Labels: Alberto Gonzales, doj, Greg Palast, Karl Rove, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., US Attorney firings

Do you smell something burning? Josh Marshall over at TPM does, and I agree. He's been all over the increasingly titillating story of US Attorney firing scandal. Things are about to get kicked into high gear this week with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales set to appear before the US Senate Tuesday. Josh points out this story from The Albuquerque Journal, and gives this ominous analysis:

No one disputes that Domenici's call to Iglesias was at best inappropriate. But there's been a lack of direct evidence that Iglesias's refusal to bow to political pressure led directly to his firing. Now we have that evidence. And it's not Kyle Sampson or even Alberto Gonzales whom Domenici went to to get sign off for Iglesias's ouster. It was right to the president. And the available evidence now points strongly to the conclusion that the final decision to fire David Iglesias came from the President of the United States.

Once more, with feeling!

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, doj, Josh Marshall, US Attorney firings

"I'm not doing anything wrong, so let them monitor whatever they want," is a commonly heard mantra of Americans willing to forfeit their right to privacy for the perception of security. I heard it myself just yesterday when a politically minded grandmother called into a show on a major network regarding the crimes committed by the FBI.

If you encounter such an argument around the water cooler or at the dinner table, here are a few gems you can bust out to force some critical thinking on the part of your mark (Warning: Cognitive dissonance resulting from these tactics can produce unpredictable responses in some citizens who are already scared, manipulated, and entranced).

Set the stage by discussing the nature data-mining. Avoid the term "data-mining" because the word data scares people. It's techno-babbly jargon. Use terms like dragnet, it's folksy. Ask your mark if they're a criminal; this will get their attention immediately. Naturally they'll say "No." Then ask if anyone they communicate with via phone or email has ever committed a crime. Typically the truth will be yes, but your mark will say no as the scenarios start playing through their mind (you've just planted a seed...watch it grow). Now ask if any of the friends or family of people they communicate with have ever committed a crime. Hopefully the mark will start to see the problems with wide spectrum data collection. Use props if necessary - salt and pepper shakers work.

Here's a helpful tidbit if you're by a computer:

It's an analysis of the sexual relationships of a high school. Nearly everyone is connected. If this were an investigation of criminal or terrorist activity, everyone in the network would be put to the question. It's neither fair, nor just, but that's what we're buying into if we support unchecked powers of surveillance and data collection. In such an environment everyone is guilty.

Another important point to make clear is the aspect of time. Once data is collected, it doesn't go away...ever. If you haven't spoken to someone in ten years, and suddenly they re-enter your life, can you be sure they haven't engaged in some questionable activities that would draw the attention of investigators?

Finally, what does being investigated by the feds mean anyway? Why should anyone be concerned if they haven't done anything wrong? Guilt by association. Does your mark work with children? Do they work at a company with state or federal contracts? Do they themselves work with other people's sensitive information: financial, medical, educational records? When the FBI or another agency pulls you in for an "interview" consider yourself flagged. That promotion you were counting on? A choice transfer? A move to a more desirable shift? You might not get thrown into a gulag, but your life will be impacted just the same.

Write to your Senators and Representatives and respectfully request that Congress ask for the resignation of Robert S. Mueller and Alberto Gonzales (They've offered their resignations before, why not now?). The law has been broken under their watch. They have abused their authority and squandered public trust...again. It's time for them to step down.

UPDATE: Full DOJ OIG report (pdf, 36MB).
UPDATE: Senator Schumer (D-NY) Calls For Gonzales to Step Down
UPDATE: New York Times editorial blasts Gonzales

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Charles Schumer, doj, fisa, nsa, patriot act, Robert S. Mueller, technology, tia, warrantless wiretaps

WASHINGTON, May 18 Gen. Michael V. Hayden sought on Thursday to distance himself from the Pentagon and its role in prewar intelligence on Iraq, in an appearance that put him on track to win swift confirmation as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. ~ NYT

There's nothing to stand in the way of this confirmation now.

Given that the NSA has been collecting data on phone calls and web traffic for at least a couple of years now it's probably safe to say that no single member of Congress would dare speak out against this nomination. Not in an election year.

Journalists have been gelded as well. If monitoring them wasn't enough to shut them up, Alberto Gonzales is now considering prosecution.

If our government abuses its power, we have no way of knowing. Well, almost no way. After all, information wants to be free.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, cia, General Michael Hayden, media, nsa, tia

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

On top of this, further details were was disclosed today regarding the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The agency has apparently compiled the largest database in the world to monitor the statistics of nearly every telephone in the U.S. Also known as the "we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-Fourth-Amendment" program, this activity is in effect a preemptive fishing expedition to discover probable cause. There is no way this is legal of course as at least one telecommunications company, Qwest, well knew.

In related news, 72 members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the ACLU's lawsuit against the program.

All we need now is for Congress to grow enough backbone to start the sweetest two word mantra of them all: "under oath."

Say it with me now. Under oath. Doesn't that feel good? Try it again. Under oath. General Hayden. Under oath. Alberto Gonzales. Under oath. John Ashcroft. Under oath. Ah...it's going to be a wonderful Summer. Under oath.

Labels: aclu, Alberto Gonzales, Congress, General Michael Hayden, John Ashcroft, nsa, tia, warrantless wiretaps

While media attention has been focused on the ongoing Washington soap opera starring CIA personalities Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, Mary McCarthy, and Porter Goss, defense contractor Brent Wilkes, and disgraced U.S. Representative Duke Cunningham, little analysis has been devoted to an important piece of legislation recently passed in the U.S. House: H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

What could be more boring and unsexy than that? No wonder this one came and went without a peep from the pantheon of talking heads who are "lookin' out for" us little guys. Sponsored by our friend Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI], the bill passed in the House on May 28th, 327 to 96, with 9 abstentions. This legislation authorizes appropriations for our nation's various intelligence activities for the coming year. Oh, and it grants powers of arrest to agents of the CIA and NSA.

Ah nostalgia. Not since the days of the Soviet KGB could a government agency monitor citizens without judicial oversight, hold them without habeas corpus, and deny it all because of 'national security.'

Specifically, section 423, “Additional Functions and Authorities for the Protective Personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency,” proposes that:

(a) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may issue regulations to allow personnel designated to carry out executive protection functions...to, while engaged in such protective functions, make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such personnel, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if such personnel have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing that felony offense.

Thankfully the authors put in this provision:

(b) The powers granted under subsection (a) may be exercised only in accordance with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.

Phew! Good thing they won't be able to anything the Attorney General wouldn't approve of...erm...yeah.

But hey, at least we've got leakers and whistle blowers inside the agencies to disclose abuses of these new powers, right? Why worry? Oh wait...section 413 of this bill is titled "Study On Revoking Pensions Of Persons Who Commit Unauthorized Disclosures Of Classified Information."

So when considering whether active duty Air Force General Michael Hayden is the right person to head the CIA just remember this: This isn't your father's CIA. Rep. Hoekstra, the honorable gentleman from Michigan, sponsored this bill and knows the powers it grants. If he says General Hayden is the "wrong person" at the "wrong time" for this position, I'm inclined to agree.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Brent Wilkes, Duke Cunningham, Extraordinary Rendition, General Michael Hayden, Kyle Dusty Foggo, Mary McCarthy, Peter Hoekstra, Porter Goss