Let's call it like it is: Those Republicans attacking Susan Rice over Benghazi are full of shit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The ridiculous Republican claim, made by the likes of John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham, among others, is that Ambassador Rice misled the American people by claiming on the Sunday talk shows that the attack was a spontaneous incident rather than a terrorist attack.

But as I wrote the other day, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts. Rice was only saying what she was being advised to say by the intelligence community. The talking point changes weren't politically motivated and reflected caution, which is really the sort of thing one wants and expects from those tasked with figuring out what the hell's going on around the world. A new report by CBS News backs this up:

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

People like John McCain should know better, and maybe do know better. Obviously, they're either completely delusional or trying to score political points by turning this into a major scandal (at the level of Watergate, some of them are crazily suggesting).

"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," [a senior U.S. official] tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."

"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."

Makes sense, no? It's intelligence. It's messy. And it's all happening in a very messy part of the world. For her part, Rice did nothing wrong. She communicated what she thought was right -- and what in fact was right, in nuanced terms carefully chosen by those whose job it is to get it right. To attack her now is just partisan scapegoating, an effort on the part of Republicans to tarnish the credibility of one of President's Obama's chief foreign policy officials and quite possibly his nominee to replace Hillary as secretary of state -- and therefore an effort to tarnish the president himself, to bring him down with a manufactured scandal built, as is typical of Republicans, on lies.

They really are full of shit.

The latest smear: Republicans dishonestly accuse President Obama of "skipping" intelligence briefings

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama, on a secure iPad, with Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration Robert Cardillo -- January 31, 2012.

Basically, Republicans can say anything they want, and make any ridiculous accusation to try to make President Obama look bad, and suddenly the accusation becomes part of the national discussion, with the media treating the accusation like a legitimate point worthy of serious coverage and consideration.

I'm fucking tired of it. Fucking, fucking, fucking tired of it.

The latest accusation, given prominence initially by Dick Cheney (who made it in an interview with the right-wing Daily Caller the day before 9/11 last week), comes in the context of the Times's remarkable report, published the same day, that the ignorance, incompetence, and stunning gross negligence of the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11 was even worse than we knew -- "The Deafness Before the Storm."

Suddenly on the defensive, Cheney lashed out at Obama, saying that the president wasn't "participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis," the implicaton being that Obama is less engaged than his predecessor and possibly even a threat to national security.

And it didn't stop with Cheney. After the Times report and a terrible week for Romney on the foreign policy front, Republicans, with Romney-booster Karl Rove right out in front, are going all-in on this ridiculous accusation, and the media are playing right along.

Consider the title of a piece at ABC News: "Is President Obama 'Skipping' Intelligence Briefings?" Yes, the piece provides the White House response, quoting Press Secretary Jay Carney and noting that the president "religiously reads a written version of the same prepared material, often on a secure iPad (as seen in this official White House PHOTO). He often receives an in-person briefing in addition, aides note, as well as real-time national security updates during the day, both in the office and on the road." But not before taking the Republican accusation seriously and turning the issue into a Crossfire-style debate between two supposedly equal, and equally valid, sides:

Conservative critics of President Obama are accusing him of "skipping" daily intelligence briefings throughout his first term and in the days leading up to this week's deadly attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya.

The anti-Obama super PAC American Crossroads levels the charge in a new Web ad HERE.

Right-leaning bloggers and American Enterprise Institute scholar and Washington Post columnist Marc

Thiessen make the case HERE and HERE.

But the substance of the charge, aimed at undermining Obama's credibility as commander in chief, appears to be more a matter of semantics than hard fact.

Uh, no. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of Republicans being dishonest and smearing the president, accusing him of shirking his responsibilities and weakening the country, putting Americans at risk.

Of course, if you look at the facts, he's doing nothing of the kind. President Obama is highly engaged, significantly more so than Bush. And he isn't just consuming information, he's actively questioning the information and analysis he's given, pressing to make sure it's right and asking for alternative analyses and additional information so he can understand what's going on in a highly complex world as fully as possible and make the informed decisions one should expect from the president of the United States.

Indeed, far from shirking his responsibilities and weakening the country, he's taking his responsibilities with the utmost seriousness and strengthening the country by providing mature, responsible leadership, understanding in detail the issues and options he confronts each and every day.

Bush may have preferred oral briefings, but Obama, like Clinton before Bush, takes a more diverse approach -- one that, it seems to me, leads to greater engagement with the challenging issues of the day. He doesn't just want to be told what's going on, he wants to read the materials for himself and push back as required:

"He does both all the time, all the time," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters [yesterday]. "And when he is here in Washington, he has briefings in person in the Oval Office with his national security team regularly. And when he is on the road, he has phone conversations that supplement and augment the briefings he receives on paper that are specific to the so-called PDB. I hardly think that is different from previous presidents."

Actually, I'd say that makes him quite a bit more engaged, and quite a bit more responsible, than his predecessor. He likes to read, and he wants to know more, and he wants to be able to make decisions based on as much information and with as much comprehensive analysis as possible.

Cheney, other Bush apologists, and the various other Republicans now attacking the president, partly to defend their own massive incompetence and partly to help the struggling Romney, are adding to the Republican narrative that Obama isn't up to the job.

But the record is clear, and even clearer following the Times report: It was Bush and Cheney and their minions in the White House and Pentagon who were negligent and irresponsible, and it's Romney who is unqualified, unprepared, and unfit for the presidency.

Meanwhile, President Obama is doing his job -- and doing it extremely well.

Dick Cheney's abuse of secrecy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT: "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project."

The project, which current CIA director Leon Panetta "ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23," remains secret:

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

What is important here, though, is not what it was -- and one can only imagine -- but that Cheney kept it from Congress. But, in so doing, did he break the law?

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees "are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity." But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done "to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters."

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

So, yes, it's certainly possible that the program was so covert that Cheney acted within the law in keeping it secret. But did the "Gang of Eight" know about it? If not, what was the justification for that? That it was super-covert -- so much so that even the leadership was kept in the dark?

Maybe, and I do respect the need for secrecy, but, given Cheney's track record, we are right to be skeptical:

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney's role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general's report underscored the central role of the former vice president's office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency's program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

And there was so much more, of course: "In the eight years of his vice presidency, Mr. Cheney was the Bush administration's most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena."

Cheney knew what he was doing. And regardless of whatever lame justifications he may have used to defend his actions, he abused the need for secrecy throughout the Bush presidency. As more and more comes out, including this, it is more and more troubling what Bush and Cheney and their various minions authorized in conducting their so-called war on terror.

Guantanamo detainee treatment -- truth be told

By Carol Gee

"Dangerous people, detainees, prisoners of war, terrorists, extremists" -- The words we use to describe our adversaries are important. Not only are they important to those people, but they matter all over the world. We must also be accurate when we describe what we have done to detainees says Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (6/6/09). His post is titled, "The NYT's nice, new euphemism for torture." To quote (his links):

. . . according to the NYT, detainees in CIA black sites were merely subjected to "intense interrogations." That's all? Who opposes "intense interrogations"? This active media complicity in concealing that our Government created a systematic torture regime -- by refusing ever to say so -- is one of the principal reasons it was allowed to happen for so long

. . . The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture" -- even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantanamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries -- reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

At the heart of the biggest arguments about what to do about releasing Guantanamo's is the one about whether they remain security risks. Conservatives have exaggerated their level of dangerousness, it turns out. How often do they return to jihad? The story is headlined, "NYT: We made big mistakes on front-page Gitmo story, but we did not get spun," and it is reported by Justin Eliot at TPM Muckraker (6/5/09). "The confirmed category in the Pentagon report claims that just one in 20, not one in seven, former detainees returned to terrorism." To quote further:

The New York Times has published a lengthy "Editors' Note" rolling back key claims in its front-page story on Guantanamo "recidivism" last month, and the paper's Washington bureau chief concedes it wouldn't have been a Page 1 story if the paper realized the errors in the story when it ran.

. . . The editors' note, which is pasted in full below, acknowledges use of terms like "rejoined" and "recidivism" "accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention."

. . . McClatchy and others have reported on evidence that some detainees may have in fact been radicalized while imprisoned at Gitmo.

The editors' note also acknowledges the story "conflated two categories of former prisoners" -- which were broken up into suspected and confirmed categories in the Pentagon report (which we have posted here).

There are very good reasons why President Obama ordered the closing of Guantanamo as one of his first official acts. Given our Constitution, it was not working, not for foreign policy, not for justice, and not for American values. The story of Guantanamo is a tragic one on several fronts, including detainee suicides: "Death by Detention," by ACLU (6/4/09). "Gitmo detainee dead in 'apparent suicide,' " is from TPM Muckraker (6/2/09). In 2005 the detainee had been on hunger strike and lost down to 86 pounds. This is the 5th suicide at Guantanamo. To quote:

A Guantanamo detainee has died in what the military are calling an "apparent suicide" -- and civil liberties groups are calling for action.

Guards found 31-year-old Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih, known as Al-Hanashi, unresponsive and not breathing in his cell Monday night, U.S. military officials announced, according to the AP.

"Another Club Gitmo guest kills himself," was the ironic post written on this same subject by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (6/2/09). His firmly held conclusion,

It's very difficult to know why someone commits suicide, if that's what happened here. And since he had no trial, one can't know what Salih did or didn't do. But what is not hard to see is that it is simply wrong to imprison people for life with no charges. That should not be something that we even have to debate.

Guantanamo Bay's plan for closing, the story of the torture regime that started there, the Constitution and and detainee treatment -- the truth must still be told. Painful as it is, disheartening as it feels as new information comes out, there is no getting around it if we are ever to heal and return to the rule of law.

References to earlier detainee stories:

• Britain responds to the "rule of law" nuisance is by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (3/27/09). Regards returned British detainee Binyam Mohamed.


• Britain's bizarre reaction to war crimes allegations: investigations needed is by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (3/8/09).
  

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

OLC torture memos revealed -- an overview

By Carol Gee

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be given a great deal of credit for releasing the latest memos produced by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, to the American Civil Liberties Union. Glenn Greenwald makes this point strongly in his first post following the release of the mostly unredacted material. It contains a number of excerpts from the memos with interesting points about each. He and many others were unsure at the start of the day what the President would do, given the huge fight going on within the administration. Greenwald is sharply critical of the administration's decision not to prosecute however, pointing to an inability to reconcile certain basic principles of the rule of law, treaty obligations, etc.

President Obama's written statement upon the release of the memos, is included in Firedoglake blogger emptywheel's post, which adds to the discussion and reflections on the lack of accountability for the wrong-doing. She makes a couple of useful points about the release: "The ICRC report may have made a difference in this fight. . . No mention of who wrote these memos. . ." And Wheeler closes with this: "If we're a nation of laws, then we cannot let those who have broken the laws to go unpunished. That's not retribution. That's what 'nation of laws' means."

More from emptywheel -- A further point made by this outstanding investigative writer, who labels the OLC memos "erroneous and inflammatory assumptions, and John Rizzo's lies," is that the OLC memos should not be taken as authoritative regarding the events surrounding the interrogation program. For example, the section on the supposed mental health of Abu Zubaydah is patently wrong. Also the ICRC report contradicts the section on the frequency and harshness of the use of sleep deprivation. Another post links to the ACLU website that has the original memos (in pdf) posted, and reminds us that the ACLU lawsuit was what freed up the memos from the DOJ in the first place.

Here is the latest on the torture memos from the investigative journalism organization ProPublica:

1) Newly Released Memo Inadvertently Reveals CIA Held and Abused Missing Prisoner.
2) Obama Promises to Defend Interrogators, But No Promise on the Bush Lawyers Who Signed Off.
3) Resource: The Missing Memos

References: Following are several authoritative and complete articles on the story of the release of these OLC memos:

• "Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the C.I.A," by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the New York Times (4/16/09). An earlier NYT story: "Memos reveal scope of the power Bush sought in fighting terror," by Neil Lewis (4/3/09).
• "Obama Releasing Four Torture Memos," by Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker (4/16/09). Includes a good AP overview along with the official statements of the President and the Department of Justic
  
• "Obama says no prosecutions, no 'laying blame' for interrogation techniques," is by Keith Perine and Seth Stern of the Congressional Quarterly-Politics website (4/16/09).
• "Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute," by David Kravets from Wired-Threat Level (4/16/09).

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Half-way to a hundred --

By Carol Gee

The Obama administration's first 50 days has been characterized in part by "transparency," by high expectations from the public for a quick fix to its ailing economy, by the synthesis of a number of policies into a single, long-term budget plan, by an apparently change-oriented approach to national security, and by its amazing speed of action.

President Obama's transition to a "transparent" administration started with his inaugural address, and progressed quickly after that. The Obama administration was instructed on January 20 and 21 that it would be doing business in the sunlight. Memos were issued on transparency and open government, as well as how the Freedom of Information Act was to be implemented. The MSM coverage continues to benefit from that transparent governing style, but that brings with it the likelihood of quick criticism of whatever the administration does.

There are those who see the future of capitalism* in President Barack Obama's hands. A recent WSJ/ABC poll of economists revealed some dissatisfaction with the administrations handling of the economy to date. Responses pointed particularly to delays in enacting key elements, that have led to uncertainty about the bank rescue plan. If the criticism came from Wall Street from the beginning, it also came from Republicans in Congress.

President Obama has used a policy-based budgeting style. The GOP has launched a united attack on President Obama's budget, CQ Politics reports (3/11/09). They plan to challenge the assumptions and content in President Obama’s budget and offer alternatives," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana). In general congressional Republicans have resisted everything the administration has proposed. They have adopted a "just say 'no' " approach, and have remained fixed in the post 9/11 reactive view that all that matters is the "War on Terrorism."

While congressional hearings in recent days have highlighted the persistent threat of terrorism, our chief spy master , Director of National Intelligence, Ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, says, "It's the economy [as the main] intelligence" issue according to CQ Politics (3/7/09). The article raises the question of whether the intelligence community is up to the task of gathering the requisite amount of economic intelligence information. To quote:

. . . a reeling world economy [is] again forcing economic matters to the forefront of intelligence concerns. In an annual global threat briefing to Congress, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in prepared remarks that “the primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis.”

After seven years of intelligence community reports that placed a heavy emphasis on terrorism, Blair’s declaration was a “sea change,” said John Parachini, director of the Intelligence Policy Center at the Rand Corp.

Who knows what the next 50 will bring as the president reaches the magical "first 100 days" mark. With the fast pace adopted by President Obama, it is a big challenge to remain abreast of what is happening. Among several other e-mail resources, I rely on this national security newsletter from Congressional Quarterly - Behind the Lines (newsletter of 3/11/09) by David C. Morrison. I conclude with a couple of excerpts that apply to the preceding paragraphs. To quote:

Feds: The global financial crisis threatens U.S. national security, The Associated Press’ Stephen Manning has military and economic experts telling a House panel yesterday. Federal cybersecurity efforts would be in “grave peril” if passing oversight from DHS to the NSA led to intel community domination, Threat Level’s Kim Zetter has an ex-homelander testifying this week — and check The Washington Post’s Brian Krebs on the mounting power struggle. U.N. human rights investigators have announced a global investigation into secret detention practices, saying they would not relax scrutiny of U.S. counterterrorism policies under President Barack Obama, Reuters’ Stephanie Nebehay notes. The Obama administration will appoint a senior diplomat as a special Guantanamo envoy, underscoring the importance it places on persuading other countries to accept detainees, The New York Times’ William Glaberson and Mark Landler relate.

. . . Unlike other officials recently, a Pentagon intel chief testified Tuesday that Iran does not have highly enriched uranium to power a nuclear warhead, AP reports — while a Boston Globe op-ed underlines the dangers of “intricate and foolproof verification schemes.”

References:

1. *The Financial Times In Depth: "The Future of Capitalism" - A major new series.


2. Secrecy News from the Federation of American Scientists, by Steven Aftergood: Includes Presidential Policy Directive on "Organization of the National Security System," and "Opening the Files on Bush's Secrets."


3. Pipes: Change Tracker - by ProPublica. This is a great resource for tracking any changes made at the several White House and government websites.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

No one is above the law

By Carol Gee

The day they took office the Obama administration had a legal problem. In fact they had several, left behind by their predecessors. These problems did not grow out of the rule of law, but outside of the rule of law. All of the current shocking news about the Bush administration is the result of revelations of law breaking. The Geneva Conventions were ignored, Americans were spied upon without a court order, and prisoners were kept in custody for years without charges being filed. And they were tortured. All kinds of government materials were classified that were embarrassing but not secret, and Congress was not kept legally informed for its oversight purposes. The U.S. military was prepared to act against its own countrymen. Our personal phone calls, e-mails, medical and financial records were surveilled by mass means, illegally and without privacy protection.

Rather early on President Obama and Attorney General Holder reaffirmed that no one is above the law. For that reason, the Obama lawyers must not give undue weight to the Bush lawyers' extra-legal opinions and the positions of his Office of Legal Counsel should not be assumed to have legal standing.

Claiming state secrets, over classification of materials, threats to national security, warrantless wiretapping, can never trump the rule of law coming solidly out of the Constitution. This is where the three co-equal branches of government come in. Here are some simple examples:

Duly sworn judges have the right to rule on evidence. They have security clearances, in effect. Duly elected members of the legislature have the right to practice oversight of the executive branch's execution of the laws passed by Congress. They also have security clearances in effect. Disagreements go to court to be adjudicated. Neither the executive branch nor the courts make laws. Courts interpret the laws. Legislators ratify U.S. treaties into international law. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search or seizure, and limits what the military can do within the U.S. Bill of Rights civil liberties cannot be permanently abridged by mere executive fiat.

Lawyers in the current administration who come out with legal arguments in adherence to a number of Bush positions are on shaky ground. Protecting executive power prerogatives is not a good enough argument when those Executive powers are clearly not legal. This means that today's lawyers and courts must look to the experts and go further back to find precedents that are on solid ground. The Justice Department's move to try a detainee on formal legal charges is the kind of legal decision making that is a step in the right direction.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

National Intelligence Review

By Carol Gee

National Security -- Director of National Intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, replaced Adm Mike McConnell and is the person responsible for the President's daily intelligence briefing. Testifying before a Congressional committee, Blair gave his annual threat assessment. The Financial Times (2/13/09) reported that the U.S. Intelligence Chief warned of a security threat. To quote:

. . . the global economic crisis posed the greatest near-term threat to US national security as the risk of “regime-threatening instability” grows around the world. . . as the economic and financial crisis continued.

. . . Adm Blair noted that a quarter of countries in the world were already experiencing “low-level instability” because of the economic crisis. He added that much of Latin America, the former Soviet states and sub-Saharan Africa lacked cash, or access to international financial aid, that would help them overcome the crisis.

. . . The threat assessment marked a stark contrast with previous years when the focus was on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. On terrorism, Adm Blair sounded a note of optimism, pointing out that public opinion in the Muslim world was turning against al-Qaeda. He said that, though a threat, it was less capable because of the pressure the US had put on its leadership inside Pakistan.

Rule of law -- Wired - Threat Level (2/13/09) revealed in an update that in a spy case Obama's Justice Department held fast to the state secrets privilege, for the second time this week. Judge Walker rejected the claim and asked the government to declare how it wished to proceed by Feb. 27. The case weighs whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish an eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. The post concludes:

The legal brouhaha in the spy case concerns Walker's decision to admit as evidence a classified document allegedly showing that two American lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity were electronically eavesdropped on without warrants by the Bush administration in 2004.

The document's admission to the case is central for the two former lawyers of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation charity to acquire legal standing so they may challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless-eavesdropping program Bush publicly acknowledged in 2005.

Restore the Constitution -- "Congress takes first step to impose limits on Obama's executive power" is the (2/12/09) title of Glenn Greenwald's important post at Salon.com about the State Secrets Protection Act. The ACLU endorsement of the two bills that were reintroduced seems significant. In related news, Wired - Threat Level reported (2/11/09) that bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress to "make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed. It concluded that,

The House version (.pdf) of the State Secrets Protection Act was introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-Michigan), Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), Thomas Petri (R-Wisconsin), William Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) and Zoe Lofgren (D-California.)

The Senate version was unveiled by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island).

Intel Oversight -- The Senate is revisiting the issue of GAO oversight of intelligence, reintroducing the Intelligence Community Audit Act, according to Secrecy News. It would "strengthen the authority of the Government Accountability Office to oversee intel agency programs and activities." A bit earlier the DoD said that auditors might be granted access to classified foreign intelligence, and Adm. Blair also seemed to endorse a role for GAO in intel overisght at his confirmation hearing.

State Secrets -- ProPublica's (2/2/09) newsletter headlined that AG Eric Holder suggested that there are far more secret Bush OLC memos relating to warrantless wiretapping than previously understood and that change may be coming. Before being confirmed, Holder responded in writing to questions from Senator Russ Feingold, according to Steven Aftergood, saying,

"Once the new Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel [Dawn Johnsen] is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC's policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns."

Civil Liberties -- Blogger "emptywheel" raises a big question (1/30/09). It appeared with whistleblower Russell Tice's bombshell revelations about the nature of the U.S. warrantless wiretapping program. Why has the media (except MSNBC) been almost silent since his recent report? She concluded with another key question, ". . . I do wonder whether the process of sweeping up journalists' phone records is just the first step in acquiring some very complacent journalists?"

Telecom immunity -- Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, supports continuing the efforts to provide retroactive immunity to companies being sued for their alleged role in the NSA warrantless surveillance program, CQ Politics reports (1/27/09). In written answers to Senator Kit Bond after his confirmation hearing, the DNI was unequivocal on the subject.

Few Facts -- Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), according to Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (1/21/09), asserts that a new FISA Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of warrantless intelligence surveillance was acting on an incomplete factual record. Without the benefit of an effective discovery process, the company was barred from crucial information because of a claim of national security. To quote further:

In any case, Sen. Feingold stressed, the new decision “in no way validates or bolsters the president’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The decision, which only addressed surveillance authorized by the Protect American Act (PAA) enacted in August 2007, did not support the President’s claim of constitutional authority to violate the law. Nor did the decision uphold the constitutionality of the PAA in all cases, but rather it upheld only the Act’s application in this particular case.”

Privacy protection -- Aftergood also reveals (1/16/09) that there are new guidelines that took effect 11/4/08, that define National Counterterrorism Center access to non-terror databases in order to acquire information needed for counterterrorism purposes. Mainly it would be to check for common criminal activity that might have helped suspected terrorists support themselves. The memo makes the ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer responsible fro insuring that the NCTC complies with privacy guidelines in accessing these records.

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Panetta? Why not?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, and Creature -- three of my favourite bloggers -- I'm not sure what to make of Obama's surprise selection of Leon Panetta to be CIA director. His extensive White House (CoS to Clinton) and Congressional experience should serve him well in a position that is, like it or not, political, but I think the intelligence community is right to be concerned. The question is, after all, just how political is he, just how close to Obama? What is needed at the CIA is integrity and independence, not an extension of the West Wing. Still, like the three mentioned above, I take comfort in the fact that his selection has shaken and stirred the Republican-enabling (and torture-enabling) Democratic intelligence leadership on Capitol Hill, notably Senators Dianne "fratricide" Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller.

Sullivan:

Feinstein and Rockefeller sense a real individual with real clout at the agency, whom they cannot control. There may have been a lack of foresight here in not phoning Feinstein ahead of time. But it is also indisputable that many leading intelligence Democrats were deeply complicit in the Bush torture program and his illegal wire-tapping. It was just as important for the president-elect to pick someone not beholden to them either.

Some are now citing Panetta's appointment as somehow "political" rather than substantive. But it's obvious that Obama has actually found someone both capable of running a bureaucracy as complex as the CIA, of a stature to be approved by the Congress and maintain good relations, and with the good sense to know how interrogation based on torture is never right and much less effective than legal methods.

It remains an inspired choice. And the critics help show why.

I'm not sure how "inspired" it is -- time will tell whether Panetta is the right man for the job or just another Tenet or Goss -- but, as Steve Benen notes in an excellent post on the reaction to the selection, it "has drawn a fair amount of praise from credible voices," including Rep. Rush Holt, former Rep. Tim Roemer, David Corn, and CQ's Jeff Stein.

Once more, as so often throughout the transition, I suppose I ought to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

Who has the President-elect's foreign policy ear?

By Carol Gee

Liberal Washington think tanks assume they will have finally have influence with the advent of a new Democratic administration. And others with a more rightist bent will certainly not give up their 8 years of being influential easily. Today's post explores a few news items that cover a bit of the jockeying to get the new president's ear on foreign affairs, and will give clues as to possible directions the next administration might be taking.

Center for American Progress? -- Recommendations from a group of national security experts regarding how to quickly get a handle on national security issues, are published in this transition manual [30-pg. pdf]. The Center for American Progress’s president, John Podesta, is heading Obama’s transition effort. Michael Signer, who headed of the homeland security transition initiative, said he "expects the Obama administration’s homeland security apparatus to be less ideological and more transparent in its dealings with the public." The story is here: "Note to Self? Check Out Terror Prep Advice Given to Transition Chief" from CQ Politics - In Transition blog 0f 11/17. To quote:

The Obama transition team is said to be considering at least three of the proposals. One would be to have top officials conduct a simulated terror attack - known as a “tabletop exercise” - soon after taking office in January that would help them identify overlapping agency responsibilities and get acquainted with the minute-by-minute decisions necessary to respond to a single catastrophic event or coordinated series of attacks. A second proposal would be to make the Secretary of Homeland Security one of the president’s first Cabinet appointments. This action would reinforce that domestic security remains a top priority, even though the economy and war in Iraq received have received far more attention.

The more controversial action would involve dissolving the Bush administration’s Homeland Security Council - an internal brain trust within the White House - and fold its responsibilities into the National Security Council. Critics of the current arrangement say the two councils have overlapping functions, making it difficult to envision where homeland security ends and national security begins. However, dissolving the homeland security panel might signal a less vigilant stance on the part of the new administration and overload the NSC with extra responsibilities, such as overseeing state and local counter terroism efforts. The Bush administration set up the Homeland Security Council in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, initially to blunt calls for the creation of a stand-alone, Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department.

Brookings Institution? -- The story, from CQ Politics: "Obama Readies Shifts From Bush’s National Security Policies" (12/2/08) is a great analysis of what changes might be implemented. To quote:

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama spoke about using diplomacy, nation-building and other non-military approaches to promote U.S. interests abroad. According to this world view, advancing living standards abroad could enhance security at home.

Yet Obama also displayed a willingness to use force to deal with militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and other hot spots. This apparent embrace of counterinsurgency efforts and “small wars” raised questions about how different Obama’s views really were from those of President Bush.

If the unveiling of Obama’s national security team on Monday didn’t exactly answer those questions, it at least signalled that the president-elect is willing to engage in internal debates over hard power and soft power.

. . . Some clues about how the Obama administration might proceed can be found in a recently published Brookings Institution paper on diplomacy in the 21st century that incorporated the views of Jones, the incoming national security adviser, and former Clinton administration State Department counselor Wendy R. Sherman, an adviser to Obama’s transition team.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and other hardline think tanks such as AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI are still very much wanting to remain in the influence mix. Explore that whole scene via this obscure news source. The story, "Neocons still preparing for an Iran attack"# came from the Asia Times (12/4/08). Author Robert Dreyfuss' conclusion, about what is going on behind the scenes, raises some interesting questions:

Obama has, of course, repeatedly declared his intention to embark on a different path by opening talks with Iran. He's insisted that diplomacy, not military action, will be at the core of his approach to Tehran. During the election campaign, however, he also stated no less repeatedly that he will not take the threat of military action "off the table".

Organizations like WINEP, AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI see it as their mission to push the United States toward a showdown with Iran. Don't sell them short. Those who believe that such a confrontation would be inconceivable under president Obama ought to ask Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Tom Daschle and Richard Holbrooke whether they agree - and, if so, why they're still palling around with neo-conservative hardliners.

Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism -- This commission was established by Congress. I am not sure if its leaders have the clout to take it very far as a mechanism of influence. President-elect Obama, however, already has an abiding interest in the field of nuclear nonproliferation. So he might pick up on the report: "Commission Warns Threat of Biological, Nuclear Attack Growing," from CQ Politics (12/2/08). To quote:

The report, set for official release Wednesday, contains a sharp critique of domestic and foreign policy, coupled with wide-ranging recommendations on controlling biological agents and containing nuclear proliferation. It also has many recommendations for Congress, including consolidating homeland security oversight and creating a new appropriations subcommittee.

“U.S. policy and strategy have made progress, but have not kept pace with the growing risks,” wrote the panel, formally known as the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. “The terrorists have been active too, and in our judgment America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.”

Several of the commissioners have advised the Obama campaign or transition, and several recommendations square with Obama’s policy views. Among the panel members, Wendy Sherman is a national security “team leader” in Obama’s transition, and Richard Verma serves on his defense transition team.

It is clear that Washington's think tanks, study groups, commissions of grey-beards, academics, pundits and experts all have ideas to which they want our next president to listen. And that leaves out all the ideas and requests of his million+ grass roots supporters. A coalition of grass roots organizers met in Washington this week and Valerie Jarrett, head of domestic policy, was in attendance. She has had the ear of the president-elect for 20 years.

HHS Secretary-designate Gov. Janet Napolitano, or members of her team, could surely benefit from watching the C-SPAN videos of Wednesday's day-long series of expert panels, "A Path Forward: Constitutional Protections in Homeland Security." The meetings came out of the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS). It was one of the most interesting recent efforts to educate the public (to me as a civil libertarian).

National Security News References from CQ's David C. Morrison:

1. Department of Homeland Security Secretary-designate? -- CQ Homeland Security - "Behind the Lines," (12/3/08). To quote:
   
   

   Napolitano Bonaparte: . . . DHS chief-designate Janet Napolitano’s gubernatorial experience seemingly makes her a natural. . . As DHS chief, Napolitano would direct the Real ID program, which she opposed as Arizona’s governor, The New York Times’ Matthew L. Wald points out. “Napolitano must be ready to discuss what's working and what isn't,” The Washington Post editorializes this morning.



2. "In Transition" regarding Intel -- CQ Homeland Security(12/4/08). To quote:
   
   

   Obama’s foreign policy brain trust needs “a coherent intellectual framework - and a winning battle plan - for the globe-spanning asymmetrical conflict that George W. Bush calls the ‘war on terror,’” the Post’s Eugene Robinson rumbles. Having lambasted its terror-war tactics on the hustings, taking control of the CIA is one of “the more treacherous patches” of Obama’s transition to governance, the Times’ Mark Mazetti and Scott Shane survey. A dozen retired generals met with Obama’s top legal advisers Wednesday to urge overturning certain Bush administration terror-fighting policies, The Associated Press’ Pamela Hess reports.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted 12/4/08 at South by Southwest.)

Police State Update

By Carol Gee

"Police state" stories, about the sad turn of government events in the United States, came to my in-box in stacks from my regular contributors in recent weeks. The following set of posts about the same news story is my post's lead today.

Overturning Posse Comitatus? Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, asks about an article at Global Research, "Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the homeland?#." Also, from News With Views, Chuck Baldwin asks, "U.S. Army troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?#" At Truth Out, the author asks the question* again, about how it will be when U.S. regular troops become law enforcement authorities within U.S. borders.

As domestic surveillance takes center stage, the FBI's traditional law enforcement role diminishes. And that is the reason why the vigilance of the American Civil Liberties Union is so crucial. The ACLU sends me a regular newsletter. Anthony Romero's Sept. 29th letter got my attention. To quote from it:

Bush and Mukasey are at it again. They've announced dangerous new FBI guidelines that will severely jeopardize the personal privacy of innocent Americans. These regulations need no congressional approval and are terrifying.

Just how far can the FBI go without any factual basis for suspecting improper -- let alone illegal -- activity? Under far-reaching new guidelines proposed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the answer is frightening. All the FBI has to do to put you or any American under prolonged physical surveillance is assert an "authorized purpose" such as detecting or preventing crime or protecting "national security." Sound familiar? It's the same Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Mukasey "just trust us" policies that have been eroding our rights for the past eight years.

. . . These new guidelines would allow the FBI to interview you, your friends and your family under a false pretext. The FBI could recruit secret informants and have them infiltrate peaceful protest groups. And the FBI could initiate investigations based on little more than race, ethnicity or religion. The FBI could also search commercial databases for personal details about your life with no real reason. And all of this would be allowed without an ounce of evidence that you or anyone else has done anything wrong.

The right to privacy is increasingly under assault by the U.S. federal government. This is another example of the police state mentality that turns more and more away from law enforcement and towards domestic surveillance. This article from The Raw Story (9/23/08),"DHS quietly expands border search policies,*" explains. To quote:

The Department of Homeland Security quietly expanded its authorization to examine, copy and archive an array of documents and electronic files from citizens and visitors crossing US borders, according to reams of internal documents released Tuesday.

The changes implemented last year reverse a two-decade-old policy requiring border agents to have reasonable suspicion of a crime before reading documents someone is bringing into the country; probable cause was required before documents could be copied.

Those standards have been thrown out the window in favor of lenient standards that allow Customs and Border Patrol agents to read or copy essentially anything they would like from a person entering the United States. The new policies also make it easier for CBP to share documents it copies or confiscates with other law enforcement agencies.

Within the Bill of Rights is another under assault, that of free speech. And we also have the right to petition our government for redress. We see more and more of this under the current administration. The story is from After Downing Street (9/15/08): "Three peace activists arrested in front of Federal Building in Madison.*" To quote:

Three Madison area peace activists were arrested during a peaceful demonstration, blocking the door to the federal building at 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd at 1:00 pm on Monday September 15, 2008. Cassandra Dixon, Bonnie Block, and Joy First were charged with obstruction of building during a peaceful vigil calling for an end to war and for an end to the deployment of our national guard to Iraq. They were cited and released.

The three joined about 30 other activists for the peace vigil that has been a fixture on Monday noon in downtown Madison for the past 26 years.

The USA is in a very sorry state of affairs when the cops act as an "arm of the state," in the worst sense of the term. Here is a relatively benign example that is still unnervings. It comes from The Raw Story (9/28/08), "Denver cops get T-shirts that mock DNC protesters*." To quote: ". . . commemorative T-shirt that makes light of the use of violence by police, particularly in the wake of 154 arrests during the week of Democratic National Convention this past August."

A "police state" climate could be contagious. Here is an example of such absolute insanity, from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (9/25/08): "Student who wore gorilla suit says he was trying to boost school spirit#." To quote:

Curtis Patton said he and Sean Kight, seniors at Flower Mound High School, thought sprinting across the school football field dressed as a gorilla and banana during last Friday’s homecoming game would be good for school spirit.

"I thought it would unite the student body, but not like this," he said, referring to a large segment of students who — from online postings — seem to believe administrators and police overreacted when they hauled the two off to jail for 16 hours.

More police state silliness -- For those of us who call themselves civil libertarians, this story from Yahoo! News (9/25/08) reinforces the sense of disquietude that pervades these times. The headline, "Hot dogs outside Philly ballpark cause bomb scare.#" makes my head spin. To quote:

But someone inadvertently left three of the duct taped hot dogs outside the ballpark, sparking security fears. Stadium employees were evacuated and the bomb squad was called in.

Only after the packages were blown up did authorities realize they'd just exploded some sausages.

This police state update is not just another of my regular civil libertarian gripe sessions. It is my way of reinforcing what registering. . . and phoning . . . and distributing yard signs . . . and, then voting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden is all about. It does not hurt to say again, the stakes could not be higher.

Reference -- on one of the chief architects of the Police State, Vice-President Cheney:

• "Talking with the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman," by Eric Umansky of ProPublica - September 23, 2008. It is on the new book about Dick Cheney. To quote:

  But, part of Cheney’s legacy is that he over reached and got pushed back. The Supreme Court said, for the first time, that the president needs permission from Congress to have military tribunals, for example. Even though Congress turned right around and said, “well okay, you go right ahead,” that doesn’t mean that the presidency is not constrained by this.
  
  So ironically, precedents of limitations of power have been set.
  
  Yeah, precedents have been set that are not good for the presidency or for the unilateral declaration of executive power. Sometimes Cheney’s tactical victories led to strategic defeats.



• About Civil Liberties: McCain vs. Bush (9/21/08)Yeah, precedents have been set that are not good for the presidency or for the unilateral declaration of executive power. Sometimes Cheney’s tactical victories led to strategic defeats.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted 10/5/08 at South by Southwest.)

Just so you do not forget

By Carol Gee

Tonight is the vice presidential Debate between Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) and Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska.) Most of us think it could produce some headlines. We are all waiting to chalk up another Palin favorite moment.

Prior to the first debate between Senators McCain and Obama, Rand Beers at The Huffington Post said that it was a commander-in-chief test for them both. And most of the critics agree that, in some ways both passed the test. My own bias is that Obama passed with an "A" and McCain passed with a "D." Each of the candidates for vice president also has to pass the commander-in-chief test,# because that could conceivably be their role in the future. So think about what Beers said that still applies:

• Into this cauldron come two non-incumbent candidates, each of whom must pass the commander-in-chief test and demonstrate that he [or she]:
• Offers real change from the past eight years;
• Understands foreign policy beyond simplistic soundbites and tough talk, by providing serious solutions;
• Is ready to grapple with the complexities that link our security and our economy; and most importantly
• Has the temperament and judgment to lead.

If we are to believe Senator Obama, and I do, Senator McCain, and, by extension, Governor Palin represent more of the same out-of-control militarism and intelligence abuses as during the past eight years. Here are a few random news bits from my newsletter CQ Behind the Lines, just to remind:

"Senior White House officials played a central role in determining whether the CIA could use harsh interrogation techniques, The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti learns from newly released documents."

Terror tech -- from CQ Behind the Lines (9/24/08). Each edition of this handy little newsletter reveals the latest developments in our surveillance state. Do you have any question whatsoever that it would not continue under McCain-Palin? To quote:

U.S. intel agencies are unable to share info about foreign cyber attacks against companies for fear of jeopardizing intelligence-gathering sources, The Washington Post has an official testifying last week. DHS researchers “have previewed new technology that they promise will help rout out terrorists and other dangerous people in public places by covertly bio-scanning subjects as they walk past sets of cameras,” Revolution Radio reacts — and see FOX News: “Homeland Security Detects Terrorist Threats by Reading Your Mind.” DHS has many other such projects, “the descriptions of which are so impenetrable, there must be some way to use them for actual protection. If only we could wear jargon like armor,” The Everett Washington Herald harrumphs.

From the vice president's office we give you, ladies and gentlemen -- Think also about this Bush administration left-over from After Downing Street: "A war criminal in academia."* To quote:

The Miller Center on Public Affairs at the University of Virginia has invited a war criminal to speak on October 27, 2008, on the topic of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism." Georgetown University employs the very same war criminal as a "Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy." Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government has made him a "Belfer Center Visiting Scholar." And to Stanford University he's a "Distinguished Visiting Fellow of the Hoover Institution." The man's name is Douglas Feith.

. . . Feith's work after September 11, 2001, quickly became the manufa[c]ture of pseudo-evidence pretending to link al Qaeda to Iraq. Feith created, cherry picked, and distorted information, and pressured others to do the same, to help build a false case for an illegal war of aggression. And he didn't even do so from within an agency legally permitted to engage in so-called intelligence work. He did so from within the Pentagon where he set up a parallel intelligence operation with the role of producing what Cheney and Bush wanted but couldn't get from the other intelligence agencies. Feith's operation was called the Office of Special Plans.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Why bother with a constitution?

By Carol Gee

More Power to you, Mr. President? Actually, we the American people do not think so. We believe we still have the constitution, thank you very much. According to Matt Berman, who writes "The Daily Muck" (9/15/08) at TPM Muckraker:

A new AP-National Constitution Center poll shows that a majority of Americans are opposed to giving more power to the President, even at the expense of national security or the economy. The poll shows that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to shifting the balance of government towards the executive, evidence of wide-ranging skepticism of the advances in executive power during the Bush years. The poll also found more of a split when Americans were asked if Congress should be awarded greater power in times of economic or national security hardships. (AP)

I am a Constitution Voter Campaign -- At the ACLU Blog (9/15/08), Caroline Fredrickson on Salon Radio, on the Constitution Voter Campaign talks about how useful it would be to have the presidential candidates talk about Constitutional issues.

Our current president (OCP) started ignoring the Constitution by spying on Americans without a legal warrant some time ago. A great post illustrates an example. It cleverly and succinctly summarizes the new Barton Gellman material, with the five main points of the book's revelations. It came from ACLU Blog, and was written by Amanda Simon (9/15/08): "Ashcroft Defends Constitution in Spying Clusterfrack. Happy Opposite Day!"

Our current president (OCP) had massive help from the private sector in shredding our Constitution's privacy protection -- At the website, Dandelion Salad [by Tom Burghardt of Global Research, September 11, 2008], comes the sordid story. To quote:

What do the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and enterprising capitalist grifters have in common? Workarounds...and lots of them. The kind that aren't covered by any law.

Two highly-disturbing reports by CNET and the London Review of Books describe how government intelligence agencies and niche telecom providers have teamed-up to subvert our privacy rights-while providing security agencies with real-time cell phone tracking capabilities.

. . . And with a swarming multitude of new companies crawling out of the woodwork to "service" the "homeland security" market, why its a snap. Firms such as ThorpeGlen, VASTech, Kommlabs, and Aqsacom all sell what CNET's Chris Soghoian describes as "off-the-shelf data-mining solutions to government spies interested in analyzing mobile-phone calling records and real-time location information."

Called "passive-probing" data mining, these companies are carving-out lucrative niche markets. Only there's nothing "passive" about these intrusive operations undertaken in concert with a veritable army of state and corporate spooks.

. . . And there you have it. Niche telecom providers are the latest players in the West's burgeoning "terrorism industry," one that "keeps us safe" by destroying our privacy and our rights with hefty profits all around. Call it another seamless victory for the market's "invisible hand" that clenches as it morphs into the state's iron fist wrapped in American flags and blood-drenched corporate logos.

Congress has sometimes been complicit with OCP in the business of warrantless wiretapping, even when Democrats were in charge. To give them their due, however, they have held many hearings revealing some truth about the extent of damage to the principles of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. For example, hats off to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) for recently holding this Judiciary subcommittee hearing: "Restoring the Rule of Law."# It was this desire to dial back the executive power overreach that was Bush's primary governing philosophy that led the senator to call together nearly a dozen experts Tuesday morning for the Judiciary subcommittee hearing. To quote:

Some Democrats -- frustrated at banging their heads against a wall much of these last eight years, as they've watched George W. Bush run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law -- are determined to return some semblance of order once the president leaves office next year.

The FBI became the agency charged with domestic intelligence gathering during the post-9/11 reorganization of the government's intelligence and homeland security programs. But like other organizations in the executive branch, they have become less and less interested in civil liberties over the years. The following story is an illustration of what Congress is trying to do about that. "Mueller Grilled Over Claims New FBI Powers Amounts to Racial Profiling, More Spying,"* by Robert Chlala for The Public Record on September 19, 2008. To quote:

. . . what the new framework Mueller described would actually do is allow agents to begin "assessments" and surveillance without first obtaining factual evidence. Additionally, the guidelines would permit agents to use race and ethnicity as a factor for triggering investigations.

Despite the concerns raised during the hearings and pressure from civil rights groups, Attorney General Michael Mukasey plans on signing the guidelines into law on Oct. 1.

These guidelines represent only some of a series of changes in law enforcement set in place the last year, increasing the power of federal, state and local authorities. Other new policies include the proposal to eliminate restrictions on local and state law enforcement intelligence gathering, the recruitment of over 15,000 new informants, and the creation of local-level "fusion centers" that gather and monitor masses of criminal and non-criminal information on individuals.

While the FBI guidelines have not been released to the general public, several members of Congress and key staffers from the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate pressed and received limited access to the draft. Department of Justice briefings and a speech by Attorney General Michael Mukasey in August also shed light on the topic.

Evidently protest is not protected in the copy of the Constitution carried by OCP. The Secret Service, under the Treasury Department, is charged with the protection of the President and Vice President, as well as of the candidates currently running for those offices. They are very good at taking their marching orders from OCP, who ignores Constitutional rights under the guise of maintaining safety. This perfect example "Secret Service order police to block McCain protesters,"* was a post at The Raw Story by David Edwards and Muriel Kane on September 17. To quote:

. . . Leaders of the protest, which had been arranged and publicized by local unions and the Ohio Democratic Party, said that as many as several hundred people had been expected to attend, but police were not letting them through roadblocks surrounding the area.

ACLU Calls for Investigation into Civil Liberties Violations at RNC -- During the Republican National Convention there were mass arrests, police raids on private homes and the detention of several journalists. This comes from my ACLU newsletter, and is a reminder why I am so grateful for the ACLU's long battle to protect our rights under the Constitution. To quote:

"Attempts by law enforcement to squelch lawful political speech and stifle the press have no place in our democracy and are unacceptable," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Political conventions should be a showcase for free expression, not a venue for bullying and intimidation."

The ACLU specifically called for an investigation into possible violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, including:

* The arrest of reporters trying to gather the news;
* The mass arrest of hundreds of peaceful protestors;
* The surveillance and subsequent raids on several activist groups and private homes; and
* The confiscation by law enforcement agents of constitutionally-protected private property.

The ACLU affiliate office in Minnesota has assembled legal counsel for many of the reporters and peaceful protesters arrested at the protests and has also filed a lawsuit in federal court calling for the release of boxes of literature that were confiscated during raids.

Why bother with the Constitution at all when Homeland Security, under the cover of Keeping Us Safe, can intrude into Sesame Street, of all things? I give up. "Homeland Security, Sesame Style,"* by Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin (9/1808), at DC Examiner, explains. To quote:

In a move that will make Bush administration detractors bring back those duct tape jokes again, the Department of Homeland Security has partnered up with the famous children's show.

"We all want our children to feel safe in this world," said Meryl Chertoff, wife of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, at a ceremony held at the John Tyler Elementary School to announce the partnership. "And who better to do that than our Sesame Street friends, Grover and Rosita!"

. . . As you can imagine, the partnership is aimed at children, and seeks to encourage family preparedness plans in the case of emergencies.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)