the target but of many U.S. persons as well--anyone the target talks to on his telephone or shares space with or communicates with by computer, depending upon the type of surveillance. Until now the law has not permitted that degree of intrusion into anyone without a search warrant or interception order based on probable cause. Thus, this proposal boldly goes where no law has gone before.
Re-read his testimony again. The law does not permit warrantless surveillance searches without probable cause. The Supreme Court has held that police frisks and other more limited forms of searches could be held to a "reasonable suspicion" standard. But as to the pervasive, highly intrusive search that occurs when the government wiretaps or intercepts the communications of its citizens, a probable cause standard is constitutionally required.
DeWine's proposal, a proposal which "boldly went where no law has gone before," was rejected. And in that rejection, the Congress put the administration on notice that it was not prepared to violate the Constitution and abrogate the rights of non-U.S. citizens. What then makes the administration think Congress approved such abrogation of rights for United States citizens, who enjoy the highest level of protection under the law?
Mark my words, Hayden's revelation that a reasonable suspicion standard is being applied to United States citizens is perhaps the most damaging admission by a government official to date about the program. With a single exchange, Hayden demonstrated that indeed, Bush's program violates established case law and the Constitution. With a single statement, Hayden proved that Congress did not, would not, and will not approve of this program. And with his revelation, Hayden revealed that this administration knew what it was doing was just plain wrong.
The excuse that the FISA court wasn't flexible enough is a lie. The excuse that there was too much paperwork to push around--despite a 72 safe harbor--was a lie. And the excuse that probable cause was too high a standard to fulfill was also a lie.
The truth is that Bush went outside the law because he sought to impose a standard which the administration itself rejected in 2002. It knew full well that, if such a standard were illegal as applied to non-U.S. citizens, its illegality would be beyond doubt when applied to those who enjoy the full force of 4th Amendment.
A reasonable suspicion of illegality indeed.
America prefers Democrats
By kos on George W. Bush
Dan Balz:
The Post-ABC News poll offers a revealing portrait of a restless electorate at the start of the campaign year. By 51 percent to 35 percent, Americans said they preferred to go in the direction outlined by congressional Democrats rather than the direction established by the president. On the eve of last year's State of the Union address, 45 percent said they preferred to follow the path of the president, compared with 39 percent who said they favored the Democrats' course.
By 54 percent to 38 percent, voters surveyed said they would vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate for the House in November. That is one of the largest margins favoring the Democrats in two decades, although the gerrymandered House districts mean that incumbents are safer today than they were in the past.
By 51 percent to 37 percent, Americans said they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans with the main problems facing the country over the next few years, the first time since spring 1992 that Democrats have gained more than 50 percent support on that question.
Balz notes that much will ride on King Bush's SOTU address, though I don't think it's as influential a tool as it may once have been. There are too many alternatives on TV for anyone but the biggest Bush fans and political junkies to tune in.
History suggests that Bush will get some sort of bounce regardless thanks to the inevitably fawning media coverage. The real question will be how long any such bounce will last, and whether congressional GOoPers will get any benefits from said theoretical bounce.
Iraq won't do Bush any favors (especially given the coverage of Woodruff's condition), the prescription drug debacle is already raising ire with the elderly (people who actually vote), and we've got a whole spate of investigataions and trials on tap which will further highlight the Republican culture of corruption and Bush's belief that he is an infallible monarch.
Dan Balz:
The Post-ABC News poll offers a revealing portrait of a restless electorate at the start of the campaign year. By 51 percent to 35 percent, Americans said they preferred to go in the direction outlined by congressional Democrats rather than the direction established by the president. On the eve of last year's State of the Union address, 45 percent said they preferred to follow the path of the president, compared with 39 percent who said they favored the Democrats' course.
By 54 percent to 38 percent, voters surveyed said they would vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate for the House in November. That is one of the largest margins favoring the Democrats in two decades, although the gerrymandered House districts mean that incumbents are safer today than they were in the past.
By 51 percent to 37 percent, Americans said they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans with the main problems facing the country over the next few years, the first time since spring 1992 that Democrats have gained more than 50 percent support on that question.
Balz notes that much will ride on King Bush's SOTU address, though I don't think it's as influential a tool as it may once have been. There are too many alternatives on TV for anyone but the biggest Bush fans and political junkies to tune in.
History suggests that Bush will get some sort of bounce regardless thanks to the inevitably fawning media coverage. The real question will be how long any such bounce will last, and whether congressional GOoPers will get any benefits from said theoretical bounce.
Iraq won't do Bush any favors (especially given the coverage of Woodruff's condition), the prescription drug debacle is already raising ire with the elderly (people who actually vote), and we've got a whole spate of investigataions and trials on tap which will further highlight the Republican culture of corruption and Bush's belief that he is an infallible monarch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)