What is and what can never be

By Carl

So, Edward Snowden has apparently decided to have a freak-out over losing Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. Let’s review, shall we?

First, the preening, gloating, self-important popinjay had this to say:

National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden said his "mission's already accomplished" and spoke of having “personal satisfaction” at the revelations about U.S. surveillance policies in an interview published Tuesday.

The former intelligence contractor, who exposed extensive details of global electronic surveillance by the U.S. spy agency, said he was not being disloyal to the U.S. or to his former employer.

"I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA," he told The Washington Post. "I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don't realize it."

OK, fair enough. He realizes that he exposed an already public program, and that what happens next is up to the people reading his revelations. Altho that last bit, about working as some sort of dubble-sekrit sooperspi is a bit…disturbing. But I digress…

Read more »

For Dick Cheney, the best defense is to be offensive

By Richard K. Barry

Is it possible to imagine a more vile person than former Vice President Dick Cheney? Oh, I'm sure one can think of a few, but it wouldn't be a very long list. 

Think Progress reports that on the eve of the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Cheney accused President Obama of taking "sole credit" for killing Osama bin Laden and of ignoring his daily intelligence briefings.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, a notorious right-wing rag, Cheney said this:

Careful. Your face will stay
like that. 

If President Obama were participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis then perhaps he would understand why people are so offended at his efforts to take sole credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden.

On the issue of "taking sole credit," Think Progress offers this direct quote from President Obama, made earlier in the year:

[L]ast year, when we delivered justice to Osama bin Laden, I made it clear that our success was due to many people in many organizations working together over many years — across two administrations. That's why my first call once American forces were safely out of harm's way was to President Bush. Because protecting our country is neither the work of one person, nor the task of one period of time, it's an ongoing obligation that we all share.

As for the other absurd claim that the president isn't adequately briefed up on national security matters, it notes this:

Obama also continues to receive intelligence information on a daily basis, even if he prefers to read the analyses himself rather than have it read to him. As National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor told Politico, Obama "receives and reads his [Presidential Daily Brief] every day, and most days when he's at the White House receives a briefing in person. When necessary he probes the arguments, requests more information or seeks alternate analysis. Sometimes that's via a written assessment and other times it's in person... [Former Bush speechwriter] Marc [Thiessen] basically wrote a story culled from our public schedule that shows how Marc's old boss, President Bush, structured his day differently than President Obama."

I suppose Cheney must be feeling pretty exposed given yesterday's damning piece in The New York Times about the Bush administration's reckless disregard for intelligence that warned about an imminent attack by al Qaeda in 2001. 

No doubt the best defence is still a good offence, even it is based on a pack of lies. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Torture and the truth in Obama's America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot to like, I suppose, about Obama's America, or, at least, about Obama's high-falutin' (and idealistic, if not delusional) rhetoric about America. It would seem to be a better place, than, say, Bush's America.

But not by much.

Sure, Obama deserves much of the credit for health-care reform (even if he didn't ever push for a public option and, on this as on pretty much every other issue, gave in to Republican demands without much of a fight and certainly without ever using his bully pulpit to achieve more progressive ends) and for pulling the economy back from the brink of utter catastrophe and for improving the country's standing around the world, but otherwise, as we look back over his first two-plus years, he has extended Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, protected Wall Street from being held accountable for the financial meltdown, and, much to his and the country's discredit, continued Bush's anti-democratic and illiberal national security state.

On this last point, here's yet another shameful case in point, via Glenn Greenwald:

On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. [Yesterday], CNN report[ed], Crowley... "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.

So, in Barack Obama's administration, it's perfectly acceptable to abuse an American citizen in detention who has been convicted of nothing by consigning him to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, barring him from exercising in his cell, punitively imposing "suicide watch" restrictions on him against the recommendations of brig psychiatrists, and subjecting him to prolonged, forced nudity designed to humiliate and degrade. But speaking out against that abuse is a firing offense...

Of course, it's also the case in Barack Obama's world that those who instituted a worldwide torture and illegal eavesdropping regime are entitled to full-scale presidential immunity, while powerless individuals who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing and illegality are subjected to the most aggressive campaign of prosecution and persecution the country has ever seen. So protecting those who are abusing Manning, while firing Crowley for condemning the abuse, is perfectly consistent with the President's sense of justice.

As always, here's the problem? What's the alternative? This, but even worse, under Republican rule.

And so we who abhor what is going on -- the government's authority to invade privacy, among other things, under the Patriot Act; the treatment of Bradley Manning; Gitmo remaining open with detainees kept indefinitely and subjected to military "trials"; etc. -- end up backing Obama (and his Democratic enablers) just because the other side is worse. Which is hardly much of an endorsement of the president.

That's my pragmatism speaking. Ultimately, the choice is clear.

But that doesn't make this any better.

Whatever good it will do, if any at all, we must keep up the pressure on Obama and expose the injustices that are being committed under his rule, injustices for which he himself must be held accountable.

The U.S. National Security State

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Make sure to read this -- all of it: "A hidden world, growing beyond control," by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin of The Washington Post, a terrifying exposé of the post-9/11 national-security state:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

Glenn Greenwald is right (and read his post, too):

We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real U.S. Government:  functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization.

The Founders, I suspect, would not be amused.

While we were sleeping

Guest post by Nancy Brune

Dr. Nancy E. Brune is currently the director of Research and Policy at UNLV's Institute for Security Studies, where she works on energy security and national security issues. She is a Truman National Security fellow, as well as a member of Women in International Security and the Pacific Council on International Policy. This is her first guest post at The Reaction.

**********

There's a reason why the Senate's new clean energy bill is called the American Power Act. If America fails to adopt a comprehensive energy strategy to keep us strong in the 21st century, we won't have much national or military power to speak of as we confront an increasing number of national security challenges.

The new Senate clean energy and security bill was a long time coming. The decision made by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham several weeks ago to suspend his involvement in negotiations did not bode well for America's energy security. Long gone are the days of Summer 2008, when candidates from both parties called on America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, offering solutions to make us greener and safer. Sadly, while our political leaders have yet to achieve any real progress in making us safer and less reliant on foreign oil, other countries are aggressively taking steps to ensure their own long-term energy security and sovereign power.

Over the last few years, geopolitical powerhouses – including China and Russia – have taken bold measures to ensure their long-term energy security. Driven by the need to fuel its rapidly growing economy, China has invested in distant, oil-rich African nations including Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, and the Sudan. But it has also ponied up money closer to home. On April 20, China's National Petroleum Company announced a $900 million heavy crude production project with Venezuela. Just a week earlier in neighboring Brazil, a country that sits on vast pre-salt oil reserves, China's Sinopec and the China Development Bank signed a strategic development pact with Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company.

In addition, China – along with several sovereign wealth funds owned by countries in the Middle East – have made significant investments in energy companies in Canada, one of America's closest allies and biggest source of oil imports (almost 25 percent). This wave of investment in our northern neighbor stands in stark contrast to the recent decisions last fall by the U.S. Department of Defense and private firms to reverse course and cancel plans to develop and use Canadian tar sands oil.

Russia has also been quite active in building strategic relationships with several resource-wealthy countries to enhance its long-term energy security. In September 2009, Russia and Venezuela announced several cooperative agreements on defense, trade, and energy. A consortium of energy giants in Russia signed two agreements with Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the country's national oil company. Last week, former Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the merger of Gazprom, Russia's state gas company, with Naftogaz, Ukraine's state energy company, in a deal that would give Russia control over the Ukraine's vast European pipeline network.

Even our European allies, despite facing significant economic strain, announced recently that they are investing precious financial resources in almost fifty new energy projects "to strengthen the region's energy security."

Around the world, America's allies and competitors are moving aggressively to secure access to energy resources as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy. For instance, in addition to investing in oilfields, China is also making significant investments in renewable energy. In 2009, China's investment in renewable energy totaled $34.6 billion, surpassing U.S. investment of $18.6 billion.

America cannot afford to delay any longer. Energy security and resiliency are inextricably tied to America's long-term national security interests, geopolitical bargaining power, and economic might. Every day that we put off forging a comprehensive national energy strategy undermines the power of our military, the single largest consumer of energy in the world. We need a climate and energy bill that will provide measures to help us diversify our sources of energy, protect our military, and reduce our vulnerability to turbulence in global energy markets.

As was clear in 2008, energy security is an issue of national importance. We can't afford to let politics or a single interest group hijack our long-term energy security. There are signs that national leadership is committed to moving forward. Last month, the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar took the bold and courageous step of allowing the Nantucket Sound wind project to move forward. The recent oil spill has made the urgency of supporting measures to develop other sources of energy more critical. On Wednesday, Senators Kerry and Lieberman presented their new energy and climate bill, the American Power Act.

We now have before us an opportunity to make America less vulnerable to political instability and volatility in global energy markets. Other nations recognize the critical link between energy surety and national security. Will America?

Madness in the Insanitarium: Romney, Rubio, and CPAC

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, the CPAC Insanitarium is in full swing in Washington, as it is this time every year, and the star of the first day, yesterday, was none other than Marco Rubio, the upstart right-wing darling who, now well out in front of Gov. Charlie Crist, is expected to be the Republican candidate in this year's Florida Senate race.

To rapturous applause, the Insanitarium boisterous in its unbridled enthusiasm, Rubio gave what the increasingly Republican-friendly Washington Post called "a keynote address about American exceptionalism and his own improbable journey" -- and it was full of the sort of hopped-up flag-waving and extremist Republican talking point-spewing we've come to expect from Rubio's ilk, which is to say, from the new mainstream of the GOP.

"It's sometimes easy to forget how special America really is," he said, up to his earlobes in banality, as if no other country is at all special, as if America is God's Land, which of course is what conservatives think it is. And he "enthralled the activists" with his take on national security:

We will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. We will punish their allies like Iran. We will stand with our allies like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them. We will get useful information from them. And then we will bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo -- not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.

This is basically reductio ad Cheneyesque absurdum nonsense. For what does it mean to do "whatever it takes"? What does it mean to "punish" Iran? There's so little substance behind such rhetoric, so common on the right. It's neoconservative bullying with a penchant for torture and brutality, but, however nonsensical, it is dangerous and destructive in the wrong hands, as we witnessed over the course of two detestable terms of George W. Bush.

And it is what passes for serious thought in the Insanitarium, which is, by definition, insane. Just consider, for example, that one of the day's other major speakers, Mitt Romney, still trying to outdo himself sucking up to conservatives, called Democrats "liberal neo-monarchists," a slur that makes utterly no sense and that means nothing outside of the warped partisan vocabulary of today's reality-averse, truth-denying conservatives.

On a more humorous note, though, let's not overlook Rubio's teleprompter fixation (shared by many of Obama's shot-in-the-dark critics):

The Tea Party's choice in the Florida Republican primary, Marco Rubio, began his address to a crowd of conservative conventioneers by taking a shot at President Obama for reading from a teleprompter. He did it while standing in front of two easily visible teleprompters.

It was unclear whether the devices were placed there for him or for other speakers at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, or CPAC, at which he was a keynote speaker. A HuffPost reporter, however, watched his speech from the front row and Rubio could clearly be seen looking intently and repeatedly at the teleprompters.

Yes, it's all quite worrying, what goes on in the Insanitarium, but at least it has its share of shameless hypocrisy and unintentional comedy.

Because you need a good laugh now and then when you spend time watching these delusional inmates plot to fuck up the world by trying to remake it in their own distorted image.

The Turkey from Cranberry Township; or, when a crazy conservative attacks Iraq and Afghanistan veterans

Guest post by Frankie Sturm

Frankie Sturm is communications director at the Truman National Security Project and a free-lance journalist. For his previous guest posts at The Reaction, see here.

I work with veterans on a daily basis. Lately, I've been burning the midnight oil as part of Operation FREE, a coalition of veterans groups and national security organizations that are looking to raise awareness about the links between climate change and national security.

We're right in the middle of a nation-wide bus tour, with veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan talking to local media, veterans groups, and civic organizations. But as we made our way to Pennsylvania, all hell broke loose.

We decided to invite all members of the Pennsylvania state legislature to meet us on the bus to talk with our veterans. It was a seemingly innocuous and run-of-the-mill invitation. But the response we received from state representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry Township) was hardly run of the mill:

Subject: Re: Veterans for American Power Bus Tour coming to your state

As a veteran,

I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath he or she took [to] defend the Constitution of our great nation!

Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda.

Drill Baby Drill!!!
For Liberty,
Daryl Metcalfe
State Representative
Veteran U.S. Army

That's right, veterans who support clean energy are "traitors." Yikes. As it turns out, this isn't Representative Metcalfe's first foray into the absurd. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, he opposed a resolution declaring Domestic Violence Awareness month in Pennsylvania, fearful of a "homosexual agenda." He also refused to support a vote to honor the 60th anniversary of a Muslim group in the state because "Muslims don't recognize Jesus Christ as God."

For anyone who thinks this is unacceptable behavior, I'd like to invite you to strike back!

If you'd like to sign a petition that demands an apology for his remarks about U.S. veterans, please click here.

Or if you'd like to bombard his offices with calls, emails, and letters, you can check out the contact info on his website.

Of course, it's unlikely any amount of phone calls or emails will change this guy's mind. But at least we can make sure he knows that slandering good Americans comes at a steep price.

(Originally posted at The Huffington Post.)

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankie-sturm/the-turkey-from-cranberry_b_328290.html

Momentum builds for national security

Guest post by Frankie Sturm and Matt Rhoades

Frankie Sturm is communications director at the Truman National Security Project and a free-lance journalist. Matt Rhoades works on Operation FREE for the Truman Project, where he is an intern.

**********

Operation FREE, a coalition of national security experts and military veterans, has been a leading voice in arguing that climate change and an out-dated energy policy are threats to U.S. national security. Climate change is real, it is a "threat multiplier," and it represents a major increase in the threats our military will have to confront in the coming years. Operation FREE is advocating, on these grounds, for bold climate and energy legislation this year.

Here is the concern: If the climate continues to change at its current pace, human access to food and water will diminish, resulting in fierce competition for those resources. Populations in heavily affected areas will migrate en masse to lands rich in resources, creating conflict with the local population. Deep cultural and religious divisions will exacerbate those resource conflicts, resulting in chaos, instability, and fertile recruiting grounds for extremists and terrorists. Operation FREE has been raising the awareness of these, and other, threats and advocating for a change in climate and energy policy. Now the media are picking up on the message.

In the past two weeks alone there has been a noticeable increase in media coverage devoted to the national security implications of climate change and energy policy. For example, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune recently ran reports on the shift in strategy away from "climate legislation as a jobs creator" to "climate legislation as necessary for national security." The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a piece that noted that climate legislation will reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. And last week, The Miami Herald reported that "a bipartisan group of former presidential advisors, Cabinet members, senators and military leaders" are arguing that "America's national security is at risk unless Congress and the Obama administration end partisan wrangling and agree on legislation to reduce U.S. contributions to climate change." As the media reports the message of national security, public support for climate and energy legislation remains strong.

The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that nearly six in ten Americans support the climate and energy plans being developed by Congress and the Obama Administration. Support is even stronger among young Americans. 75 percent of 18- to 29-year olds support the American Clean Energy and Security Act as passed by the House of Representatives and 65 percent of that same demographic say they are less likely to vote to re-elect a senator who votes "no" on the Senate version of the climate bill.

The bill is scheduled to be introduced in the Senate by the end of September. Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry will champion the bill in the chamber, but it will be subject to debate and the amendment process in six Senate committees before a final debate and vote in the full chamber. Passage will require strong public support and positive media coverage. Operation FREE and its partners are working diligently to focus the public and the media on the positive effect climate and energy legislation will have on our national security.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

Why the military is worried about climate change

Guest post by Jonathan Powers

Jon Powers is the Chief Operating Officer of the Truman National Security Project. He is a veteran of the Gulf War and the founder of War Kids Relief. He was previously Veterans Program Director at the Eleison Group, where he worked on outreach efforts by the progressive community to veterans and military families.

This post, co-written with Jon Soltz, was originally published at The Huffington Post.

**********

Months ago, when veterans got into the fight over Clean Energy, we did so because of the firm link between Middle East oil profits and terrorism. Late last month, Richard Holbrooke even stated that the Taliban is being funded by Persian Oil. In short, we're unintentionally funding both sides of the wars we're in.

What we did not realize then, but that bolsters the seriousness of the case for investment in a Green Energy Economy, is that the Pentagon has been running simulations on climate change to see how its effects would stretch our military and put American lives on the line.

The idea that climate change might have a direct affect on American security isn't a new notion. In 2008, a National Intelligence Assessment observed that "global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years."

Military leaders are now identifying climate change and energy security as a growing threat to our national security.

What is new is that the Pentagon is now taking the threat so seriously that it has been war-gaming scenarios. The results?

In one scenario, a flood in Bangladesh "sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure," according to a story in The New York Times. Other models put key military installations in severe danger, while melting polar ice opens up new shipping channels that must be defended.

"The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations," the report concludes.

The risk lies in the challenges we face when these climate induced crises happen in fragile or failing states. Extremist groups move to take advantage of these situations to create a foothold for themselves... a foothold we cannot let them gain. And, conversely, if they're dealing with disasters, we might not have the forces needed to keep the Bangladesh scenario from becoming a regional conflagration in a nuclear region of the world.

Simply put, not passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill doesn't just mean continuing sending oil profits to terrorists. It means our men and uniform operating in a world where they are constantly deployed, overstretched, and putting their lives on the line, all to deal with scenarios that we could have prevented but didn't.

That's why a new coalition of veterans and national security groups is taking to D.C. and to the airwaves this week, making a strong push for legislation to pass the Senate to join the bill already passed by the House and to move on to the president.

A number of groups, including the groups we head, have come together under the umbrella of Operation FREE, a coalition of those concerned with our troops and national security. This week, hundreds of veterans with Operation FREE are descending on the Capitol to make the case that this is as much a security issue as anything. Operation FREE is just starting, though, and will be doing much more in the weeks and months ahead.

VoteVets.org is also starting to air an ad nationally -- and in the states of North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Michigan -- this week. The ad strongly and bluntly makes the case stated above, closing with: "It's not just a question of American energy, it's a question of American Power."

We do not have a moment to spare. Yes, there are a lot of important issues being debated in Washington today. But, to us, very few are as important as this. When it comes to our troops, our security, and our future, veterans like us won't back down.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

Energy policy and national security clearly linked

Guest post by Frankie Sturm

Frankie Sturm is communications director at the Truman National Security Project and a free-lance journalist.

The debate over climate change and energy legislation is becoming a debate over America's national security. And this is just where the debate belongs. As nearly 150 veterans gear up to visit Washington to ask their senators to take serious action on climate change, Jill Lawrence of Politics Daily reported on the new dynamic that national security is adding to the fight for new energy policy:

In the face of conservative attacks on climate-change legislation as a "job-killing energy tax," this is a welcome and potentially effective experiment in the politics of addition. We are not talking here about indulging tree-huggers or endangered species, or even about protecting the Earth. We are talking about protecting America. The argument is tough and double-barreled: We need to stop pouring money into oil-producing countries that are hostile to our interests, and we need to take global warming seriously as a threat to our national security -- because the military sure does.

From Operation FREE and the CNA report on the national security effects of climate change, to former Republican Senator John Warner and the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate, the article gives a bird’s-eye view of why climate change is looming large in the minds of those who take national security the most seriously. As Politico reported, it's also having an effect on public opinion:

Respondents were best persuaded [to support energy legislation] by an America-first national security argument -- the notion that "over-reliance on oil from hostile nations hurts economy, helps enemies, and puts security at risk."

But as this avenue of debate develops, it's important to remember that messaging is not the motivator here. The plain truth is that climate change is a threat to our security. That's what we need to keep in mind, and that's why we need a new energy policy this year.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

How much "cybersecurity" will we achieve?

By Carol Gee

When the Obama administration came into office, some of its best and brightest thinkers started looking at the issue of security on the world wide web, or "cybersecurity." The thinking was undoubtedly spurred when the White House computers went down for a day as staffers were moving in. More and more reports of breaches to private and government computers, fears about Russia, China's efforts to break into U.S. computers and other issues related to terrorism and the internet persisted.

Cybersecurity was an issue that had been discussed by the previous administration, but nothing was ever done about it, possibly because it has been hard to determine who should be in charge of the overall program. The Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, proposed at this confirmation hearing that the NSA should run it. Rod Beckstrom, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who resigned his post as the director of America's National Cyber Security Center in March, claiming that a lack of support was preventing him from doing the job. But the firestorm of protest that went on for weeks eventually calmed when the headline from Wired Threat Level (4/21/09), "NSA Chief: ‘We Do Not Want to Run Cyber Security’," appeared. To quote:

NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, speaking at the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco, told the audience of security professionals on Tuesday that the NSA does "not want to run cyber security for the United States government."

Aiming to dispel news reports — and counter previous intelligence agency statements — that the National Security Agency is angling to grab the top spot in the government’s cyber security initiative, Alexander said it’s a job that’s bigger than one agency and that the NSA isn’t looking to control but rather to partner with DHS, other defense departments, industry and law enforcement.

President Obama asked for a report in 60 days on the extent of the threats and put former Bush administration adviser, Melissa Hathaway in charge of it the study. Hathaway wrote about it on the White House blog on 5/29. Both Hathaway and Beckstrom could be in contention for the czar position, according to The Guardian. But according to the AP,

As many as a half dozen candidates — from the public and private sector — are being considered for the job, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Obama's announcement comes as the Pentagon is poised to create a new cyber command to improve protection of military networks and coordinate its offensive and defensive cyber missions.

President Obama presented a briefing Friday, as the White House released a report on a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity efforts (.pdf). The report was conducted by acting White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, who is considered a front runner for the permanent czar job, according to Wired Threat Level. After months of rumors, Obama confirmed that the White House will be creating a new office to be led by a cybersecurity czar. The story's headline, "Obama Says New Cyberczar Won’t Spy on the Net," is from (5/29/09). To quote:

. . . The office will be in charge of coordinating efforts to secure government networks and U.S. critical infrastructures. . . Obama was quick to add that the new White House cybersecurity office would include an official whose job is to ensure that the government’s cyber policies don’t violate privacy and civil liberties of Americans. He also reaffirmed his support for the principle of net neutrality.

“Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not include — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private sector networks or internet traffic,” he said. “We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the internet as it should be, open and free.”

. . . in his address on Friday, Obama said the new cybercoordinator will have “my full support and regular access to me as we confront these challenges.”

. . .“From now on our digital infrastructure, the networks and computers we depend on every day, will be treated as they should be — as a strategic national asset,” Obama said. “Protecting this infrastructure will be a national security priority. We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient. We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The story of the report is also in Wired Threat Level (5/29/09):"Obama Cybersecurity Report Addresses Critical Infrastructure and Privacy Issues." The article includes a good set of highlights from the recommendations. To quote:

A cybersecurity report . . . touches on everything from establishing communication networks for emergency response teams to the role government should play in the protection of critical infrastructure networks and whether or not entities that experience a breach should have to notify governments and law enforcement agencies. Privacy and civil liberties concerns receive a repeated nod, with privacy being mentioned in the report more than five dozen times.

The 76-page report (.pdf) was released in conjunction with a White House announcement that the president will be creating a new cybersecurity office and czar, as well as a privacy and civil liberties official to oversee the government’s cybersecurity plans.

How much cybersecurity will result from all of this is not yet known. But it certainly seems like a good start. Hathaway, if she is named the czar, had a very good reputation. Both she and President Obama seem cognizant of the concerns about privacy raised by civil libertarians. That concern has been dampened now that the office will be in the White House and not the NSA. And it is "down one rung" on the White House authority ladder (under both the National Security and Economic Security councils) because both private and government internet needs must be protected. And it seems clear that the czar will have adequate direct access to the President, who will probably get to settle any remaining turf battles. Much remains to be seen as the military arm of cybersecurity is more fully revealed. And finally, President Obama has reaffirmed his support for net neutrality.

(Cross-posted at Making Good Mondays.)

Barack Obama is the LeBron James of the Democratic Party

Guest post by Frankie Sturm

Frankie Sturm is communications director at the Truman National Security Project and a free-lance journalist. This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post.

Barack Obama is the LeBron James of the Democratic Party. At least when it comes to national security. Republicans have dominated Democrats on the security question for decades, but according to a new survey by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, President Obama is relegating that long-standing Republican edge to the history books -- for now.

Obama's personal numbers on national security are mind-boggling. Although derided by his critics as a naïve idealist in a dangerous world, 55% of the public believes President Obama is increasing American security. More than 60% of respondents approve of the president's handling of Afghanistan, Iraq, piracy, representing America abroad, leading America’s military, fighting terrorism, and improving America's standing in the world. Most shocking -- voters give Obama higher marks on national security (64%) than on overall performance (58%).

President Obama's cachet has redounded to the Democratic Party as a whole. After suffering a 10-40 point gap over the last forty years, Democrats are now statistically tied with Republicans when respondents are asked which party is better for national security. In terms of working with allies, increasing respect for the United States, and "foreign policy," Democrats enjoy large double-digit margins over Republicans.

Nevertheless, we're better off keeping the champagne on ice. These results warrant little more than cautious optimism. Republicans tower over Democrats on "ensuring a strong military" by an overwhelming 18 points. In terms of patriotism, Republicans carry the day by 17 points. Moreover, it's unclear whether positive perceptions of Democrats have a solid foundation outside of President Obama's own popularity. While 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Democrats (it’s only 28% for Republicans), President Obama gets 59%. So we really don't know where Democrats' popularity stops and President Obama's begins.

That's why Barack Obama is starting to look like the LeBron James of the Democratic Party. The Cleveland Cavaliers have finally put together a strong enough supporting cast to bring an NBA title within the realm of possibility, but it still took a 3-point buzzer beater from LeBron for the Cavs to claim victory over the Orlando Magic in game two of their ongoing playoff series. A win is a win, but for the long-term prospect of the Cleveland Cavaliers -- and the Democratic Party -- this is a problem.

Political gains that are heavily dependent on a single personality are easy to reverse. George W. Bush was America's most popular man for almost a year after 9/11. When his stock fell, so did that of the Republican Party. On the flip side, once the public comes to associate a political party with a particular issue, it's hard to disabuse the notion. Republicans have instant credibility on taxes and keeping the military strong. Democrats are easily trusted on education and the environment. Now that the two parties are tied on national security, the battle for issue ownership on that critical questions begins in earnest.

But Democrats also need to build their own brand as a party because, popularity aside, President Obama needs it. Watching the Democratic Senate vote 90-6 against allocating funds for the closure of Guantanamo Bay was an exercise in embarrassment for party and president alike. The criticism that President Obama has not outlined a real plan for shutting down Gitmo is perfectly legit; the spectacle of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid parroting Republican talking points on "releasing" the detainees is not.

Such incidents strengthen the popular notion that Democrats are fickle and lack clear beliefs, which is arguably the chief reason why Democrats have fallen short on national security for so long. After all, if a you can’t follow through on an issue that has motivated your party (such as closing Gitmo) and stand up to a little political heat, how are you going to stand up to al Qaeda or Iran? For the American public, the answer to that question is very simple: you're not going to stand up to them, so we'll go with the other guy.

Popular presidents transform parties and redefine political eras. FDR did so for the Democrats in the 1930s, while Reagan did the same for Republicans in the 1980s. President Obama and the Democrats of today have a similar opportunity to transform the age-old perception that the Democratic Party is not to be trusted on national security. So far so good. But so far isn't good enough.

POTUS vs EX VEEP -- no contest

By Carol Gee

POTUS spoke, literally backed up to the Constitution. EX VEEP spoke and backed into the past. It was no contest; POTUS WON. Our best times are ahead of us. The ex Veep's dark past is just that -- deeply dark and past its prime. The worst time is behind us. America is turning the corner into the future.

What remains from the past? In the National archives, backing up POTUS, are the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These original documents established a set of brilliantly conceived checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government. That system is working again, after being down for the past two presidential terms. America is no longer as deeply bound to its recent dark past.

What does the future hold? Solutions to America' biggest problems are out there waiting to be discovered. Does POTUS have all the answers? Absolutely not, but he believes in the system and trusts what will emerge. Did the EX VEEP's speech have any answers? Absolutely not, because he does not believe in the system. He believes his own dark demons. Now that the system is beginning to rebalance itself without him, his impulses keep him fearful and desperate for power.

What does Constitutional re balancing entail? POTUS gave some clues in his speech. He talked about the lack of foresight in the past administration. And he demonstrates foresight as he leads us into the future. For example, he acknowledged that he expects oversight by Congress and the courts as he picks his way through the Constitutional legal minefield of "prolonged detention" and "military tribunals with rules."

Because the courts were active, even during the dark days, balances were kept in certain instances as courts prohibited Bush administration power grabs. Our new POTUS is also willing to live by court decisions on constitutionality. However, the same cannot yet be said about Congress exerting its proper authority, though there are hints. The Senate's demand for a plan before opening the purse to close Guantanamo was a good first step at reestablishing its prerogatives, though the process has been awkward. What lies in the future for the questionable solutions to the detainee problem? POTUS has been preparing a plan that will be completed in January of next year. It is typical of his operating method.

POTUS' governing style is to state the problem and assign members of the administration to work to find solutions. He announces the outlines of a preliminary plan, letting Congress know what its part is and when he would like to have something to sign. He gets feedback and makes changes. Eventually he realizes it is again time to teach the nation about what the problem and solutions will entail. Working with Congress and signing legislation finally leads to publishing the plan's full details.

EX VEEP's governing style, in contrast was to feel there was a problem, state the solution to his minions in secret, omitting the planning and reporting to Congress. He did not need feedback because the rule was "my way or the highway." Eventually he would be found out, but refused to admit any mistakes. Rather than teach, he worked through maintaining a fear posture and bypassed or deceived Congress whenever possible. He did not need a public plan and did not feel bound by the rule of law. Governing behind closed doors in secret, his loss of power has now produced a starkly contrasting new set of behaviors. He is out front and everywhere -- defending, obfuscating, prevaricating, fear mongering, insulting and angry for the most part.

POTUS is also out front and everywhere -- asserting, explaining, being transparent, truth telling, reassuring, and showing respect to adversaries and a positive demeanor, generally speaking. His ideas will be accepted or not. POTUS feel himself bound by what Congress and the courts decide. He feels that the government must be backed by the Constitution. He is quite willing to take on the EX VEEP because the man is mired in the past. The ex Veep's dark past is just that -- deeply dark and disturbing. The worst of him is gone now because he is powerless, though not without influence. He will eventually sputter out of the limelight. America is looking to the future, and honoring its beginnings. It is no contest; POTUS will win. Our best times have already begun.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

On accountability: the chains that bind

By Carol Gee

Committee Report -- A report released Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee will prove to be a very important declassified document coming out of the work of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), his staff and committee. To quote David Cloud's Politico article:

Newly declassified documents reveal how harsh military interrogation procedures approved for use at Guantanamo Bay prison by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also filtered down to war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

. . . The chairman, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said the decision by Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials to authorize the interrogation practices “set the tone” that led to prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

“Authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody,” Levin said in a statement.

Levin said it was still a “question” whether senior Bush administration officials “should be held accountable.” He called for Attorney General Eric Holder to name a retired federal judge or some other “distinguished individuals” to look at “what steps, if any, should be taken” against high level officials.

. . . The report also documents how personnel from the Army’s Survival, Resisance, Evasion and Escape school, a military organization that trains U.S. soldier in resisting interrogation, traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq to train interrogators there in use of harsh methods.

Will the committee act? Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that, if Republicans can't back his idea of a truth commission to investigate the Bush torture program, he will launch a Judiciary Committee investigation. An investigation is already underway in the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the story in Congressional Quarterly-Politics (4/22/09).

News Analysis: At Core of Detainee Fight: Did Methods Stop Attacks? -- taken from the New York Times, April 23, 2009, written by Scott Shane. This is a relatively even-handed article that lays out the arguments for and against this justification. President Obama is mildly criticized in this piece. Summarized Shane said, "Starkly opposing narratives have arisen about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.'s use of physical pressure to intimidate Qaeda operatives."

Fundamental disagreements -- "Torturers should be investigated, too," is what Roger Simon at Politico thinks today. Here is a bit of what he said:

. . . the president has stated on any number of occasions — and as he stated today — in saying, ‘I think we should be looking forward and not backward.’”

But justice often looks backward. That is what justice is largely about. We look back at actions and decide whether they were right or wrong, just or unjust, innocent acts or crimes against humanity.

. . . I thought we had gotten past all this. I thought we had established the fact that all people bear responsibility for their own actions and that saying, “I was just following memos” is not good enough.

Where are the prisoners? As it turns out, there are dozens of prisoners held by the CIA that are still missing and their fates remain unknown. Dafna Linzer, a reporter for the investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, reported this detailed information April 22. In response the CIA claimed that a list provided in the story is probably "flawed."

CQ - Behind the Lines excerpts:

President Obama yesterday left open the door for a “further accounting” on Bush administration use of harsh interrogation techniques, as well as possible prosecution of the federal lawyers who rationalized it, Reuters’ Caren Bohan recounts — as The New York Times’ Brian Knowlton sees a newly declassified Senate report shedding more light on high-level approval of the tactics. In releasing the Bush-era “torture memos,” Obama’s lawyers spilled the beans on the methods used, “but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved,” ex-Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen complains in the Washington Post — as to which, see Alex Koppelman’s Salon critique. “The memos prove we didn’t torture,” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, meantime, banner in The Wall Street Journal. (4/22/09)

Feds: President Obama visited CIA headquarters yesterday in a gesture of reassurance following his release of Bush-era torture memos, The Associated Press’ Pamela Hess reports — as The New York Times’ Peter Baker and Scott Shane find momentum for a torture probe mounting. (4/21/09).

Commission on Accountability.org. HT to Steve Clemons on Twitter for this very valuable resource. It is a way to sign on to a group effort by a number of heavy hitters in the human rights movement. It calls on the President to appoint a nonpartisan commission to investigate.

Reference:

• The Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training - U.S. News and World Report
• "The Guantanamo Officers' Club," an outstanding essay about a real hero by Spy Talk's Jeff Stein.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

National Security Opinion Roundup

By Carol Gee

Retired General James Jones is President Obama's pick to head the National Security Agency. In my opinion it was a brilliant choice of a brilliant man for a crucial position. Policy making, coordination, advice will be the stuff of his days in the West Wing. With what issues has he been dealing in recent weeks?

Secrecy -- "How long will the secret Bush counterterrorism memos stay secret?," was written by Chisun Lee at ProPublica. At the (2/25/09) confirmation hearing for Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, the nominee evaded flatly saying that the memos would be released. Senator Diane Feinstein was not satisfied with her answer, echoing the opinion of many civil libertarians. Before being nominated Johnsen has called the Bush OLC's secrecy a "terrible abuse of power."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, told us, "I would have liked to hear a clearer commitment" to releasing the memos and to the public value of doing so. But, he said, "ultimately what matters is not what Ms. Johnsen says but what she does, and when she does it. We're hopeful that over the next few weeks we'll start to see some of these memos released."

Guantanamo Bay -- Anthony Romero, who heads the ACLU, urged President Obama to let human rights groups examine conditions at Guantanamo Bay. Romero recently said it is not enough that the Pentagon has just issued a report concluding that the prison complies with the humanitarian requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Here is the action link Romero recommends: Ask President Obama to let human rights groups independently examine conditions at Guantánamo Bay.

Detention policy -- "The Obama administration position on detention policy: what he said," according to Christopher Weaver's article at ProPublica (2/23/09), is essentially the same as the old policy. To quote:

But the orders didn't address the broader questions of detention policy that have left the four Bagram prisoners behind bars for years, without due process. The men are basically the same type of prisoners that stirred up fervor over Gitmo. Unlike most of the 600 inmates at Bagram, who were detained in combat on the battlefield, these four were captured outside of Afghanistan or any other war zone, and they've been in custody for years. One detainee, according to his lawyers, was captured on a business trip in Bangkok.

Observers weren't surprised that the Obama administration hasn't developed a sweeping new policy on combating terrorism in the brief period allotted by the court. Jack Balkin, a Yale law professor, told the New York Times, "It may take some time before we see exactly what is going on -- whether this is just a transitory policy or whether this is really their policy."

Central Intelligence Agency -- Old scandals and new beginnings:

1. "Disgraced senior CIA official heads to prison still claiming he is a patriot," by Marcus Stern, (2/27/09) at ProPublica. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who held very senior positions at the agency, has been sentenced to over three years in federal prison for defrauding the government. It stemmed from the bribery scandal that involved Randy "Duke" Cunningham a few years ago. Foggo claimed he plead guilty in order to spare the government the cost of a trial where national security secrets might have been revealed.


2. "Biden says Bush gave Al Qaeda a recruiting tool," Scott Shane reports at the International Herald Tribune (2/20/09). Speaking to the employees of the CIA after swearing in its new director, Leon Panetta, Vice President Biden's words implied criticism of the organization's record under the previous administration. To quote:
   
   

   Biden said the new president's actions "reverse the policies that in my view and the view of many in this agency caused America to fall short of its founding principles and which gave Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool."
   
   Such remarks . . . did not appear to dampen the enthusiastic reception from CIA employees. Panetta, 70, a former California congressman and White House chief of staff who has never before worked for an intelligence agency, also made glancing references to the recent history of the CIA, which was blamed for mistaken assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs in the months before the Iraq war.

The Democratic Left/Progressive/Civil liberties wing of our party is sometimes of the opinion that President Obama has given us several disappointments on the Constitutional vs. national security front. At this point I believe that he is feeling his way, trying to avoid making mistakes that he feels might jeopardize his presidential prerogatives or risk national security. It is my hope that some of these decisions will be softened or reversed as time passes and he gains confidence. In order for that to happen, however, he must be kept aware that we expect better things, better support for the place of the Bill of Rights in the decision mix.

(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.)

Just what is our responsibility?

By Carol Gee

House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-Mich), posted a must-read at The Huffington Post yesterday titled "Our Responsibility#." In his excellent and important piece he discussed the various possibilities for actions to hold the Bush administration accountable for its misdeeds. Rep. Conyers begins:

. . . the question remains how best to respond to the severe challenge posed to our constitutional structure, and to our national honor . . . and in particular its national security programs. Faced with a record of widespread warrantless surveillance inside the United States, brutal interrogation policies condemned by the administration's own head of the Guantanamo Bay military commissions as torture, and flawed rendition practices that resulted in innocent men being abducted and handed to other countries to face barbaric abuse, what actions will we take to meet our commitment to the rule of law and reclaim our standing as a moral leader among nations?

Closing Guantanamo Bay -- was a very important start to redressing the damage done to the United States during the previous administration. It was one of the first actions taken by President Obama after his inauguration, according to ProPublica: "Obama Begins to Fulfill Gitmo Promise" (1/22/09). To quote:

President Obama has just signed a series of executive orders essentially dismantling the former administration’s detention system for terror suspects. Top among those orders is a directive to close Gitmo "no later than one year from now."

Closing this offshore detention facility will prove to be very difficult, according to those who have been thinking about how to do it. Many on both sides of the question wonder just how much is possible, including Politico.com, who headlined, "Why the Gitmo policies may not change" (1/23/09). To quote the 6 signs seen by skeptical author Josh Gerstein:

1. Everyone has to follow the Army Field Manual -- for now . . . 2. Obama ordered a 30-day review of Guantanamo conditions—by the man currently responsible for Guantanamo. 3. Obama vowed no torture on his watch, but force-feeding and solitary confinement apparently continue at Guantanamo for now. 4. The vast majority of detainees in American custody may see no benefit from Obama’s orders. 5. The orders downplay the possibility that some prisoners might be set free in America. 6. Military commissions are shut down…. for now.

One of the most vexing problems is what to do with all the suspects who seem too dangerous to release. Already many in Congress are saying NIMBY, (not in my back yard). AfterDowningStreet asks, "Should "Homeland Security" Set Up Detention Camps on Military Bases?*" (1/28/09).

Legally speaking -- Another ironic reality has to do with how the new administration will represent the interests of the U.S. government in all of the upcoming court cases involving detainees. Under a change of leadership the government's representations in court may not change as we would have assumed. Politico.com has the story: "Obama's lawyers set to defend Yoo" (1/28/09). To quote:

. . . now President Obama’s incoming crew of lawyers has a new and somewhat awkward job: defending Yoo in federal court. Next week, Justice Department lawyers are set to ask a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, a New York man held without charges on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda operative plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.”

. . . That’s not all. On Thursday, Justice Department lawyers are slated to be in Charleston, S.C., to ask a federal magistrate there to dismiss another lawsuit charging about a dozen current and former government officials with violating Padilla’s rights in connection with his unusual detention on U.S. soil, without charges or a trial

Torture -- is probably the easiest to see as outrageous, unlawful, not what the United States is about, etc. The world is not shy about pointing this out to us. For example, from Buzz Flash: comes the report that "Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture: UN rappporteur*" (1/20/09). See also, The Raw Story#. To quote:

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

And the majority of professional interrogators are not shy, at least not since January 20, in telling us that torture simply does not work well in obtaining credible intelligence information. Here is a good illustration from Yahoo! News: "Obama says no to torture; interrogators say yes to Obama#" (1/23/09). The story explores the fact that many professional interrogators welcome President Obama's decision.

Intelligence gathering -- is necessary in order to protect the citizens of the United States from its enemies. During the period before the attacks of 9/11/01 the intelligence gathered may not have been well analyzed or well shared among those who needed it to keep us safe. According to The Raw Story, "PBS [said]: NSA could have prevented 9/11 hijackings#" (1/27/09). To quote:

The super-secretive National Security Agency has been quietly monitoring, decrypting, and interpreting foreign communications for decades, starting long before it came under criticism as a result of recent revelations about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Now a forthcoming PBS documentary asks whether the NSA could have prevented 9/11 if it had been more willing to share its data with other agencies.

Intelligence gathering has, up until the summer of last year, been covered by the civil liberties protections of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was changed, and the companies assisting the government to spy on its own citizens were immunized from suit, we are not guaranteed protection from unreasonable search and seizure of much of our private information. Recent revelations are covered in this piece from The Raw Story: "Whistleblower: NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists#" (1/21/09) To quote:

Sen. Rockefeller believes NSA may have spied on him; Ex-NSA analyst believes program a remnant of 'Total Information Awareness' . . .

Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.

. . . "In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. ... I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."

Senator, now President, Barack Obama voted for the FISA bill that granted immunity to the telecoms and that stripped much of the civil liberties protection out of the surveillance statutes. I had hoped that his election would remind him that he is an expert in constitutional law, and that the warrantless domestic surveillance now in place is, in my opinion, unlawful. But it does not appear to be the case. CQ Politics reported that, "Blair backs retroactive immunity for companies under FISA overhaul." To quote:

President Obama’s choice for director of national intelligence says he supports continuing Bush administration efforts to provide retroactive legal immunity to companies being sued for their alleged role in the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program. . . . Blair was unequivocal in answers posted on the committee Web site to written questions after the hearing.

“Do you believe that those private partners who assisted the government should be given civil liability protection?” Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the panel, asked Blair in the written questions.

“Yes,” Blair answered. “The terms and conditions of that civil liability protection are spelled out in the FISA Amendments Act.”

. . . Although Blair could hold sway over the matter, [Attorney General Eric] Holder is the official who would take any court action on retroactive immunity.

CQ - Behind the Lines has more on these issues:

(1/22/09) -- As one of its last acts, the Bush administration asked a federal judge late Monday night to stay enforcement of a ruling that would keep alive a lawsuit testing presidential authority to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants, Threat Level’s David Kravets recounts.
. . . In narrowly affirming the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance, a secret intel court relied on an incomplete and likely misleading factual record, Secrecy News has Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., alleging.

(1/26/09) The Obama administration “fell in line with the Bush administration” last week when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched domestic wiretap case, Threat Level’s David Kravets recounts.

Unitary Executives and secrecy -- make for the kind of lawlessness that worries a lot of people, including Chairman John Conyers (above). But our new President is operating in a much more open style than former President Bush. Transparency has been his watchword. Perhaps a combination of pragmatism, determination to gather usable intelligence, and a willingness to commit to transparency explains his FISA stance. He may be thinking that, since he is having to have everything out in the open (transparency) then we citizens should be willing to live that way, also. But that means that we are forced to trust the government (even his good government) with all of our private information. That includes credit card records, library records, phone conversations, e-mails, and medical records. And as a civil libertarian, my responsibility is not to give up on this fight. On this one the President is wrong and I will remain a member of the loyal opposition regarding these issues.

Do not get me wrong, on balance I am delighted that we have such a wonderful new President. So I will go back and remind myself of the way it was until he came into office. ProPublica:"Obama reverses Bush's executive privilege claim over documents" (1/21/09), making open records advocates very happy. ProPublica has the story regarding "Bush’s Secret Counterterrorism Law Book—and the Demands to Release It" Related: "The missing Memos."

Reference: The Missing Memos," a comprehensive interactive list (1/28/09). To quote the list description:

The Bush administration’s controversial policies on detentions, interrogations and warrantless wiretapping were underpinned by legal memoranda. While some of those memos have been released (primarily as a result of ACLU lawsuits), the former administration kept far more memos secret than has been previously understood. At least three dozen by our count. The decision to release them now lies with President Obama. To help inform the debate—and inject an extra dose of accountability—we’re posting the first comprehensive list of the secret memos. (The ACLU first compiled a list, which ProPublica verified and expanded on.

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

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)