FISA Court Strikes Back Those of you who are thinking this whole domestic spying scandal is going to blow over just like every other gross abuse of power by this adminstration might want to think again. This time, the administration has not only clearly and admittedly broken federal law, but it's also specifically thumbed its nose at both the legislative and judicial branches of government, lying to them about its activities and then taunting them afterwards. I do not think this is going to just blow over, even if the public is not as outraged as we think they should be.

One piece of evidence: according to the WaPo, the FISA court will be convening in Washington in early January in order to be briefed on the specifics of the NSA domestic spying program and to ask top-ranking officials in the DOJ and the NSA, "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?" Possible outcomes of this meeting:

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

It makes it pretty hard for Dubya to stand there, as he did in his press conference, and say he's not circumventing FISA when the FISA judges themselves are saying, "Since Dubya appears to have declared himself an absolute monarch with no need for the checks of the legal system, there's no need for us to continue to work, so we quit."

And the administration's complaints about the FISA process are getting increasingly shrill. In fact, not only are they shrill, it sounds more and more like they are admitting that they had no legal authority to carry out the program:

Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

The administrations claims that the program were legal are already falling apart, even to the administration itself, when they are saying repeatedly "We tried to get Congress to let us carry out this program, but couldn't find a way to do it, so we just did it on the sly." I cannot imagine that conservatives are going to be happy to hear that the reason Dubya started spying on American citizens without a warrant was because he couldn't meet the standard of "name a target and give a reason to spy on it." The administration is now fully admitting that the NSA domestic spying program was simply a fishing expedition--eavesdrop on a few thousand Americans and maybe they'll say something you can prosecute them for.

Cross-posted at Scrivenings. 
Read more! ¶ 9:21 AM |

  Gonzales Directly Contradicted Himself in Briefing Yesterday As Kos pointed out, when Gonzales gave his press briefing yesterday he made two claims:

• Congress gave us the authority to spy on Americans with the resolution on 9/14/01.
• We asked Congress to give us the authority to spy on Americans with an amendment to FISA and Congress specifically told us no.

Gonzales also contradicted the right-wing line that the wiretapping is not a violation of FISA. He explicitly indicated that if the justification for the wiretapping is not present in the 9/14 resolution or in Article II of the Constitution, then Dubya violated FISA statute.

John Dean, White House Counsel for Nixon, and therefore probably the premier expert on Presidential abuse of power, said yesterday that Dubya is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

Cross-posted at Scrivenings. 
Read more! ¶ 10:49 AM |

  A Suggested Talking Point on the Wiretapping Story This morning, I heard a few minutes of local radio morning chatter. They were taking calls discussing the wiretapping story, and pretty much everyone who called said the same thing: yeah, they should have gotten warrants, but the President has to do whatever he has to do to protect the nation. He only targetted people with known ties to terrorism, and he wouldn't do anything wrong. This isn't really all that big a deal. If this is more or less the response of the American people--and I'm not yet willing to believe it is since I do, after all, live in frickin' Georgia and these are the kinds of people who call in to lame morning chatter radio shows--then democracy in this nation is doomed. It is only a matter of time before we no longer hold elections in anything but name only (and I'd say 2008 is as likely a time as any). We have certainly done a terrible, terrible job teaching people American ideals if they can be so utterly untroubled by this news. I wonder what the response would have been if a Democratic president had tried such a plan (which is of course a lame hypothetical, since the Democratic Party hasn't taken as its objective the undermining of freedom and democracy).

Anyway, that's not the talking point I alluded to in the title. Here's what I was thinking just after I listened to the radio. At least part of the argument we present should be along these lines:

• The NSA could not possibly have had even the slightest reason to suspect the people they wiretapped, or they would have gotten warrants, since the FISA court almost always says yes to any request (in the first 20-something years of the court's existence it never once said no to a request for a warrant).
  
• Even the most absolutely generous reading of Dubya's orders to spy on American citizens, then, indicates that he ordered the NSA to expend valuable resources on fishing expeditions amongst US citizens.
• The NSA is an incredibly powerful, effective agency with a very specific mission and very specific talents: it is specialized on technological monitoring of foreign communications. There are serious threats to American security in the world. Has anyone forgotten that Osama bin Laden is still at large? Instead of toying with the NSA's mission, which they have proved to be more than competent at carrying out over hte last forty years, Dubya needs to let them do their very important work.
• Even in the most generous possible understanding of his motives, ordering the NSA to spy on American citizens pulls valuable resources away from trying to locate and kill or capture such extreme threats to national security as Osama bin Laden.

Of course, it's entirely likely that what Dubya is actually doing is not pulling resources away from protecting national security in order to go on fishing expeditions to possibly locate internal threats. What is more likely is that Dubya is pulling resources away from protecting national security in order to spy on his political enemies for his own narrow partisan political gain.

Cross-posted at Scrivenings. 
Read more! ¶ 8:59 AM |

  "I Am Not Nixon" What was it, a week ago that the FBI had to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing that they've been expending considerable resources to spy on anti-war protesters? Then yesterday, Dubya went on national television yesterday to tell us all that it's not illegal for him to use the NSA to spy on American citizens and that there are the program is reveiwed, albeit only by his own political appointees. Then today, more information comes to us from the FOIA--the FBI has not only been spying on anti-war activists but on all kinds of activist organizations: vegan community groups, Catholic Worker's groups (because of the "semi-communistic ideology" of the Catholic Church, don't you know), a PETA group protesting against llama fur, protests against the logging industry in Colorado, and Greenpeace.

According to the associate legal director of the ACLU, ""It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans ... You look at these documents, and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover."

Cross-posted at Scrivenings. 
Read more! ¶ 8:57 AM |

  U.S. Rep. John Lewis Calls for Bush Impeachment (Steve) Representative John Lewis of Georgia, a personal favorite of mine, says that if stories of President Bush authorizing wiretaps are true, Bush should be impeached. Here’s the link to the AP article and a few additional thoughts….

Obviously impeachment is a no-brainer if the President is putting US citizens under surveillance. Bush, in particular, has a sneaky and mean streak that will make him bolder if he gets away with this. Believe me, this guy only does more and more awful stuff if he sees people buy it.

One question I ponder is” Who, exactly, is he spying on?" You really have to wonder how people get blacklisted from his political events. I know homeland security was used when Tom Delay gerrymandered districts in Texas and the Democrats skipped town. There are numerous examples of this.

But above all, I stand firm in saying, as I have mentioned previously, that if Pelosi and Reid knew about domestic spying, they too are as responsible as Bush. It is crucial that if Democarts regain some measure of power- they must be trusted by the American people. I no longer trust Pelosi. The jury is still out on Reid.

As for Lewis, Kucinich, Conyers and a handful of others- hopelessly outnumbered. They must now do the right thing. Investigate what happened. Save out liberties!  
Read more! ¶ 5:07 AM |

  USA: Not OK? At what point did we stop being the United States of America and turn into a bananna republic?

Discuss. 
Read more! ¶ 7:52 AM |

  Pelosi and Reid Knew About Domestic Spying (Steve)Pardon me for saying so, but isnt it disturbing that Pelosi and Reid both knew about Bush's illegal spying on American citizens? So, why call for an investigation if you knew about it all along? 
Read more! ¶ 3:40 AM |

  Jesus wept! by kc (cross-posted at Rogue Planet)

Digby:

I'm not religious but I've always loved Christmas --- the food, the lights, the tree, the music, the whole thing. Now the right wing pricks have gone and made it a cause in their goddamned culture war and I can't enjoy it anymore. One sniff of fruitcake and a picture of Bill O'Reilly enters my mind. I'm instantly nauseated.

Everywhere I go, even here in the very heart of godless secular humanism, the People's Republic of Santa Monica, there are carolers on the sidewalk (singing songs like "Oh Holy Night" no less) "Merry Christmas" is written on store windows, decorated trees and twinkling lights are all over the place. And all I can think is "what in the hell are these wingnuts going on about? Christmas is everywhere! Are they nuts???" And then the pure, simple, childlike enjoyment I usually feel for the holiday just slips away.

I resent the hell out of these wingnut bastards turning Christmas into a political football. Is nothing sacred to these people?

Amen! Preach it, Brother Digby!

I'd like to ignore this phony war-on-Christmas horseshit, but it's everywhere. Infesting the pages of my local papers, as lemming-like O'Reilly followers and AFA members write indignant letters to complain about the campaign to "take Christmas away" from them. Legions of them patrol the malls, looking for an excuse to take offense. If O'Reilly, Don and Tim Wildmon and John Gibson had any decency they'd be ashamed at what they're doing: Taking a season for celebrating peace and good will and turning it into a season of belligerance, combativeness, and rage. Very Christ-like of you, fellas.

The Sun News dutifully sent a pair of its crackerjack reporters out in the trenches to report on this ginned-up controversy:

Forget jolly.

'Tis the time to make much ado about what to call the season.

A debate is playing out locally and nationally on radio and TV call-in shows, online message boards and newspaper editorial pages about the word "Christmas" being included or excluded in retail advertising, the White House holiday card, parades, tree lighting ceremonies and seasonal salutations.

For some, the exclusion of "Christmas" is an effort to dismiss the traditional celebration of a majority of the nation. Believers of other faiths and nonreligious folks see phrases such as "Happy Holidays" as more inclusive and respectful of all beliefs.

Advocacy groups are campaigning to steer shoppers away from retailers and products not using "Christmas" in advertisements.

The American Family Association's Web site, www.afa.net, urges shoppers to boycott companies on its list that have excluded the word "Christmas" from their retail ads, TV commercials and in-store promotions.

The Rev. Mitchell Livingston, pastor of Foundations Forever International Church in Little River, signed a petition on the Web site and has called the corporate offices of major retailers to voice his displeasure.

"[Some businesses] are trying to appease everyone, and that's fine with me," Livingston said. "But don't take my Christmas away from me. I don't care if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, but I do."

You can have his Christmas when you pry it from his cold dead fingers!

The Rev. Windy Price, pastor at Atlantic Beach Christian Methodist Episcopal Mission Church, doesn't let political correctness get in her way when she shops.

"When I go into stores and they tell me 'happy holiday' or 'season greetings,' I always say 'Merry Christmas,'" Price said.

"I don't care what they say, I refuse to be moved."

Go ahead, burn her at the stake, secularists! This courageous woman will laugh and sing Christmas carols in the flames!

Surfside Beach hosted a Christmas parade Saturday. Town officials have not discussed changing the name of parade or other events, said Town Administrator Clyde Merryman. "It concerns me deeply that we're trying to do away with a lot of traditions in our country," Merryman said.

"This is the Christmas season in our country. I'm very firmly in support that this is the Christmas season in the United States. That in no way should this be demeaning to personal friends of mine who are of the Muslim or Jewish faith."

Like you have any.

And the letters sections of the papers have become, even more than usual, a wellspring of dumb-assery:

I am saddened by the removal of "Christ" from Christmas throughout this great country.

We are 85 percent Christian, yet more and more we see stores eliminating the word "Christmas" from their signs and displays and replacing it with "holiday." I know of only a couple of stores still calling this wonderful time of year Christmas: J.C. Penney and Dillards. They will get all of my shopping dollars this year.

Most of the well-known discount stores have eliminated "Christ" from Christmas (political correctness out of control). One has forbidden The Salvation Army from its entrance. How awful.

If my devout Christian Grandpa Stanton, who passed away 50 years ago, were alive today, he would think he was in a foreign country instead of the good old U.S.A. [In 1897, The New York Sun] made a famous statement to a child, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." Today, a more profound and true statement might be said, "Yes, Virginia, there really is Christ in Christmas." God bless you all.
D.A.P.
Myrtle Beach

So much dumb-assery that The State had to create a separate page to hold it all. Samples:

We have all been told to be politically correct about everything we say and do these days. The retail giants are removing Christmas from their stores; it is now a “holiday” time of year. Lowe’s is selling holiday trees!

I read through the huge amount of sale papers after Thanksgiving, and every large business is killing Christmas. Target is one of the worst ones, but thankfully a graphic artist was able to slip in one little ad for “Christmas Kids.”

Have the majority of us just decided to let others handle the fight? Let’s put “Christ” back in Christmas. We are letting a few make the decisions for the majority.
R.S.
Columbia

I read an advertisement in your paper for people to buy “holiday trees” this year instead of Christmas trees. I get confused when I read this kind of advertisement because I do not know which “holiday” they are talking about.

[That's because you're a moron, sir. With all due respect.]

Should I buy a Labor Day holiday tree or a Memorial Day holiday tree or one for another holiday? I never used to have this problem; for 60 years, I always bought a Christmas tree this time of year.

[Consult your physician.]

So, it looks like I will search in your newspaper for a business that sells Christmas trees and purchase one there. I will take it home and get out the old Christmas tree decorations and proceed to for another year have a beautiful Christmas tree that is worthy of being part of the celebration of the birthday of Jesus Christ.

I suppose the people who just buy “holiday trees” will have it as part of their celebration, but what are they celebrating this time of year? Confusing isn’t it?

[Only if you're, well, a moron.]

Oh well. Merry Christmas, everyone!
E.N.
Lexington

Bob Somerby says, it just doesn't get any dumber than this. I'd like to think that was true. But I have the feeling it's going to get a lot dumber, and a lot uglier, before it's over. 
Read more! ¶ 11:25 PM |

  Eugene McCarthy Passes Away It wouldn’t be right to have a blog like this without mentioning the passing of Eugene McCarthy, the first politician to stand up to LBJ on the Vietnam War. McCarthy sank LBJ’s Presidency by running against him in the ’68 New Hampshire primary and making a good show. This opened the way for Bobby Kennedy’s bid later that year. So long, Senator. 
Read more! ¶ 4:48 AM |

  No Habla Español (by Lisa) crossposted at WatchBlog

While English is the primary language of the United States of America, the fact remains we are a culture of immigrants. Language is a part of culture for many. There has been a noticeable trend to force "English only", recently in California and Kansas this has become an issue. It has gone as far as a mother facing neglect charges because she did not learn English. Where do we draw the line and have we already gone to far?



When I read today's Washington Post article about the recent situation with 16-year-old Zach Rubio who was initially suspended for speaking Spanish in the hall of his high school, I did some personal reflection.

I grew up with a great-grandmother who came here from Poland. I never really learned much of the language but I remember sitting there listening to her gossip with other women from the predominately Polish Neighborhood she lived in. I later married a Puerto Rican, he was born here in the States, his mother moved to the East Coast shortly before his birth. His father still lives in Puerto Rico today. He grew up learning Spanish first then English. The neighborhoods his family lived in were primarily Puerto Rican or other Latinos as far as population. Spanish was for home and sometimes work, English was for school. I was not fluent in Spanish, I am still not though I am able to at least get the jist of a conversation and speak some Spanish; I fully admit it feels strange to be in a home full of people that speak primarily Spanish. You feel left out. You wonder are they talking about you? I used to joke with my husband as long as I didn't hear "gringa or puta" I didn't worry. Miguel's mother prefers to speak in Spanish, her English is still not what I would call excellent. I'm not writing this as a slam on her, it is her preference. She has surrounded herself while still here in the States in a culture that speaks mainly Spanish. In her situation I do not feel this has exactly been a plus as there have been situations where a better grasp of the English language could have helped her. Miguel is the opposite. He is very fluent in both languages and frankly it is why he was hired at his job he has now since the company he works for deals with orders from Mexico and no one there was able to speak or translate written Spanish.

I'll never forget the first time my children heard him talk on the phone to his mother in Spanish. They came running down the hall, "MOM! Miguel is talking funny!!" For me it was, well duh, but to them having never really heard a real conversation in Spanish it was a new experience. They wanted to learn Spanish, several of them went on as they grew older to select Spanish as their foreign language class. In part because they wanted to learn more about the language their stepfather took and in part I believe to know they would have a handy homework helper.

Is there a point to this rather than prattling on about my personal life which is something I don't normally do here? Yes. Miguel chose to take advantage of his ability to be bi-lingual. Notice I said chose. His mother and some of his family members have not.

Given it is a choice, should the Government or private industries be forced to provide services in Spanish for those who live here in the United States? What about the reverse? Forcing people to either learn and use only English or face losing the custody of a child or being suspended from school?

Taking a look at this article written earlier in the year from USA Today This comment stands out:

"We were hearing stories of a lack of interpreters and violence," says Nina Perales, MALDEF's regional counsel in San Antonio. In Norcross, Ga., MALDEF defended a Mexican store owner who was fined for having a Spanish sign. In North Carolina, it intervened when a challenge was filed against voters with Spanish surnames in an effort to disqualify them. "The backlash bleeds into different areas, like voting rights," she says.

If a person chooses to not learn the language in which the majority of government function is performed how much responsibility does the court have in this? How many languages should this extend to? There are immigrants from many countries here, some are more fluent in the language of their nation of birth than this one. Some have a better grasp of the English language than some of us who are of English heritage have.

I know where I personally feel the line should be drawn, but the point of this is not to just tell you how I feel. I'm interested in what you think.

 
Read more! ¶ 2:18 PM |

  Learning from 9/11 (by Lisa Renee)

I highly recommend this article for a short preview of what is to be released from the Bipartisan Commission on Monday.

There are several areas that are especially disturbing:

First responders still cannot communicate with each other in an emergency because no part of the radio spectrum has been allocated for their use.

Still no unified command system, under which first responders in any situation would know who is in charge.

Then of course the typical governmental waste:

"We've had some of this money spent to air condition garbage trucks. We've had some of the money spent for armor for dogs. This money is being distributed as if it's general revenue sharing," said Kean. 
Read more! ¶ 9:22 PM |