With Its Metaphor Masher On Overdrive...

The NY Times editors deliver a wonderfully inapt metaphor today as they renew their criticism of the NSA warrantless surveillance program:

Kabuki Congress 

Imagine being stopped for speeding and having the local legislature raise the limit so you won't have to pay the fine. It sounds absurd, but it's just what is happening to the 28-year-old law that prohibits the president from spying on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

It's a familiar pattern. President Bush ignores the Constitution and the laws of the land, and the cowardly, rigidly partisan majority in Congress helps him out by rewriting the laws he's broken.

"Being stopped for speeding"?  My goodness, has the courage of the Times editors abandoned them?  Have they really been screaming at the Administration for three months about a minor infraction that is comparable to a crime "everyone" has committed at one time or another?

Oh, I doubt the editors really think the NSA program is just a minor infraction; my guess is that reality intruded just long enough for the editors to step back from the cliff's edge and avoid the suggestion that General Hayden and others have willfully committed obvious, serious crimes.

General Hayden, as he noted at the National Press Club, has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, as have many of the fine men and women who served in the NSA under him.  The General also consulted separately with three top NSA lawyers before proceeding with the program, so he is far from offering a "Just following orders" defense.

Beyond that, the General participated in briefings to Congressional leadership over a four year period without being warned that he was breaking both the law and his oath.

So for the Times to suggest that the NSA program is analogous to willful lawbreaking is ridiculous.  Politically delightful, of course, and I hope leading Dems pick up on this - a suggested soundbite is, "We support the troops defending us, except the ones we arrest".

MORE:  The editorial says this:

Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively, to the one spying program Mr. Bush has acknowledged. It also covers any other illegal wiretapping we don't know about — including, it appears, entire "programs" that could cover hundreds, thousands or millions of unknowing people.

As to the possibility of unknown unknowns, AG Gonzalez denied it in a phone call with Rep. Jane Harman:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told a key House Democrat yesterday that the administration is not conducting any warrantless domestic surveillance programs beyond the one that President Bush has acknowledged, the Democrat said in an interview.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said Gonzales was responding to a fax she sent him Wednesday after she read a news account of his Feb. 28 letter to two senators. In the letter, Gonzales appeared to suggest there might be domestic wiretap operations that extend beyond the outlines Bush acknowledged in December. Gonzales asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony that the president's acknowledged use of the National Security Agency for domestic surveillance "is all that he has authorized." "I did not and could not address . . . any other classified intelligence activities," Gonzales wrote to the senators.

Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said she sent Gonzales a fax "seeking clarification about his written testimony, which has left room for the possibility of an additional program or a broader program" of surveillance without court approval.

White House counsel Harriet Miers called Harman on Wednesday, and Gonzales phoned yesterday, Harman said. She said both of them "assured me that there is not a broader program or an additional program out there involving surveillance of U.S. persons."

MORE:  Cool - check the Google targetted ads, which are currently offering help with your speeding ticket or DUI.  What happened, did I do a post on Ted Kennedy?

Comments

[Sue]

Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively, to the one spying program Mr. Bush has acknowledged

Are they priming us for another leak?

[Sue]

Do you think it ever occurred to the editors at the Times that they have been snookered by their dozen or so leakers? That the spying program described to them wasn't exactly the spying program going on?

[TM]

...to the one spying program Mr. Bush has acknowledged

Good point - I threw in an UPDATE to cover that (although one may not believe Gonzalez, or one may wonder whether his statement - "there is not a broader program or an additional program out there" - is a statement about the present, or also of the past.)

[Sue]

The kabuki stage (kabuki no butai) is a rotating stage and is further equipped with several gadgets like trapdoors through which the actors can appear and disappear.

I am smiling at the thought of such a trapdoor in Congress and the fun we could have with it if we held the switch. ::grin::

[SmokeVanThorn]

Imagine a newspaper violating an espionage law and having a judge decide that the First Amendement grants to the press the right to do so with impunity. It sounds absurd, but it's just what the Times will claim should happen.

[SmokeVanThorn]

Imagine a newspaper violating an espionage law and having a judge decide that the First Amendment grants to the press the right to do so with impunity. It sounds absurd, but it's just what the Times will claim should happen.

[Other Tom]

The Times will not even acknowledge the existence of the powerful argument (and the four appellate court decisions supporting that argument) that the president is empowered by the consititution to obtain foreign intelligence. The fact that doing so involves a conversation one end of which is on American soil is irrelevant to that argument. The congress lacks the power to enact any law abridging the president's power, and to the extent FISA seeks to do so it is unconsitutional.

[TM]

I'm off-topic, but if I have time I want the article below to use in grappling with this abortion article in today's Times.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare.htm

My gist, lest I forget - the Times claims that parental notification advocates argue that notification should *lower* the abortion rate, but also claims that notification opponents do not argue the opposite. That seems like an odd asymmetry, but a convenient one considering the Times results.

Well. Please resume the NSA discussion.

[clarice]

I saw that , too,TM. And think it was a stupid strawman. Most parents want to be notified because it is a crisis--medical and emotional and moral --in their child's life and I one in which understandably they feel they have an important role to play.

[clarice]

*sorry--typo**in their child's life and one in which understandably they feel they have an important role to play.

[Colin]

Re: AG Gonzales' recent denial by phone to Rep. Harman.

Why on earth should I believe him? During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee he repeatedly refused to answer questions about other possible warantless spying programs. Why didn't he simply answer those questions with a yes or no? It seems that would have been the time to address the issue, instead of waiting for a fax from a Representative then answering her by phone, so she could relate it to the Washington Post.

Of course, lying to a Representative by phone isn't a crime -- lying to Congress is, even if they can't be bothered to swear you in. But that's just cynical speculation on my part.

[Steve]

Personally I like the "buying your house the Sharia way" ad that Google is targeting at your site. I wonder how many clicks that ad will get!

[Specter]

On my local blog I use the signature line "I am King of the Leprechauns" (Howlin' Howie). You should see the google ads...what a kick.

[JM Hanes]

The NYTimes was probably just dumbing down the metaphor in case any red state folks might still be reading their newspaper.

OTOH, it's possible they got their editorial wires crossed and forgot that keeping national secutiry info secret is the big crime, and publishing leaks about it is the little crime that's not a crime, like speeding, because everybody does it.

They're not the only ones who seem confused about what constitutes crimminal behavior though. From the NYT's AIPAC article you cited earlier:

"If receiving and passing on national defense information is a crime, we're going to have to build a lot more jails," said Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy at the liberal Federation of American Scientists. "To make a crime of the kind of conversations Rosen and Weissman had with Franklin over lunch would not be surprising in the People's Republic of China. But it's utterly foreign to the American political system."

Put that one on a bumper sticker: Foreign to America, since 1917.

[JM Hanes]

OT to Specter

Caught your update on the latest snark from Bryant Gumbel over the Winter Olympics. Maybe the Summer Games will be black enough for him to watch -- sheesh, the guy deserves a daily fisking.

[clarice]

I notice we now have a lot of speeding ticket ads..LOL

[JM Hanes]

Sheesh #2: Forgot the Gumbel URL.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice

Along with the ususal suspects claiming that speed traps are Unfair and unAmerican!

[clarice]

Excuse me, I was daydreaming..pretendiing I was a rich Yale alum crafting my responsive letter to the latest plea for dough..........

[Rick Ballard]

That would be in fulfuillment of the "strong letter follows" part of the rather short initial response, right?

[Neo]

The NYT has already treated the Espionage Act like toilet paper, so now we get the absurd "I shot sheriff [but I did not shoot the deputy]" defense.

[Cecil Turner]

Seems to me this is less than laudable:

VIPS say their appeals to CIA staff are an attempt to evoke another Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

And if I were looking for the "usual suspects," these guys would top the list.

[topsecretk9]

If receiving and passing on national defense information is a crime, we're going to have to build a lot more jails,

Great. Start building.

[Sue]

Russell Tice? He is a member of VIPs?

[clarice]

Rick, no fair poking into MY daydream..

[clarice]

TICE is a member of another group hooked up with the VIPS. Unfortunately Shaffer (AD) has joined them, too. I can't remember their name..It's a group to support "whistle blowers". Ellsburg is in it, too,

[clarice]

Here--I wrote about them and the group: http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4098

[Sue]

National Secutirty Whistleblowers Coalition. But anything Larry Johnson is party to, is shady, IMO.

[larwyn]

Jack don't care if it's an "old law" Jack believes in that "old WWI law" and he will be speeding into your living rooms early tonight.

Two NEW EPISODES of "24" begin
at EIGHT PM EST tonight

Hope the scriptwriters are reading the newspapers and we either get Senators and the Media involved late this season or at latest next season.

Jack interrogates Rocky and Durbin - now there's a fantasy.

[larwyn]

Fantasy too easy.

Jack interrogates Larry Johnson, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Joe Wilson -----ah heck

Jack interrogates John Kerry and his campaign managers......

this could go on forever.

[Specter]

JM,

Thanks. I've written to HBO several times but they don't feel the need to respond. I don't write a lot of articles - yet. Havin too much fun reading and responding on others. Bryant Gumball....LOL

larwyn - We'd love to see Jack put one in Rocky's knee and then say, "Now tell me what I want to know.....Who did you tell?" LOL

[clarice]

It was very funny, Specter.

[larwyn]

Specter,
Try FOX - betting you could do marvelous "24" senarios.

Of course you can't desert us - that goes without saying.

[larwyn]

You and Soylent Red - what a team
with the Goddess for a muse.

[Larry]

Jed Babbin was just on Fox saying Rocky, Durbin and Widen are in deep doodoo regarding NSA, foreign prisons and a "black satellite" (late '05) disclosure that have already been referred to DOJ.

[maryrose]

Babbin on the Big Story says Durbin, Wyden, and Rocky are probably going to have to be checked out with a lie detector and questionning about Nsa and overseas prisons leaks.

[Syl]

I'm with the if-FISA-prevents-the-President-from-gathering-national-security-info FISA is unconstitutional crowd.

In fact I think most of the laws passed in the seventies as a reaction to previous executive overreach are suspect.

The New York Times should burn in hell for the NSA leak. They believe in a utopian Constitution that has nothing to do with the one we have.

[maryrose]

Larwyn;
2 hours of Jack and 24 tonight-can't wait. Stayed up late last night watching the Oscars; John Stewart got in his plug saying;:"I wonder what would happen if we knocked this big Oscar statue down., Would we have democracy then?" jack ought to clean his smug clock.

[larwyn]

Tks Larry and Maryrose
for informing the "Young at Heart" - counting on one of the good guys to be named Jack.

[topsecretk9]

Babbin on Durbin, Wyden, Rockefeller - Monday, March 06, 2006 @ 5:46:05 PM

Since Jed is so busy, I thought I would report what to me seemed the most interesting news he gave in his brief abut excellent ppearance (just a few minutes ago) on Fox News. HE says that Demo senators Durbin, Wyden and Rockefeller have been mentioned by name in a criminal referral in at least one of the leaks cases. Now I wasn't clear whether Jed was saying they are targets or "subjects" (or what) of the investigation, or even just witnesses, but it all sounded pretty significant. Granted, Jed may have reported that news on this blog before, but it was the first I had heard of it, and I do tend to pay attention. Anyway, I'm sure Jed will fill us all in once he finishes guest-hosting for Hewitt. But just wanted to give him him props for a very interesting appearance on Fox!

Posted By: Quin Hillyer

Busy, Busy, Busy - Monday, March 06, 2006 @ 2:53:57 PM

As the Bokononists would say, "busy, busy, busy." Before I hit the airwaves for Hugh at 6, look for me on The Big Story with John Gibson on Fox about 5:15. We're talking about the big leaks, and the investigations that may be producing significant developments this week.

Posted By: Jed Babbin

Link

[JM Hanes]

Syl

Speaking of utopias, I think my favorite line (hard to pick just one!) in the Post aricle TM cited came from Downie, not Keller:

"But it's important . . . in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government."

Put that in your Constitution and smoke it!

[clarice]

ts,I have Gibson on but too late--what did they say?

[larwyn]

Stewart's best line:

"Scorcese Zero, Three 6 Mafia One"

All day the Cable News networks have avoided listing the winner of the BEST SONG OSCAR.

They're not ashamed, they just don't want to assist Americans in considering the same people who voted for the song are voting for the Democrats and giving the LEFT
MILLIONS OF $$$$$$$$!

Shuuuuuuush!

[Sue]

Maryrose,

Stewart went both ways. He also got the dig in that finally those in the room voted for a winner. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

ts,I have Gibson on but too late--what did they say?

I was about 4 minutes too late (too), but he filling in for Hugh Hewitt (starting Now) and I let you know if he repeats.

[topsecretk9]

typos, grrrrr

[Rick Ballard]

"Put that in your Constitution and smoke it!"

JMH,

I think that line quoted was pretty good evidence that something was being smoked. Or maybe the executive chef ground up one too many peyote buttons for the salsa...

[maryrose]

Thank you Sue for that reminder. It was funny as is Stewart-most of the time. His Daily Show during the election cycle was a hoot. Overall I think he did a good job hosting the Oscars. I especially liked the opening bit with Billy Crystal and Chris Rock in the tent. Hilarious!

[topsecretk9]

the big leaks, and the investigations that may be producing significant developments this week.

Clarice, it this is true then the whiny WAPO article seems about right. Why report on the actual investigation and who that may include when you can print a big fat boo hoo and rant about Bush instead. I've learned when when it's bad for the liberals and their comrades in the media they tend not to report their bad news.

[maryrose]

TS
Exactly right and also some pre-emptive rant on President Bush to distract the public from the the bad investigative news that is coming down on dems heads because of their leaking. Just like Clinton used to release all bad news on Friday nights.

[maryrose]

TS
Exactly right and also some pre-emptive rant on President Bush to distract the public from the the bad investigative news that is coming down on dems heads because of their leaking. Just like Clinton used to release all bad news on Friday nights.

[larwyn]

TSK9
"the media they tend not to report their bad news."

Now they won't even report bad "entertainment" news.

They already manipulate weather news and diet/health issues news -
what is left?

[clarice]

Go to Part 2 Rockfeller plan here. (Fedora who wrote this is a meticulous researcher)

The entire piece is a marvel BTW.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1526309/posts

[larwyn]

Clarice,
Problem with link.

[MayBee]

Left in the hands of elected officials, a democracy will falter.

The institutions best suited to run our democracy are newspaper editors, appointed Commissions (such as the 9/11 commission), career intelligence/state department employess, and judges.

So opine our great Democratic Party supporters.

;-0

[larwyn]

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

The Hollywood {&Democrats}Hymnal

[MayBee]

If congress is to be Kabuki, I hope all this ridiculous King George talk will cease. Better to refer to him as Emperor.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

Within TAC, it's "My liege lord" - Emperor is too formal. He's a regular guy. Until you cross him.

[ajacksonian]

Dear me, is the times complaining that their rights are not being enforced everywhere on the planet again? First they complain that we are acting as an Empire, then complain that we don't when they expect us to. I really do not understand these people.

As to Congress I also deem the entire lot of them cowardly for wanting powers not granted to them and for not using the powers given them under the Constitution, which could prove extremely useful in asymmetrical warfare.

As to abortion, my own personal belief is that the States have it within their power to change the dynamic by properly reading Roe v. Wade and understanding the part States must play in granting citizenship. Due process, viability and abortion before that are all wrapped together, and can be disentangled slowly by changing what it *is* that is being talked about. Some will not like that as it will make them put their money where their beliefs are.

But, then again, I have strange thoughts.

[maryrose]

people shouldn't feel wishy-washy about abortion. In their heart of hearts individuals know where they stand. Each person should accept responsibility for their actions. I don't understand government being involved in this from the Roe v Wade decision on out.

[topsecretk9]

Fedora really gets into Wilson's knowledge of those forgeries:

"So it is not as if there were any suspect documents, names, or dates involved in Wilson’s trip that his memory could have mixed up with what was reported after ElBaradei’s announcement. Bad memory does not explain why Wilson told CNN a day after ElBaradei’s statement, before there had been any significant reporting for his memory to get confused about, “I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday.” It does not explain why Nicholas Kristof reported Wilson saying, “The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.” It does not explain why Walter Pincus quoted him saying, “the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’ the former U.S. government official said.” It does not explain why John Judis and Spencer Ackerman reported after interviewing him, “He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries.” It does not explain why Andrew Buncombe and Raymond Whitaker reported after interviewing him, “The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report. . .which revealed that documents. . .were forgeries. . . He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents.” Bad memory does not get Wilson off the hook, either. If he embellished his memories of his actual experience with information he had picked up from the news or other sources, it was not a result of bad memory.

Wilson’s defense that he “misspoke” does not work, either. No one “misspeaks” the same story to four different newspapers over a two-month period."

[Sue]

Top,

Interesting that he was telling it to more than just one reporter. So, if he didn't see the documents, who was telling him about them? Who had seen them?

[topsecretk9]

this helps too

"Away from the scrutiny of Senate cross-examination, Wilson has taken a more aggressive defense, accusing the reporters he spoke to of misquoting him. Asked by Paula Zahn to respond to criticisms based on the Senate committee’s findings, Wilson accused all reporters who quoted him prior to his own July 6, 2003 New York Times article of misquoting him:

I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.231
This of course is not credible. For one thing, Wilson’s claim that he was misquoted contradicts his admission to the Senate that he was Pincus’ source and his defense that he “misspoke”, which was an implicit admission that Pincus quoted him accurately. For another thing, four professional newspapers do not independently misquote someone exactly the same way, using direct quotations. The score is 4 to 1, and Wilson’s credibility loses that game.

But it is not necessary to rest the case on the already-weighty probability of four independent witnesses against one, because there is also the weight of Wilson’s own words to add to the case. When Wilson spoke to the EPIC Iraq Forum after Kristof and Pincus’ articles had already come out, he had an opportunity to correct the reporters he now alleges misquoted him. Instead he enthusiastically identified himself as the source quoted by those reporters and made no corrections to what they had quoted him saying:

. . .that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government--not of the CIA but of the government--and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact-checking and make sure the Brits aren't using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President's State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa. . .I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs."

[topsecretk9]

I'm a little paste happy but...and another VIPs connection

--One wonders what “people inside” Wilson is referring to here. This was at least the second occasion when Wilson had implied inside knowledge about the forgeries. The first was his very first public comments on the forgeries to CNN. Wilson has tried to dissociate his CNN comments from later reporting on his Niger trip by emphasizing that he did not speak about his trip during the interview:

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.233
Indeed, Wilson did not speak of his trip. He spoke about the subject he was prompted to speak on by CNN national security reporter David Ensor: the subject of the Niger forgeries (a subject Ensor, who Wilson says just “happened by”, just happened to be investigating, and just happened to interview VIPS’ Ray Close about a few days later). What Wilson said about that subject is quite interesting:

. . .I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday.
Now what is so interesting about Wilson’s comment here is that until ElBaradei’s press conference day before, nobody knew about the forgeries outside a small circle in US intelligence and a few foreign intelligence agencies. Who was included in this circle? Seymour Hersh reported,

Vincent Cannistraro. . .told me that copies of the Burba documents were given to the American Embassy, which passed them on to the C.I.A.'s chief of station in Rome, who forwarded them to Washington. Months later, he said, he telephoned a contact at C.I.A. headquarters and was told that ‘the jury was still out on this’--that is, on the authenticity of the documents.”
234
According to Cannistraro’s account, he had to call a contact at CIA headquarters to get information about the forgeries. So how was it that a day after ElBaradei went public, in response to an inquiry about a Washington Post article asked by a CNN reporter who just “happened by” and just happened to be doing an investigation of the forgeries, Joseph Wilson just happened to be there at the scene suggesting, as he characterized his comments in his book, “that if the U.S. government checked its files, it would, I believed, discover that it knew more about the case than the spokesman was letting on”?235

And thus, in a twist of ironic justice, Wilson hangs himself with the first words out of his mouth.---

[topsecretk9]

Sue
Interesting that he was telling it to more than just one reporter. So, if he didn't see the documents, who was telling him about them? Who had seen them?

Yeah Sue, why was he mis-speaking sooooo much?

[Sue]

need to do some fact-checking and make sure the Brits aren't using bad information

What was he referring to here? Has he said?

[topsecretk9]

Sue

Not positive but the "crazy repot"?. IIRC there was a brit, an itallian and a frenh intel report.

[Rick Ballard]

Hey!! Do you guys know the words to the Internationale? Cuz Joe Wilson can sing it backwards.

David Corn taught him.

[topsecretk9]

does anyone read the pearls of wisdom handed out by the nine ball known as "Digby"?

Many of the fevered left sites are "netrooting" over the South Dakota abortion but "Digby" offered up this unintended consequence

" I said "I hope you're ready to be daddies, boys. Last time abortion was illegal they didn't have DNA testing" and they all looked stunned."

Digby, i wonder if the their stunned reaction had to do with the fact that the statement is so idiotic and indicative to the selfishness of liberalism.

AH poor, poor Digby...he's no longer going to be able to pro-create at his leisure may actually have to you know be responsible for it. Gone are the good old days of DNA-less impregnating.

By the way, on the South Dakota thing...I commented many, many times during the gay marriage Andrew Sullivan saga, that is states started legislating through the courts even on this issue, don't be surprised if pushes states to start doing similar to pet issues, issues liberals don't like,

DUH.

[Sue]

I've been thinking about the SD ban. Why now? It will still be 5 to 4 when it reaches the SC. Today, I think I came up with the why now. It will be front page news from now until it reaches the SC, possibly in 2007, more likely 2008. The senate will be more important than ever, if Stevens retires. Or Ginsburg keeps falling asleep. What better issue, other than gay marriage, to get the conservative base hyped up and out to vote over?

Another Rovian plot?

[Syl]

Sue

What better issue, other than gay marriage, to get the conservative base hyped up and out to vote over?

The only problem with this as strategy is that it will also fire up the Dems to vote.

A polarizing issue means it fires up both sides.

[clarice]

Larwyn, I'm sorry I was out and just got back..Here is the cite:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1526309/posts?page=1,50

[clarice]

Now. wonder down to Part 2 Rockefeller

[larwyn]

MacRanger has a post on and link to
this. I think Bill Press has covered every talking/argument/spin point the LSM plans to "bumper sticker" for the next 8 months. Love the
"how Nixonian".
The War on Journalists byBill Press Mon Mar 6, 12:08 PM ET

Fasten your seat belts. George Bush is starting another war.

As part of the war on terror, he's declared a war on reporters. According to the Washington Post, the Bush White House has dusted off an old 1917 law to haul into court any journalist who publishes a story based on classified information received through a leak.

They're doing so, says the Post, because they're upset at media reports on the network of secret CIA prisons and on Bush's warrantless phone taps. Bush says printing stories about the NSA's spy program was "a shameless act."

The White House declaring war on journalists? How Nixonian! How ironic! How hypocritical! How dangerous!

Isn't it ironic? Bush resurrects a 1917 law to go after journalists. Yet he said he couldn't obey a 1978 law requiring a court order before tapping our phones because it was "an old law."

Isn't it hypocritical? Somebody in the White House leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, yet Bush did nothing about it. Dick Cheney told Scooter Libby to leak classified information in order to help build the case for war in Iraq and Bush did nothing about it. Yet now he wants to punish reporters who report on the leaks.

You'll have to read the whole thing.

[clarice]

*um--I meant wAnder..*

Bill Press is certifiable--they always send him out to plant the explosives..I think I'll skip him if you don't mind..

[larwyn]

Press is truly a nasty envious man.
It wasn't so obvious when he had Novak as foil.

[Gary Maxwell]

Bill Press makes Alan Colmes almost huggable (I said ALMOST ). Truly a digusting creature from the fetid swamps.

[clarice]

Don't go there, Gary. Please.

[topsecretk9]

The last part of my post doesn't even make sense to me. I just knew, after the precedent of just doing what you want in the Gay marriages in Mass. & SF it would open the flood gates on these kinda pet issue legislation. And I knew it would be abortion.

Clarice
Apparently this is what Babbin said on Fox ( no transcript)

What I heard was Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden had criminal referrals and were being asked to submit to lie detector tests. This was tied to the leak investigation.

3 are requested to submit to a polygraph. (and staff too)

[topsecretk9]

I heard them say there are 3 very serious breaches of National Security that are going to be investigated.

[topsecretk9]

I'm just quoting from a comment thread, so there could be mistakes

[clarice]

Thanks, ts.

[JasonM in NH]

Hate to quibble (well, not really), but it really wasn't a metaphor so much as an analogy.

[MayBee]

Be grateful nobody said it was literally Kabuki Congress.

[Sue]

Syl,

It already has. And of course, it was just my theory. Subject to being entirely wrong.

[maryrose]

I think it will fire up the right more and big turnout is always good; across the board.

[Randy]

I don't agree that FISA is a real impediment to gathering legitimate information. The law was amendended in the '90s to allow for a 72 hour grace period to retroactively apply for a court order. Of the ten thousand or so wiretaps that have been requested under FISA only a small handfull in the single digits have been denied or amended. Gonzalez's excuse for non-compliance to this law was that it's just too much paperwork. Well excuse me, but if you don't like paperwork Mr. Gonzalez you should have chosen another line of work.

The FISA regulations do create an impediment to the kind of data mining that the Bush administration appears to engaged in. Of course, the thousands of random conversations that are monitored under this kind of system would be impossible to do with a court order. For the Bush administration to undertake such an invasion of privacy without the probable cause required by the fourth amendment is a fundamental crime against the constitution.

If we're so afraid of the bogeymen from the east that we're willing to throw away the fourth amendmend, fine, lets do it legally. Just let's not try to pretend that illegal wiretapping is legal just because a few lackey administration lawyers said so.

[Larry]

Randy, the 4th protects against UNREASONABLE searches. Also, I (maybe alone) contend that if I'm conversing with the enemy, I'm no longer "the people"; I'm an agent of the enemy and therefore not due protection of the amendment.

The argument seems to boil down to law enforcement v. war fighting approaches. We can't use information gained from a warrantless search in court, but we surenell can use it to thwart an attack.

[Cecil Turner]

For the Bush administration to undertake such an invasion of privacy without the probable cause required by the fourth amendment is a fundamental crime against the constitution.

I see we're still finding that "right to privacy" in the Constitution, eh? And the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for a warrantless search? Might try reading it.

Just let's not try to pretend that illegal wiretapping is legal just because a few lackey administration lawyers said so.

If I find the guy Who said illegal wiretapping is legal, I'll give him a stern talking-to. Those guys! (You just can't trust 'em.)

[clarice]

But the question is. what does that noted legal scholar, Lawrence Tribe, say bout the law? LOL

[topsecretk9]

Didn't think the CIA would go along with this

"The request for more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief would impose an ``enormous burden'' on the agency because it would have to ensure that any classified information in the reports stayed secret and because the request would take nine months to comply with, the Central Intelligence Agency said in court documents unsealed today in Washington.

``Any disclosure of the PDB beyond its intended narrow audience -- the President and his most senior advisers -- increases the possibility of damage to the national security,'' Marilyn Dorn, information review officer at the CIA's National Clandestine Service, said in a sworn affidavit."

[clarice]

Interesting that they are willing to provide summaries.

[Larry]

"...the request would take nine months to comply with..." That's just way too funny.

[maryrose]

TS:
You trumped me again- I saw the same story and posted it on other threads. Interestingly, Fitz says he finds the request "breath-taking" and feels that the defense lawyers are trying to derail his case. What case? It's disappearing before our eyes as we speak. According to Dorn even an abbreviated form of the documents in summary mode would be "too risky" and would take about 4 months to compile.

[Specter]

Randy,

Way too far behind on that argument. Try to catch up about 6 months and then we'll talk.

[topsecretk9]

More bad news for Dems

"DEWINE, GRAHAM, HAGEL, AND SNOWE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
have evidently drafted a deal on NSA spying so the intel comte won't probe the program..."

via the corner.

[maryrose]

ts;
great scoop, I think it's great and I wanted to know how that vote came out.

[topsecretk9]

Thanks MaryR

Clarice
I saw this fellow's name mentioned with regards to a Libby Defense (maybe this is old news) but I thought I would point it out to you in case you hadn't seen it. The commenter said something to the effect that all Libby has to now is mention this guy now that the CIA is putting up a fuss (well more than mention, but it was just a quick comment) It does seem to touch on the trickier issues involved in the use of classified information in a defense. You would be better able to determine

Edwin Wilson (I am sure there are better sources about this case though)

[topsecretk9]

Also Clarice, I haven't read the whole thing and I have to run out, so if it is a dud...20 lashes with a wet noodle for me.

[danking70]

Elite Troops Get Expanded Role on Intelligence

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/international/americas/08forces.html?ei=5065&en=15f53b2da65f19b6&ex=1142398800&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1141794519-+SDkEBV/lWiNk4dZLblMWw

CIA no-likey.

Maybe if they weren't so political and maybe if we trusted them more to, you know, maybe do the job right. You know, not fuck-it-up, I mean "slamdunk" so much. My favorite was the new CIA chief's company wide "can't you bums keep a secret" pep talk.

The CIA is not going to cooperate in the Plame trial as shown by their stance on the PDBs for the trial.

Another black eye and they've got no more room.