Bush misses the point

Bush believes that because the world we live in is a dangerous place, his spying programs are justified. He says that the federal judge who recently determined the programs are unlawful is wrong because she doesn't understand the extent to which these programs help (but how can she? All the evidence is secret!). Whether he really believes this silly, irrational, fear inducing argument or he's using this to merely frame the debate so that Democrats look soft on terrorism is irrelevant. This is his argument and he's sticking to it.

Actually, the severity of the treat of terrorism and how these programs may help mitigate that threat only partially addresses the reality of the judge’s ruling. What Bush is failing to consider, either intentionally or not (probably intentionally), is the fact that this judge is only expressing the legal interpretation most commonly expressed by legal scholars nationwide: there is no statute providing legal authorization for these programs. Like the argument that the jury is still out on Global Warming, this debate was closed long ago. Nobody outside the administration with any real credibility on this issue is arguing in support of the President's legal merits.

Bush is trying to cloud your judgment—if we are afraid enough, maybe we'll forget that there is no legal basis for his illegal spying programs. If we are worried about liquid bombs on airplanes, then we won't worry so much about the legal "debate" among Washington insiders.

I'm not concerned about playing politics with fear. He’s been getting away with it since 9/11 and he’ll continue to do it no matter what the issue of the day may be—he’s a desperate politician and this political tool is all he has left. I just wish he wouldn’t do it at the expense of misrepresenting the discussion about what's legal and what isn't--not at the expense of the truth.

Is Nationalism Bad?

Below is an interesting article by a WWII bombardier. I happen to mostly agree with him. Historically, nationalism has hurt people more than it has helped, which he points out. But I’m not so sure that complete absence of nationalism, which he seems to endorse, is always a good thing. And in the context of a real world with countries, nationalism is inevitable. We shouldn't suppress this expression because it is exploited by some. People have feelings of nationalism and we have no right to deny these feelings, but we should certainly debate its virtue.

Nationalism has been used as a means to achieve objectives based on poor values (e.g., Christianizing other countries), but in the end the real problem is the value. If we had better values, like opposing genocide in other countries, then the sway of nationalism would be lessened, because these values would inherently be in conflict with the concept of nationalism (why would we treat others equally when we think they're not equal?). Generally speaking, I think he’s right that our expression of allegiance should include a general regard for people everywhere, which can be in direct conflict with the root of nationalism for many people (okay, most people).

Nationalism also has this awful tendency to blind people's judgment. Decisions based on nationalism often leads to logic where ends justify the means, a logic I’m generally against. For that reason alone, I would be okay to do without it.

Published on Monday, July 3, 2006 by the Progressive

Put Away the Flags

by Howard Zinn

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.

We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.

As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.

How many times have we heard President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?

One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail last year that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). Email to: pmproj@progressive.org

Trying to understand mixed signals about government secrecy

Just thinking out loud here...

We can't examine and debate the legality of the NSA wiretapping program because of national security concerns, but we can reveal the details of how Zarqawi was found and killed, which allegedly involved phone surveillance. We can't thoroughly examine the interactions between the government and the private sector with regards to sharing private information, but we can reveal what was found at the location where Zarqawi was killed--it's being called a "treasure" of information--including al Qaeda's plan (the Iraq version of al Qaeda) to take the war to Iran.

What are the rules for disclosure here? I'm thinking we can't reveal "secret" information, unless it helps Bush politically.

Rove knows what he's doing

The press is falling into Rove's trap. Reporters are shocked that Rove has finally stated that Bush's low poll numbers are due to the problems with Iraq. "Finally Bush is realizing that his approval is highly linked to Iraq" they say with pride that they've finally gotten Bush to indirectly admit his failures. "Iraq looms over everything," says David Gregory on Chris Mathew's Sunday morning show. Articles in the Washington Post and on CNN.com confirm enthusiasm for Rove's candor.

Rove wants you to continue to say that his low approval numbers are because of Iraq. The more you say it, the more you're building potential for political rebound. Why? Because as time goes on, things will appear to improve in Iraq. Fewer Americans will die there as our troop levels decline and they take a smaller role in security operations. So, as our military role in Iraq continues on its natural course--regardless of its actual impact on the Iraqi people or anyone else--the appearance of improvement will inevitably improve our collective support for Bush's administration of this policy. Even if the improvement is small, Bush will gain more than he otherwise would because his team has hyped the impact of his Iraqi policy beforehand. They'll gain more by not doing anything extra. The press is doing their work for them.

With every milestone that occurs in the future, Bush will gain extra simply because Rove has gotten the press to say that his success is completely tied to Iraq. Logic follows that as success appears to occur in Iraq, then Bush is a successful president. Nevermind the long-term effects of this policy on Iraqis, the Middle East, our economy, and our credibility.

This is Rove. Why is the press shocked as though he's actually admitting failure? He's not. He's playing with your expectations regarding the war and he's playing it beautifully.

NO PRESS, NO CONGRESS--THEN WHO?!?

Hayden's rant yesterday on the evil media imposing oversight was disturbing. Here he was talking to an impotent Congress--the body refusing to act as a check on an aggressive executive branch--while simultaneously attacking the press for revealing the existence of the NSA programs, secret CIA prisons--all illegal--trying to appeal to our fears about terrorism. Congress is Hayden's bitch, and the press is next on his bitch list.

Admittedly, I'm no intelligence expert. However, I strongly suspect that the details revealed by the press in all of these stories do not in any way compromise our security. If they do, then we're fighting the stupidest terrorist ever known to man. And even if these leaks do hurt us, I'm willing to take the risk for the sake of keeping watch on a government that has a tendency to break the law and our basic values of governance. If you don't want "leaks", then DON’T BREAK THE LAW. It's that simple! Do what's legal and whistleblowers don't have protections, so you'll eliminate leaks.

Look they're not really interested in stopping these leaks for the sake of security. They're merely interested in shifting focus away from their illegal actions, relying on our propensity for being overly fearful of the threat of terrorism.

Hayden says that without the leaking we will have accountability. Are we to believe that this administration is going to monitor itself? What if we disagree with the criteria the Bush administration has set as premises for action? If we don't have oversight from an independent body, then we are not only stuck with trusting an extraordinarily secret administration to hold itself accountable, but we have no say in how the criteria are set. Bush believes that a president at war can do what he wants. He's the Decider--nobody else. If that's the premise he uses for judging accountability, then his determination will always be different than mine. That Hayden's lawyers told him the programs were legal while he was at the NSA is missing the point. That doesn't preclude the need for oversight because oversight allows us to give our intelligence officials something extra to think about: their logic will be evaluated by an independent body, so it had better be legally sound, nothing less than necessary, and palatable. If there was oversight to begin with, these programs wouldn't have been started because oversight would have affected the logic of the NSA decision makers. Actually, considering we have a Republican Congress unwilling to assert its powers, maybe it wouldn’t have helped—but you get the idea.

I disagree with Hayden. We need the press now more than ever. We need oversight now more than ever. He's proposing we have neither when it comes to intelligence activities. I don't care what war we're fighting or even if sharing information between branches hurts us in that war (and I believe it doesn't…and please don’t give me an crap about having briefed a handful congress members. That’s just not good enough). Oversight is more important than a level secrecy that is unnecessary and harmful to our system of government. This is the lecture he should have had from every member of Congress yesterday--Democrat or Republican--after he vomited his bullshit on them.

Oversight, oversight, oversight!!!

Regarding my last topic:

The Washington Post put out a poll that asked Americans whether they found the NSA phone records program to be acceptable. 63% said it is an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, while 35% said it was unacceptable. This poll confirms the worry I talked about when the story originally broke. This approach by the news--in this case it's the Post, but they're all attacking it from this same angle (even more liberal shows like Keith Olbermann)--is only getting at one of the concerns about this program: how we are going to define privacy.

The more serious issue is being completely missed: how we are responding to an executive branch that is acting without adequate oversight and what this action says about our interpretation of executive wartime powers granted by the Constitution.

Why wasn't there a second poll that asked, "Do you think the program is legal?" or "Do you think the legality of the program is a significant concern?" In fact, this poll put out by the Post tells us nothing new. It fits with the response to the revelation about the NSA surveillance program last winter, which showed us that people are willing to give up some privacy for protection. Aside from the fact that nobody has yet to prove that either of these programs are actually effective in preventing terrorism (no, President Bush. Just saying it does is not the same thing as proving it), people seem ready to give the government the benefit of the doubt. That's fine. I disagree, but fine. This is debatable and will not be solved through public debate outside of Congress. Why? Because it has already been decided for you. And this is evident in the more important aspect of this issue, which I’ll cover here:

What does this program mean in terms of federal law and the constitution? What does this say about how the government is operating? The legality of the program is shaky at best. It violates the privacy sections of the Telecommunications Act and if they are eavesdropping then it violates FISA. Lost in the mess about what this means for our definition of privacy is the fact that the Dept. of Justice just canceled its investigation of the NSA surveillance program because the executive branch, in which the DOJ belongs, was not giving investigators the needed clearance to gather evidence. The executive branch will not be checking itself (no big surprise there), so we should be concerned with checks & balances kicking in here---we're not and neither is most of Congress, which should make us all very concerned.

To be fair, there has been some discussion about the legality concerns I'm talking about on TV and in the papers. However, the emphasis remains on the privacy discussion. The privacy discussion is important, but it should not be superseded by a concern that the executive branch is acting without oversight on almost all national security matters while treading on shaky legal grounds (and they're totally getting away with it without even a drop of legislative modification). Yes, the discussion about public administration is less juicy and it requires some knowledge about our system of government, the Constitution, and current federal law. This is where the news is failing us. This is their chance to show us that they can help inform the public what this means in all its breadth--not just in juicy "who is listening to you today" terms. They failed us before the Iraq invasion and after 9/11. Now they can make it up to us. Having said that, I'm not optimistic in most news sources to put the emphases in the right places.

So, like I said before, make sure you watch C-SPAN to listen to scholars, watch PBS to listen to mature and productive debates, and read your blogs to learn how this could easily escalate into much more than collecting the phone records of Americans: it may be a program where multiple federal agencies are actively eavesdropping on Americans who are not terrorist suspects but only know someone through many degrees of separation who may be. In Bush’s legal interpretation of executive wartime powers, such a program is perfectly acceptable.

Do you think I'm overreacting? Really? Did you know that the NSA has been given authority to share access to the database with agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency? I'm telling you, this is more than just tracking phone records for Al Qaeda while briefing certain members of Congress. We don't know for sure because nobody will investigate!!! Don't hold your breath for Arlen Spector to hold another hearing. Gonzalez attended one of his "hearings", avoided taking an oath of honesty, and then lied. We need substantial congressional oversight, which means real hearings (under oath) with real response—e.g., modifications of laws, new processes, punishment for criminality to ensure that we’re still a system of accountability.

I really think that one day we'll learn that this is a comprehensive effort to assert executive authority during what Bush believes to be World War III. How soon we learn it the accuracy of this will depend on how concerned we are about administrative procedure, not our own debatable opinions on how we're defining privacy.

It's hitting the fan

I have this routine every day online: check the WaPost, then the NY Times, then CNN.com. If there’s a headline that is on just one, it may turn into something down the road, but won’t be that explosive. If on two, it’s big. If it’s all three, it’s going to be very big.

Today is one of the rare instances when the same topic headlines all three websites:

The Post: Call Tracking by NSA Sparks Alarm on Hill

NY Times: Bush Says U.S. Spying Is Not Widespread

CNN: Bush: We're not trolling your personal life

The topic is nothing new, and those of us who have followed this from the beginning always assumed that the program was bigger than what was being disclosed (I mean, once it was justified legally in the mind of the White House staff, then why NOT make it a huge program?).

I've seen lots of reaction on talk shows. Bush supporters are pissed because they feel this is just to screw up the CIA director nomination (he was a key architect of the NSA program) and it reveals methods to terrorists (so!?!?). You can be certain that this is going to get bigger. Like I said in the past, we just scratched the surface. Bush is only acting in a manner that is consistent with his interpretation of executive powers in times of war. What did you expect?

There are two stories here worth following: the first is the discovery of the program's breadth, which I believe we're only beginning to explore, and second how the manner in which the program is being executed affects the governance process. The first is going to be important to the press and may even affect the upcoming elections. But, this first issue on the program’s breadth is largely a matter of preference: how much do you want your government to do in its efforts to protect you? The second issue about the effect on the legislative process, checks & balances, etc, is most troubling to me. This is where I think we'll see a long-lasting effect on our country. Bush's actions here, along with his unprecedented abuse of signing statements (750 of them), fundamentally alter the way government functions in this country—in a way that puts our constitutional protections in danger (e.g., separation of powers).

When Gonzalez last "testified" in front of the Judiciary Committee, he spoke without being under oath. He told our congress that the program was "narrowly tailored", which we now know not to be true (and always suspected). This is important, and Democrats are starting to call them on it. Today, Leahy rightly declared "shame" on congress for not doing its duty to oversee this program properly, shamed that this story had to be uncovered by the press rather than by Congress who has held FOUR HEARINGS ON THE TOPIC!!! Our congress is complicit in the quick breakdown of what we all want to be a stable system of checks and balance. (Having said that, I don’t think the Democrats will find a proper solution if given power in Congress.)

You'll hear a lot in the next day or two about how Americans don't mind being tracked as long as it saved lives but that this is going too far. In my view, that's debatable. Maybe it is too far, maybe not. I happen to think it is, but I admit not to have the strongest arguments against tracking phone numbers called (as opposed to eavesdropping), but the important issue is how we are going to respond to the manner in which the program is being performed, which is without proper oversight and firm legal standing. Will Congress continue to roll over? If lawsuits are brought to the Surpreme Court for those who feel they were wrongfully spied on, will they hear the cases? In the noise of this "in my back yard" controversy, the real effect on our system may be missed or limited to C-SPAN covered-only discussions. If these important discussions are missed because people only want to get their news from Fox, local stations, or neighbors, then they deserve to be spied on because they're as complicit in the destruction of our system of government as any anti-American terrorist.

Bad policy, not bad intel

I read two things this morning in an article in The Nation that shocked me: 1) CBS had a report that they chose not to air because they thought it would be too controversial, especially after the Right grilled Dan Rather for being a biased liberal, and 2) the US had recruited Hussein’s Foreign Minister as a spy, and he told the US that they had no WMD, which the US chose to ignore. The evidence that this was a policy failure, not intelligence failure, keeps piling up.

"They were enthusiastic" at first, said Drumheller, "that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." CIA Director George Tenet reported the news that Hussein's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri was working covertly for the United States to a White House meeting attended by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Their initial enthusiasm, Drumheller says, quickly turned to cold indifference when Sabri told them the opposite of what they wanted to hear.

King George quietly expands his rule

"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution," according to an article in the Boston Globe. I knew he had used his signing statements to establish his self-declared right to ignore sections of laws for legislation like the Patriot Act and recent torture guidelines, but I had no idea the use of this tool was so extensive.

I strongly urge you to read this article (you may have to register, which is quick, free, and painless).

Look, I'm not going to try to argue that Bush shouldn't be using this tool. Every President has the right to alter his practice as long as it's within the powers granted by the Constitution. His right to use the signing statement to interpret the law is his right. However, it is the obligation of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and it is the obligation of Congress to execute its legislative powers. Neither branch has challenged Bush's statements, which in effect provides legislative and interpreting powers to the executive branch. But, again, who am I to question the legal foundations of Bush's actions? All I can say is this: expanding executive power without a single question raised by the other two question is entirely against the spirit of our constitution. I'm not an expert and cannot say that Bush's interpretations are wrong (though based on this article, I'm extremely suspicious that they are very, very wrong), but I can say that I strongly suspect that this is a collaboration between the three republican controlled branches to reduce checks and balances, at least temporarily, so that a republican agenda can be executed before they lose power. What's worse is that it is done quietly--not with actual legislation or with court cases, but with quiet signing statements. Is this a deal among the current holders of these three branches? Congress can pass whatever they want (Bush is the only president in history who hasn't used his veto power this late into his presidency) and claim credit for getting things done, and Bush will sign it while quietly issuing exceptions (which is, in effect, legislating, which the executive branch cannot do). And what about the courts? Have they forgotten their duty to interpret the Constitution?

Phone Jamming in NH

Okay, I hadn't even realized that republicans have been accused of jamming phone lines on election day 2002 democtratic get out the vote phone drives. The Post apparently did a story on this on April 11th. Worse, new court documents show that the ring leader of that operation in New Hampshire made several calls to the White House. So far, the White House will not disclose who was on the receiving end of that line. They claim it was normal election day correspondence. I guess we're supposed to take their word for it (innocent until proven guilty, right?).

Here's a letter from Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, to the RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlmer (I hate this guy) on this subject:

April 11, 2006

Ken Mehlman Chairman

Republican National Committee

310 First Street, SE

Washington DC, 20003

Dear Ken,

Yesterday, the AP ran a story entitled "Phone Jamming Records Point to White House." This story provides new details about the role of the New Hampshire Republican Party in the phone-jamming scandal and raises serious questions as to whether the RNC and the White House were actively involved.

As you know, on Election Day, a telemarketer hired by the New Hampshire GOP jammed telephone lines at five state Democratic and one firefighters union get-out-the-vote phone banks. The AP noted yesterday that the "records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 -- as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down."

The AP story also stated that virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number (202-456-6173) which currently rings inside the political affairs office. Although the White House declined today to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002, you may be able to shed some light on the subject, as you were the White House Political Director during that time.

You have often spoken of the importance of making sure that every vote counts. In that spirit, we hope that you will take the necessary steps to clear up the lingering confusion surrounding the RNC and the White House's role in this scandal by answering these questions:

-- James Tobin called the White House two dozen times in three days. Whom was he calling? With whom did he speak? Whom did he work with in the office of political affairs?

-- Tobin worked directly with Terry Nelson, who was then political director at the RNC. When will Mr. Nelson answer questions about his role in the scandal? Whom else at the RNC did Tobin work with?

-- Did the White House authorize this phone jamming scheme and, if so, who specifically did so? Or was the phone jamming authorized by the RNC?

-- Was anyone on the White House staff or at the RNC involved in concocting, authorizing, implementing or concealing this scheme?

The overt effort by the New Hampshire Republican Party to suppress the vote on Election Day in 2002 is unconscionable. The people of New Hampshire deserve an apology. And America deserves to know exactly how deeply the White House and the RNC were involved in the planning and execution of this scheme. We hope you will provide the answers we need so we can move forward together.

Sincerely,

Governor Howard Dean, MD Chairman

New evidence

An article in the Washington Post this morning reports on a secret investigation of Iraq’s mobile weapons labs cited in Powell’s presentation to the UN and in multiple statements made by the administration after the invasion. The unequivocal conclusion of the investigation was that those labs could not have been intended for producing WMD. The revelation is the timing of a report previously unknown to the public—not the knowledge that these trailers were not used for weapon manufacturing.

The secret investigation’s conclusions discredited Bush’s major evidence for going to war prior to CIA reports to Congress and prior to President Bush’s claim on May 24^th, 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories" and that “we have found the weapons of mass destruction." I said prior. Worse, it appears that members of the secret investigation team were asked if they could soften their conclusions to leave open the possibility that the trailers could be used for weapon manufacturing, even though one member of the Iraqi Survey Group is on record for saying that “it would be easier to start all over with just a bucket.”

In a previous topic on this blog, I said I would wait until Congress finished investigating before emphasizing that Bush intentionally misled Americans about the case for war. I couldn’t have been more naïve. It appears no thorough investigation by Congress on this matter will happen anytime soon. But what I didn’t count on was the freedom of speech exercised by the secret investigating team. Clearly someone on the team was upset that the report was ignored by the administration and couldn’t live with the fact that it was setting on a shelf marked classified. Kudos to our brave investigators for using the press as an alternative for truth telling.

The article ran this morning and has yet to be picked up by the major news bodies. I saw a quick clip on CNN summarizing the article, but it was buried. I’ll give it a day before I complain too much about news coverage. I’m not optimistic though. There’s too much going on (the Moussaoui Trial, immigration, and Iran to name a few). If it gets enough coverage, I believe this may be the last straw for many.

Let’s be clear: Bush’s people knew experts opposed using these trailers as evidence prior to making multiple statements to the public that these labs supported invading Iraq. Prior.

Scary News

On Iran: I’m watching Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter from the New Yorker, telling Wolf Blitzer that his sources in the Pentagon are working with Bush to develop a plan to take military action against Iran. Hersh says that Bush believes that he’s the only one who will do anything against Iran. Plans are focused and operational. They’re beyond contingency planning. Hersh has gone as far as to suggest that the White House has given the option of using a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran to the Joint Chiefs. Some senior Pentagon officials want to take it out as an option, but the White House has refused and insists on keeping it on the table. The option is so controversial that some senior Pentagon officials are apparently considering resigning if the option remains on the table. Hersh emphasizes that this doesn’t suggest the nuclear option is inevitable, but it that the White House insists on keeping it as an option. He also says that regular military forces are already in Iran and that the Iranian government already knows this.

On naming sources, Hersh says that many in the military are really getting “edgy” about Bush and Cheney, and for that reason he will not reveal sources in fear of Bush’s “punitive government”. Here’s Hersh’s article. Bottom line is that Bush is not asking for bilateral talks with Iran and keeping nuclear weapons as an option only inflames the situation. Watch for the White House’s attacks on Hersh for revealing the information and blaming him for inflaming the situation.

On the NSA: On other scary news, I think we’ve only scratched the surface in terms of the reach of the NSA surveillance program. Check out this article about AT&T’s involvement:

"AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against the company."

On the CIA Leak: Finally, this morning I read what I think is the most accessible and well-written article on the CIA leak case and the revelation that Bush and Cheney were in fact actively involved in leaking. The problem here is clearly stated by the article: Bush and Cheney selectively authorized the release of information from the National Intelligence Estimate to credit evidence about Iraq that had been discredited by the intelligence community months before. If true, and to date no evidence has been presented to the contrary, this shows that Bush and Co. are in the business of grossly misleading Americans in order to get what they want, which is what many of us have been saying all along.

I’m disappointed that much of the TV news coverage has focused on Bush’s hypocrisy. That sounds way too benign. The focus should not be on his insistence that his government prevent leaks while he was clearly engaging in leaking. Like many have pointed out already (especially Bob Woodward), this administration has leaked like no other since coming into power. I wish instead they would focus on the deliberate use of bad intelligence. This aspect of the story is far more important. It isn’t a partisan issue; it’s an issue about the role of honest government in public debate.

In case you haven’t heard (and I’m pretty sure you haven’t)

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on Feingold’s censure resolution.

According to The Nation, Feingold’s witnesses will be John Dean, who served for Nixon and revealed the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Watergate scandal, and Bruce Fein, who served in Reagan's Dept. of Justice as Deputy Attorney General. Both have been loud critics of Bush’s surveillance activities and both have argued that Bush’s actions are worthy of impeachment. Interestingly, both are republican.

It’s scheduled for 9:30, Friday, March 30, 2006 and I think it’ll be on C-SPAN 2.

Will CNN, MSNBC, and the evening news programs pick this up? Will they give more than 2 minutes of airtime to this story or will they continue their obsessive rants on immigration? (By the way, is anyone else curious why Bush is embracing this immigration debate? What a nice diversion from Feingold and Iraq.)

Can these men testifying tomorrow spark a real debate in the Senate? I don’t think so. After the subsequent vote, it won’t be talked about again and Bush will have officially had his way with the law and the Constitution. And I will be vowing to abstain from voting for any democratic presidential candidate who voted ‘no’ for censure.

Nevertheless, I’ll be reporting on the hearings here.

- Nan

P.s. Carl found this great cartoon

Shunning separation of powers…again

The mainstream press missed a major story on the PATRIOT Act. How did I just hear about this yesterday? And why only in the Boston Globe? It appears that the President included a statement after signing the PATRIOT Act that reflects his interpretation of the law in a manner that is consistent with his justification for the NSA warrantless wiretapping program: based on the President’s constitutional authority, he doesn’t have to inform Congress of the FBI’s activities, despite the law’s requirements to do so. An excerpt of the article:

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

I continue to be frustrated by the President’s audacious rejection of legislative power based on his interpretation of the Constitution. Given republican control of Congress that is mostly happy to watch him do what he likes and my doubts that democrats will win back the House this fall, I’ve realized that my frustration stems from a threat that goes beyond partisan politics. According to Bush, Congress can make laws, but as long as we’re at “war”, he doesn’t have to follow him. It follows then that as long as there are terrorists in the world, he can do what he wants without oversight. This interpretation is generally regarded as bad legal advice. I think its worse: I think it’s a deliberately bad legal advice—so bad it should be regarded as criminal. My evidence that it’s deliberately bad? Don’t have any. Call it a hunch (and I’m entitled to my hunches).

Generally, arguing executive powers is the job of constitutional scholars and historians. It’s a realm that most of us have little business exploring. But at the root of the argument against the President’s interpretation of executive power during wartime is common sense: even if one defines the War on Terror as justification for special wartime executive powers and even if he should be spying on Americans (assumptions that are highly questionable), the result is simply the creation of bad policy. Constitutional law can be debated, but the result is the deconstruction of a fragile system of checks and balances. Americans benefit immensely from checks and balances. Therefore, this is bad policy because it doesn’t serve Americans.

When we have a president that is only elected every four years, it’s important that we have representatives to speak and act for our interests during that time. That president can make a single decision that does not reflect our best interests. When he does so, the other branches serve as our means to not only resist bad policy but to guide the President in a direction that best steers him to our sense of right and wrong. Without oversight, the President cannot steer with all the tools he has available. While he sees oversight as an obstacle, it can serve in reality as the people’s helm.

And shunning separation of powers is the slipperiest of the slippery slopes. According to his interpretation, he can do anything he deems necessary without telling anyone about it. He can break any law Congress passes or has passed if he can justify that it is necessary to protect Americans (not hard to do when you can’t release the evidence because it is Top Secret). Example: the PATRIOT Act. Having made his justification of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program about wartime powers, he was able to extend his interpretation to the PATRIOT Act. Before he could direct the NSA without oversight; now the Justice Department and FBI can also act without oversight. What’s next? And how will we know what’s next if they don’t have to tell anyone?