Two important pieces related to the recent flap over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act overhaul legislation known as the Protect America Act. The first from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann - channeling Edward R. Murrow in this damned fine Special Comment:


And the second, a letter to the President of the United States of America refuting his assertions and fear mongering from the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas).

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Labels: fisa, Keith Olbermann, nsa, patriot act, Silvestre Reyes, technology

The long saga of the Brooklyn-born "Dirty Bomber," Jose Padilla is over. After 3 and a half years in military custody, Padilla's constitutional rights were finally upheld and he was granted a civilian trial.

The three month trial showcased the post-9/11 standard for justice in America.

From the New York Times: "Following the defendants' convictions last Aug. 16, some legal experts said the success of the Justice Department's strategy cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases by relying on a little-used conspiracy law that required very little in the way of concrete evidence showing Mr. Padilla's intent or ability to carry out the crimes."

The key words here: "very little," "evidence," of "intent or ability." Despite this Padilla was sentenced to 17 years and four months on charges that he conspired to help Islamic terrorists around the world.

He conspired. He thought, talked, dreamed, and schemed about helping terrorists. But he didn't DO anything. Seventeen years.

Labels: 9/11, Dirty Bomber, Jose Padilla, patriot act, Precrime, technology

Senators Biden and Feingold will join Chris Dodd in opposing legislation which grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations for their role in illegally collecting data on American citizens. Meanwhile President Bush, devoted his Saturday morning radio address to the important topic of fishing(mp3). I shit you not.

Now I'm not going to knock federal protections for stripped bass and red drum populations. I mean, I for one can think of no better sphere in which to exert the power and authority of the Oval Office in a time of war. It's not as if your Administration illegally conspired with telecommunications companies to acquire telephone, email, and web traffic data pertaining to every American citizen to include members of Congress, the judiciary, and officials of state and local governments. And hell, even if you did authorize such activity, I'm sure that that information isn't being abused, lost, or sold to the highest bidder or anything. That'd just be silly.

Please, sir. Please tell me you're not really going fishing.

Labels: fisa, George W. Bush, patriot act, tia, warrantless wiretaps

Labels: fisa, nsa, patriot act, technology, warrantless wiretaps

"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

I have good days and bad. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice. Sure the justice he was obstructing has been taken out behind the wood shed and shot in the face, but still the conviction was a step in the right direction. The investigation into the dismissal or pressed resignations of several U.S. District Attorneys is moving forward. That's the good.

Our old friend U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler is expected to rule on a gag order protecting the identities of high profile clients of the so-called D.C. Madam. U.S. Scientists have in effect been told to watch what they say with regard to global climate change, receding ice caps, and the plight of polar bears when they travel abroad. An audit has shown that the FBI has improperly and illegally used provisions of the USA Patriot Act to obtain information on U.S. citizens. And the videotape of Pentagon officials' most recent interrogation of Jose Padilla - the last before he abruptly refused to continue working with his defense team - has been "mislaid." That's the bad.

It's been a hell of a week.

Labels: climate change, fbi, Gladys Kessler, Jose Padilla, patriot act, Scooter Libby, US Attorney firings

No offense to all of you flag waving fans of Sousa’s marches out there, but having seen military justice in action on several occasions I’d say that the assessment is dead on.

The military is a funny animal. When you join, you forfeit the rights and freedoms accorded to all American citizens so that you might be better able to protect them. It is no small sacrifice.

Today, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are serving in various capacities abroad at the order of the Commander-in-Chief. They are there because of their oath to serve and protect the Constitution. This document has been the blue print for every democracy since its creation. It is the global standard. However, on this Fourth of July, that renowned and respected status which our nation has so briefly enjoyed is in peril.

The Founders – ever fearful of tyranny of any kind – ensured several rights were embedded in foundation of our government. Chief amongst these rights was the freedom to dissent. This blog exists as my personal celebration of that right.

The assumption of innocence, the right to face ones accusers, and the right to a speedy and just trial by a jury of ones peers are built into the framework of our government not to protect individual citizens from the abuses of an unsympathetic regime, but to protect the right of all citizens to dissent without fear of persecution.

But these rights do not apply to those facing trial in military courts.

Today, over 600 individuals remain imprisoned by our govenrment without charge, legal representation, or the ability to communicate with their families. Following an investigation, some of these individuals may be found guilty of crimes for which they have yet to charged, but only some. The innocent among them will suffer no less, and will be treated no better in the meantime. It is an injustice which we should all concern ourselves with on this day of freedom.

These individuals – some only in their teens – will face a military tribunal with the authority to impose the death penalty. This is unacceptable. As Americans we should be incensed that our government has stripped these people of their most basic legal rights when they are fighting for their lives.

The Administration has attempted to justify this treatment by referring to the prisoners of camp X-Ray as enemy combatants. This designation has been summarily imposed without investigation or trial. The Administration’s assumption is that special steps need to be taken – that a few eggs need to be broken – to ensure the continued security of our nation. We’ve heard that line before, and it can only lead to one disastrous end.

If the United States is to continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we need to start playing by our own rules again. Truth and justice for all must not be a goal or an ideal; it must be a reality. The integrity of our nation depends on it.

Half the country doesn’t trust the word our government. The world views our leaders as suspect, and our populace as either ignorant or complicit. This cannot, and will not continue for very much longer. There will be consequences for all of us should we continue to allow the dilution of our rights, the curtailment of our freedoms, and the sullying our identity as a freedom loving nation.

I want my country back.

Labels: camp X-Ray, founders, guantanamo, military tribunal, patriot act

An appeals court recently upheld a decision allowing the U.S. government to hold individuals as detainees in the so-called War on Terror without making their identities public. The ruling has many human rights organizations up in arms.

Those who support the government’s new secret arrest and detention powers claim these are necessary measures to effectively fight the global war on terrorism. Releasing the names and status of those held would give terrorist sleeper cells too much access to information vital to ongoing investigations. That information could possibly be used to thwart efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Sounds fair enough, right?

Why then has the U.S. media been flooded with reports of the capture of the so-called Ace of Spades, General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti. This gentleman - Saddam Hussein’s top advisor, body guard and secretary – is believed to have knowledge of the location of Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam himself. If this man has yet to be interrogated, wouldn’t it have been wise to keep news of his capture secret as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are so determined to do with their prisoners?

Instead Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their supporters now know that the former General is in U.S. custody. They also now know exactly where not to go if they wish to avoid capture. In the words of one correspondent this morning, “If Saddam has 100 hiding places, Mahmud knows about 90 of them.” Well you might as well cross those off the list of places to look for Saddam, because he won’t be there.

This type of incompetence is unacceptable. Is disclosure of the identities of prisoners who may have knowledge integral to the security of our nation permissible or not? Either the Administration is bungling its efforts to keep Americans safe, or they are riding rough-shod over the Constitution of the United States.

Our President has committed our nation to an unprecedented, first-strike military policy. It’s more important now than ever before that we have the trust of the international community. That trust – not our motives or intent – will be the deciding factor in whether history remembers the United States as a global leader or a global tyrant. Furthermore, we need to be able to trust our government. But how can we with such blatant contradictions in policy? Contradictions which may – in the long run – endanger American lives.

Mr. Bush, please pull your head out of your ass. Soon.

Labels: General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, George W. Bush, patriot act, saddam hussein, war on terror, wmd

USA TODAY via Drudge

White House seeks to expand DNA database

WASHINGTON DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.

Sure. Why not, right? This is a good thing. Isn't it? Just think, now EVERYONE can have their very own file at the FBI.

J. Edgar Hoover + Joe McCarthy x G. W. Bush = ?

Labels: fbi, George W. Bush, patriot act, tia

Yep, this sure is one fine hand basket we have here. Enjoy the ride while you can!

Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

Labels: Charles Schumer, Congress, fisa, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, patriot act, Tom Daschle

The FBI issues a "Worldwide Alert Issued for Saudi Terror Suspect"

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah's last known location was Miami, Florida. He is described as 27, about 5-foot-4 and 132 pounds or heavier. He may or may not be wearing a beard.

Labels: Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, fbi, patriot act

The news cycle has been dragged to a razor's edge. Everyone on Earth is poised on the edge of their seats, and the second shoe has yet to hit the floor.

It's maddening - this waiting. We're powerless stop it, but we know what's coming. Each day I wake-up to find that no bombs were dropped in the dead of night. Should I be thankful that no one has died yet, or should I mourn them for the brutal death that awaits? Is there anymore that I can do than hope their deaths are quick?

As terrible as it is, many people will feel a sense of relief when the killing begins. The wait will be over, and everyone can get back to their "normal" lives; or so the administration would like us all to believe. It's a selfish and arrogant delusion.

September 11th changed the world we live in. Forever. Nothing will return to the way it was before. No matter how many people die, or what laws are passed, things will never be the same. Take a look around - at the news and the protests - this is the world we live in. Conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics are only the beginning; tremors of the unrest to come.

Al-Qa'ida was the first, but others will threaten the United States. They will be crushed. In every case our government will demand more power and more money to protect us: its helpless citizens. Who would deny them? Who could? Eventually law abiding folks will begin to feel the slightest pressure of the walls they have allowed to be built around them. These will be the labor pains of the birth of tyranny.

How many of us could survive the microscope of a bureaucrat? Taxes, rolling stops, travel expenses - one way or another we're all guilty in the eyes of the law. Sooner or later, the proper authorities will have something on everyone. We won't end up in a gulag, but can we say the same for our neighbors? What happens when the police ask for your help to finger someone? Make a statement here, or make it down at the station - the choice is up to you.

I'll still be waiting for that second shoe - even after the bombs start falling - it doesn't have too much further to go.

Labels: 9/11, iraq, patriot act, warrantless wiretaps

Not U.S. CNN mind you, what possible interest would American citizens have in this story? No, CNN International - which I might add is now just one web site instead of CNN Asia and CNN Europe. I guess the marketing guys in Atlanta wanted to start consolidating the "message," or something.

Anyway, I won't harp too much on this case. It's already extremely evident that the U.S. government, and the Department of Justice in particular, is far from infallible. I posted this story only so it might become even more clear to everyone that every government agency - and I do mean EVERY agency - is at the end of the day nothing more than an over-funded Department of Motor Vehicles.

Any of you who've ever had to rely on the DMV for anything understands exactly what I'm saying here. Would you allow your local DMV broad new powers of investigation and enforcement? Of course not. Why would you trust such authority to incompetents? Well, that's exactly what's happened here - except instead of the DMV it's the FBI.

I'm not criticizing anyone for wanting to pull Mr. Bond aside, and ask him a few questions (Although, I'm sure at least one FBI moron asked for an autograph). If his identity was stolen, and FBI suspected something was wrong - good on them for checking it out. But what isn't noted in this article is the fact that Mr. Bond was detained for 10 days before anyone so much as asked him his name.

I don't have many people in my family who've been able to manage to live to Mr. Bond's age - and of those none were ever so privileged as to be able to go on a wine tasting tour in South Africa - but to imagine any of them spending three weeks in prison because of a bureaucratic error makes me sick.

Will heads roll for this? No. And it's that much more of a disgrace to our country because of it.

Labels: border security, fbi, media, patriot act, tsa

Repeat after me: "People who buy drugs support terrorism, but U.S. tobacco is GOOD!

Labels: dea, patriot act

From the Toronto Star:

“A Toronto woman coming home from India says she was pulled aside at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, accused of using a fake Canadian passport, denied consular assistance and threatened with jail…Instead of jailing her on Jan. 27, an INS officer cut the front page of Cruz's passport and filled each page with "expedited removal" stamps, rendering it useless…She was photographed, fingerprinted, barred from re-entering the U.S. for five years and immediately "removed"…Not to Toronto, but to India, where she had just spent several weeks visiting her parents.”

Yes! Finally the United States is safe from this despicable loan officer. Who can say what horrors she would have unleashed upon an unwitting America had she been allowed to return to her home.

I’d like to personally thank whichever coffee swilling, chromosome-deficient, fuck stick bureaucrat who so astutely observed that this women was not white, and thereby deemed her claims of Canadian citizenship to be highly suspect. Your incompetence and bigotry – which I know is not unique amongst your peers – has earned the United States the continued ridicule and ire of the international community. At a time when we are pleading with our peers to support our policies, you have successfully highlighted their shortcomings with an act of astounding stupidity. You should be commended.

My only regret is that this story will not be reported in the United States. Our media is no longer allowed to critique the policies of our government. If they were, perhaps the citizens of America would be made aware of this shameful incident, and could extend their most sincere regrets and apologies to Berna Cruz.

After that, we might even endeavor to begin an honest public dialogue concerning the shortcomings of the new national security measures protecting our borders.

It’s unlikely that any of this will occur, however. And sadly it is equally unlikely that Berna will be the last person to have to endure this type of treatment at the hands of our government.

Labels: border security, ins, national security, patriot act, tsa

The supreme court is presently being petitioned by the ACLU on two very important issues:

First they ask that the court review a decision by a secret appeals court “that broadly expanded the government’s powers to spy on U.S. citizens.” (ACLU)

Secondly – and perhaps even more importantly – the ACLU has requested that they be allowed to appeal the secret court’s decision even though they were not parties in the lower court proceedings.

This RealAudio stream of “This American Life” – which often airs on Public Radio International (PRI) stations – presents a good deal of background on this topic (Warning: The program is 60 minutes long) .

What are the legal implications of the outcome of these two motions? Will a decision made by a secret court against an individual targeted for prosecution – whom may not be allowed legal council – be impervious to appeal? By denying to hear these cases, is the Supreme Court creating a monster?

Labels: aclu, fisa, patriot act, scotus, warrantless wiretaps