An editorial Section
Dedicated to Tracy Chapman
The Nation -- Senator Russ Feingold is not one to say:
"I told you so."
But Feingold did tell us so.
In 2005, when the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee of the Constitution, learned of the Bush-Cheney administration's warrantless wiretapping program, he said it was illegal.
As more details about the undermining of privacy rights that are clearly protected by the Fourth Amendment became clear, Feingold proposed that the Senate censure President Bush for his assaults on the Constitution. Censure, Bush (and Obama) It was a lonely struggle to challenge lawlessness on the part of the executive branch.
But Feingold is no longer so lonely.
He has the federal courts on his side.
A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that it was illegal for government investigators to wiretap the phone conversations of an Islamic charity group and two American lawyers without a search warrant.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling confirmed the basic principle that Americans cannot be spied upon without proper legal authorization.
As a lawyer for the charity, Jon Eisenberg, explained: "By virtue of finding what the Bush administration did to our clients was illegal, he found that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unlawful."
Put another way: Feingold was right.
The senator was graceful in acknowledging the fact.
"From the day that I learned about the warrantless wiretapping program in 2005,
I have been convinced that it was illegal,"
said the senator.
"Now, despite the government trying to throw up every procedural roadblock imaginable in this case, the judge has ruled that the Bush Administration broke the law. This decision is a positive step toward finally achieving some accountability for the illegal program that President Bush authorized for more than five years. We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without breaking the law."
That last line is Feingold's fundamental focus. As a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, he knows that it is possible to strike a proper balance between the need to keep Americans safe and the need to respect the Constitution. That's a point he has made for years: with the Clinton administration, with the Bush administration and, now, with the Obama administration.
It was not easy in the Bush years, especially when those who did not respect the right to privacy attacked Feingold.
It is not easy now, when Democrats who claim to respect that right backslide, as President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have. Obama and Holder have earned the wrath of Feingold for talking big about the rule of law but continuing to "delay in withdrawing the Bush Administration's legal justifications for the program."
Republican administration or Democratic administration, Feingold has stuck with the Constitution.
Now that the federal courts say he is right, it is time for the naysayers
-- on the right and, frankly, within an Obama administration that should long ago have scrapped Bush's lawless endeavor -- to wake up and smell the Bill of Rights.
The Spying Started Before September 11 -- That's The Whole Point
Dave Johnson Sun Jul 6, 2008 7:30 PM ET
In the LA Times today, A Good-Enough Spy Law says,
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance --
the administration's effort to do a better job of
"connecting the dots"
to prevent terrorist attacks.
No,
it started a few weeks after Bush took office --
a time when the Bush administration
was ignoring
the terrorist threat.
So it was about something else,
and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition.
(Can you say "political spying?")
One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges.
The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused -- refused because it was illegal -- is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity.
The president can't spy on people without warrants,
and the telecoms knew that.
They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it.
Why?
Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?
Don't forget that Watergate
was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats.
Don 't think they don't do it.
Report: NSA listened in on personal military calls
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 9, 7:40 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Senate Select Intelligence Committee is looking into allegations from two U.S. military linguists that the government routinely listened in on phone calls of American military and humanitarian aid workers serving overseas.
"These are extremely disturbing allegations," said Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., in a statement issued Thursday. "We have requested all relevant information from the Bush administration.
Any time there is an allegation
regarding abuse of the privacy and civil liberties of Americans
it is a very serious matter."
ABC News first reported the charges Thursday, citing one current and one former military linguist by name. They are contained in the book "The Shadow Factory," to be published next week.
The linguists said National Security Agency interceptors routinely monitored and recorded the private calls of U.S. military personnel, Red Cross and other humanitarian workers; personal discussions that had entertainment value_ pillow talk or phone sex_ were shared among intercept operators, they said.
The recently adopted eavesdropping law requires the government to get court permission to listen in on American phone and computer communications anywhere in the world. However, the previous version of the law only required attorney general approval. If an American's communications are incidentally listened to in the course of eavesdropping on another target, the contents of the American's comments call and the identity of the person are supposed to be protected, a process known as
"minimization."
Judge orders White House to produce wiretap memos:)
Associated Press Reporter Joan Lowy,
Associated Press Reporter – 1 hr 5 mins ago(Nov.1, 2008)
Orlando
Sentinel EDITORIAL Let's see the real Congress
Our position: Pelosi should give C-Span's cameras the run of the House.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed29206dec29,0,6371813.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
Americans deserve the most realistic picture
possible of their government in action, warts and all. Incoming House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi would rather have them settle for a glamour shot.
Ms. Pelosi turned down a request last week from C-Span to let the network
control its coverage of proceedings on the House floor. The California Democrat
said "dignity and decorum" would be "best preserved" by
maintaining House control of the cameras.
Please.
That control gives the millions of Americans who watch C-Span a limited and
often distorted view of action on the House floor. The cameras typically show
only the member speaking or the chamber's podium.
The House-controlled cameras don't pan the chamber, which would show how many
members actually are paying attention, or are even present. During floor votes,
true coverage might reveal when House leaders are confronting members on the
floor to beg or bully them for support.
Spectators who have the time and the means to watch floor sessions from seats
in the House gallery can see what really goes on. But the millions of Americans
who watch C-Span can't.
C-Span controls its coverage of other events on Capitol Hill, including
congressional hearings. The network is scrupulously fair and nonpartisan.
Ms. Pelosi has promised to lead the "most open" Congress in history.
That pledge obliges her to reverse her refusal of C-Span's request. There's
nothing open about denying Americans a realistic view of how their government
operates.
End Sentinel
Opinion
From: DeltonaVotes
To: insight@orlandosentinel.com
Sent: Friday, December 29,
2006
Subject: It is our House and
Senate, I like to watch ;)
Nancy and Conrad, cut from the same cloth. House or Senate they
just can't handle the truth, or being watched by their employers while
they mangle it.
Just when you think
the talking heads can't say or do anything that would surprise us,
Senator Conrad Burns(R) stepped up to the podium in OUR
Senate recently and said, "I
would suggest that we turn off that 'eye' that surrounds this body ... and turn
the Senate back into a debate body that it was once known for, the
collegiality, because the best I have ever seen the Senate operate is in
executive session when you turn off the television and get to the issue".
C-SPAN launched in
1979 and has been a staple in my household ever since my dad,
God rest his soul, first turned to it in the 80's. I
could not imagine not having it available. Most Americans will never have
the opportunity to travel to Washington D.C. to sit in the Senate/House
gallery to observe our elected government at work. Thankfully
because of C-SPAN we can watch them in the comfort of
our homes everyday when and if they bother show up to work for us.
Senator
Burns doesn't advocate closing the gallery to us, just shutting off the
only means some of us will ever have to learn about the people who represent
us. In other words he prefers the press to "distill" the
information to us from their gallery seats to us.
How
many votes on healthcare did Central Florida bother to show up to
vote on in the last six years?
How
many of our Central Florida elected officials voted against funding PBS
but voted for the Alaskan Bridge to nowhere?
Who
in Florida voted to reduce funding to Americorps? Americorps volunteers deserve better then this, they were
invaluable during our season of storms and of course Katrina. Why would Florida vote against it?
Probably because our elected officials don't read the bills they vote on like I
do.
Why
don't we have an attendance policy for our Congress that would make them post a
doctor’s note online when they miss work? They work for us after all,
don't they?
The press only seems to cover what sells advertising.
It is up to us to watch our government and hold it accountable;
the cameras are our eyes and ears in the chambers of OUR Congress.
Mr. Burns and Ms. Pelosi should take note, they work for us.
Folks like Mr. Burns and Nancy Pelosi
-who as children grew up in an age without electronic calculators and computers-
might have a difficult time adjusting to new fangled information technology,
but remember
they are also the generation
who kept telling us our generation was "dumbing" down America
in the 80's.
How is that War on Drugs (not listed on the stock market) doing?
Our current leaders don't seem to care about the
which uses its drug profits to fight against us
and poison the world in the process.
Adjusting to changing times is
obviously difficult for folks like Mr. Burns; Montana did America a great
service by allowing him to enjoy his autumn years without the hassle of the
people's "eye" holding him accountable.
Now
we just need to keep our eyes on Ms. Pelosi and make sure she knows it, after
all she works for all of us and we'll be watching.
To: insight@orlandosentinel.com
Sent: Tuesday, November
14, 2006
Subject: A disabled duck can
still quack and swim:)
What
can a lame duck Congress accomplish? Well when our
representatives left Washington last month to
campaign they left behind the funding for our children's
healthcare. So since they have returned they should begin by not
"leaving these children behind" and fully fund the Children's
Health Insurance Program.
Since
the so-called Transparency Earmark Reform Bill they passed
and hailed as a triumph will only apply until the end of
this year they should be able to have a nice clean
funding bill that includes our UN dues passed by then
Next our
leaders in the house should encourage President Bush to appoint Colin
Powell to the UN position allowing him to regain some of the respect that
he lost us in the world. Humility
to some is seen as a sign of strength, but if that "crazy idea" just
doesn't set right in this administration then we should support the nomination
of Jim Leach, another fine example of a truly qualified voice for us to
present to the world.
Weekly
updates on what we are voting for and against began yesterday as they have
returned to work for US and our children. Find out how much your vote really matters check back weekly then tell
three friends, DeltonaVotes. Pay it Forward……
Peace
Founder
DeltonaVotes
Obama: Powell could have a role in administration
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says that Colin Powell is welcome to campaign for him and might have a place in his administration.
Obama told NBC's "Today" show Monday that Powell "will have a role as one of my advisers." Whether Powell wants to take a formal role, Obama said, would be "something we'd have to discuss."
The Iraq war
Why they should stay
Sep 13th 2007
From The Economist print edition
If America could choose again,
it would not step into a civil war in Mesopotamia.
But there are worse reasons than preventing a bloodbath for a superpower to put its soldiers at risk.
Having invaded Iraq in its own interest
—to remove mass-killing weapons that turned out not to exist—
America owes something to Iraq's people, a slim majority of whom want it to stay.
It is hard to know how Iraq can be mended.
At some point it may become clear the country has sunk so low it is simply beyond saving.
-- but the central charges against the regime in Baghdad later proved false.
Let a woman learn in silence
with all submissiveness.
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men;
she is to keep silent.
I Timothy 2:11-12
"I didn't realize that was the anniversary today. I'm glad you keep tabs on it," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino
Tue Feb 5, 3:10 PM ET
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters when asked about the five-year mark since the remarks and the subsequent intelligence overhaul.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Exactly five years after Colin Powell wrongly told the United Nations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the White House on Tuesday said US intelligence reforms were "working very well."
Powell's speech to the security council was widely seen as a critical component of selling the US public and the world on the need for war with Iraq
How easy it is to put hatred on a map
He wondered:
Exactly what sorts of promises do these firms make to foreign governments?
What kind of scrutiny, if any, do they apply to potential clients?
How do they orchestrate support for their clients?
And how much of their
work is visible to Congress and the public, and hence subject to oversight?
Civil U.S. presidential race not so good for voters
By David Alexander Sun Sep 16, 9:28 AM ET
"Democracy itself requires negativity,"
said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University professor who studies negative political campaigning.
"We want the right to be critical of those in power."
With the country highly polarized over issues from the Iraq war to abortion, the campaign will inevitably turn negative as the November 2008 election approaches, analysts said.
"Negative information in almost every context that we know about it stays with people longer, it's more memorable," said Ruth Ann Weaver Lariscy, a professor who specializes in political communication at the University of Georgia.
Weeks months or even YEARS later, people may not remember the source or specifics of a negative message but they will remember there was something negative, she said.
Kathleen Parker
says the press is too easy
on Sarah Palin
because she's a babe.
I've had enough of the neocons and ideologues ruining this country
-LINDA DAVIS, New Smyrna Beach
Many Workers Say They Don't Report Common Violations
Wednesday, January 30, 2008; Page A13
The Enron scandal of 2001 set off a tidal wave of concern about corruption and unethical behavior across corporate America, but a new survey shows that government agencies are not free of such behavior.
The study, released yesterday by the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center, found that nearly 60 percent of government employees at all levels -- federal, state and local -- had witnessed violations of ethical standards, policy or laws in their workplaces within the last year.
Observed misconduct was lowest at the federal level, with 52 percent of federal workers surveyed saying they had witnessed problems such as conflicts of interest, abusive behavior, alterations of documents and financial records and lying to employees, vendors or the public within the last year.
"Since Enron, policymakers have given a great deal of attention and emphasis to the need for the business sector to address their ethics issues," said Patricia J. Harned, president of the group. "But in reality, government has their own issues to address, as well."
What is at stake is government's ability to keep the public trust, Harned said.
The group analyzed data taken from a telephone survey conducted last summer that included 3,452 employees in the business, government and nonprofit sectors. Analysts culled responses from 774 government employees but did not identify participants by agency. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percent.
Among the findings:
Thirty percent of federal workers and 14 percent of state and local government workers believe their organizations have well-implemented ethics and compliance programs;
The misconduct most frequently observed by federal employees was abusive behavior (witnessed by 23 percent), safety violations (21 percent), lying to employees (20 percent) and putting one's own interests ahead of the organization's ( 20 percent);
Fifty-eight percent of all government workers who saw misconduct did not report it because they did not believe managers would take action, and 30 percent of all workers feared they would face retaliation if they reported what they saw. One percent used anonymous hotlines.
Woman testifies she was raped by US contractors in Iraq
Wed Dec 19, 10:46 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US woman who said she was raped by US contractors in Iraq testified in Congress on Wednesday, telling legislators that she was kept under armed guard in her trailer after reporting the incident.
Jones told committee members that on her fourth day in Baghdad some co-workers, who she described as Halliburton-KBR firefighters, invited her for a drink. "I took two sips from the drink and don't remember anything after that," she said.
The next morning Jones woke up groggy and confused, and with a sore chest and blood between her legs. She reported the incident to KBR and was examined by an army doctor, who confirmed she had been repeatedly raped vaginally and anally.
The rape was so brutal she is still undergoing reconstructive surgery, Jones said.
Jones said that she knows of at least 11 other women who were raped by US contractors in Iraq.
More women report sex assaults in Iraq
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writers Wed Dec 19, 8:54 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A woman who claims she was raped by a fellow employee while working for a U.S. contractor in Iraq told House lawmakers Wednesday that her case is far from unique.
Poe said another, unidentified, woman was molested several times and raped by a KBR co-worker. After the rape, her attacker was allowed to work alongside her. Military officers escorted him off the base when she complained, and she was fired.
"Iraq is reminiscent of the Old Western days and no one seems to be in charge," Poe told the House panel. "The law must intervene, and these outlaws need to be rounded up and order restored."
"What is to stop these companies from victimizing women in the future?" Jones said. "The U.S. government has to provide people with their day in court when they have been raped and assaulted by other American citizens. Otherwise we are not only deprived of our justice in the criminal courts but in the civil courts as well. The laws have left us nowhere to turn."
Iraqi authorities
seek Blackwater ouster
By
STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Tue Oct 9,
2:04 AM ET
The Iraqi investigation —
first outlined Thursday by The Associated Press — charges the four Blackwater vehicles called to the square began shooting
without provocation. Blackwater contends its
employees came under fire first.
The government, at the
conclusion of its investigation, said 17 Iraqis died. Initial reports put the
toll at 11.
It said the compensation —
totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are
guests in this country."
The
The
The Iraqi government report said its courts were to proper venue in which to bring charges
Iraq rejects permanent U.S. bases
By Peter Graff Tue Dec 11, 3:49 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will never allow the United States to keep permanent military bases on its soil, the government's national security adviser has said.
"But I say one thing, permanent forces or bases in Iraq for any foreign forces is a red line that cannot be accepted by any nationalist Iraqi,"
Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said, speaking to Dubai-based al Arabiya television in an interview broadcast late on Monday.
Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link
By JoAnne Allen Mon Sep 17, 2:51 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was "essential" to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
In his new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan wrote: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Gates said, "I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan." But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.
"I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true," Gates said.
"I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said.
Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.
He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."
But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.
Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.
DISMAY WITH DEMOCRATS
Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.
Greenspan told the Journal he was "fairly close" to former President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, but added, "The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction." He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.
Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.
"I just may not vote," he was quoted as saying, adding, "I'm saddened by the whole political process."
'HUMBLE' FOREIGN POLICY LOST IN MIDST OF BLACKWATER
SWAGGER
Opinion Cynthia Tucker
Sat Oct 6,
Just
imagine that Vice President Dick Cheney went on a visit to a foreign country -- Great
Britain,
let's say -- and that one of his Secret Service agents was shot several times
and killed by a drunken bodyguard hired by the Brits. Let's say the British government quickly
hushed up the crime and spirited the bodyguard out of the country, leaving him
free to go about his life.
Americans
would, of course, be outraged -- and rightly so. They would demand justice for
the slain Secret Service agent. The ensuing controversy
would preoccupy the White House and damage relations between the two countries.
So what happened when a Blackwater security guard fatally shot a bodyguard of Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi? The Blackwater man, who had been drinking heavily, had left a
Christmas party in the Green Zone last year when he was confronted by the Iraqi
guards. According to reports, he opened fire, killing a 32-year-old Iraqi. The Blackwater employee was spirited out of the country, with
the help of the U.S. State Department. He has so far faced no criminal
proceedings. He was not subject to any Iraqi laws or to U.S. military
jurisdiction.
If Americans are still puzzled by the hostility with which so
many Iraqis -- indeed, so many Muslims -- view the U.S. occupation, this one
episode ought to go a long way toward explaining the resentment. While the Bush administration continues to justify its invasion by pretending a
deep concern for the Iraqi people, the lives of average Iraqis haven't counted
for much. Blackwater USA paid the family of the slain Iraqi bodyguard $20,000 in compensation.
Last
week, the House voted to hold private contractors accountable in U.S. courts
for any misdeeds abroad; the Senate is likely to follow suit. Even if the law
passes, the damage is already done. A heavy-handed occupation has
already alienated much of the Middle East, as our unilateralism has annoyed
much of the world.
In what seems another lifetime, President Bush promised a
"humble" foreign policy. But after the terrorist
attacks of 9/11, he followed a swaggering and belligerent course, fueled by
cowboy rhetoric and a stubborn, even messianic, insistence that he knew what
was right. His
policies were supported by a scared-silly American public desperate to believe that our military might still guarantee our continued dominance of the world.
Many of us, however, didn't want to send our own sons and
daughters to supplement that military power. So we relied
heavily on mercenaries from companies such as Blackwater and DynCorp and
Triple Canopy to do dirty jobs in dangerous places. Never mind if some of them are reckless and
trigger-happy.
In
testimony before Congress last week, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater USA, vigorously defended his company as
"Americans, working for Americans, protecting Americans." Of the
drunken bodyguard, he said, "We can't flog him. We can't incarcerate him.
That's up to the Justice Department." He also noted that the bodyguard was forced to forfeit
his Christmas bonus and pay his own way back to the United States. He might as
well have added, Isn't that punishment
enough?
For
all the credit the White House takes for establishing a democratically elected
government in Iraq, it is hardly a sovereign nation. If it were, it would be
able to prosecute Blackwater's bodyguards under its
own laws and eject them from the country. But because the U.S. State
Department depends so heavily on Blackwater and two
other private contractors, it's unlikely they'll be leaving even if the Iraqi
government wants them out. That makes our presence
a foreign occupation, not benign assistance.
Not so long ago, the United States was a master in the
use of soft power and the light touch: food for famine victims, medicine for
sick children, visas for foreign students, radio broadcasts about the wonders
of our country, diplomatic missions to beg, cajole and threaten wayward
countries back into line. As Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli has noted,
the U.S. Agency for International Development employed about 15,000 people
during the Vietnam era. Today, it has about 3,000. Now we use our billions,
instead, to hire mercenaries.
It's
no wonder the rest of the world doesn't hold us in such high regard anymore.