Wednesday, December 21, 2005

YES!!!!   Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EST (17:49 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support. Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 1:04:30 PM     comment []

"Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled" In an impassioned speech, Sen. Byrd voices his shock and dismay over the Bush administration's practice of spying on U.S. citizens. Dec. 21, 2005 | Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous president. It has become apparent that this administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution. We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is to choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this administration as "domestic terrorists." We now know that the FBI's use of national security letters on American citizens has increased 100-fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order. Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition, and the so-called black sites, secret locations in foreign countries where abuse and interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses. We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Thank God Dick Cheney's pleas have been rejected by this Congress. Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive order that President Bush has circumvented both Congress and the courts. He has usurped the third branch of government -- the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people -- by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the people's branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the president, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What is the president thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the president is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for. This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA court is to balance the government's role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American. The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the president that amount to little more than "trust me." But we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy. When asked yesterday [Dec. 18] what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities for cooperative action." The president claims that these powers are within his role as commander in chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the commander in chief are specifically those as head of the armed forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the commander-in-chief clause that grants the president the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand. The president claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks. But that resolution does not give the president unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the president the powers reserved only for kings and potentates. I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the legislative and judicial branches. The president has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the president speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election "a landmark day in the history of liberty." I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled. These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government. I am reminded of Thomas Paine's famous words, "These are the times that try men's souls." These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible administration under the banner of "national security" are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the attorney general, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and the director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of "executive privilege" in order to avoid further embarrassment.   Copyright ©2005 Salon Media Group, Inc. 12:44:07 PM     comment []

Shock of the day   Warrantless spying reached domestic calls, too Can you say "slippery slope"? In its initial attempts to limit the political damage from news that the president has authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, the Bush administration insisted that all of the monitoring involved calls and e-mails in which one of the parties was outside the United States. "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications [is] always outside the United States," said Gen. Michael Hayden, George W. Bush's second-ranking intelligence official. Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, chimed in: "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States." You'll be shocked to know that it isn't true. The New York Times reports today that the warrantless spying program Bush approved -- and repeatedly reapproved -- sometimes captured communications that were entirely domestic. Officials familiar with the program tell the Times that the warrantless domestic spying occurred because the National Security Agency sometimes had a hard time determining whether a communication began or ended in the United States or somewhere else. But never fear. In every instance, the spying you thought -- the spying Bush insisted -- was being conducted pursuant to a warrant obtained from a court was in each and every case approved by a "shift supervisor" at the NSA. A shift supervisor? We suppose that's more or less the same as having warrants approved by a federal judge nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and granted a lifetime appointment in order to ensure freedom from political pressures. In other news today, the White House announced that it has increased the "agility" of the federal regulatory system by transferring the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to a radio talk show host in Sacramento, Calif., and that it has authorized individual FBI agents to decide the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants when jury trials would "take too long." -- Tim Grieve, Salon.com 11:12:54 AM     comment []

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A01 A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work. Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday. Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed. Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year. Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program. The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races. Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda. "I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview. At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act. Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents. Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring. "They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court." Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees. Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and want to hear more about the president's program. "I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out." Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public. The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public. In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' " But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns." Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. © 2005 The Washington Post Company 10:55:12 AM     comment []

King Rat Squeals!   Abramoff Reportedly Negotiating a Deal in Which He Would Plead Guilty, Testify By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A05 Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, facing trial on fraud charges Jan. 9 in Florida, is negotiating a possible deal with the Justice Department, in which he would agree to plead guilty and cooperate in the wide-ranging political corruption investigation focused on his dealings with members of Congress and executive branch officials, people familiar with the talks said last night. Abramoff would provide testimony about numerous members of Congress and their staffs if he and the Justice Department reach an agreement, the sources said. Negotiations have been ongoing for several months, people knowledgeable about the discussions said, but pressure is mounting because of the pending trial. Abramoff's co-defendant in that case, Adam Kidan, agreed last week to plead guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud, and to testify against his former business partner. Abramoff would face significant jail time in any plea deal, the sources said. The former lobbyist is under financial pressure as he faces trial and a multifaceted investigation in Washington. Despite his multimillion-dollar earnings, Abramoff's lawyers maintain that their client has few resources left. Abbe Lowell, Abramoff's lead attorney in Washington, refused to comment on any plea negotiations. The pressure on Abramoff to reach a deal increased with Kidan's plea and the November guilty plea by another Abramoff business partner -- public relations executive Michael Scanlon. Abramoff and Kidan were charged with fraud and conspiracy in connection with their purchase of SunCruz Casinos, a fleet of Florida gambling boats, in the fall of 2000. Scanlon, a onetime congressional staffer who became a top partner to Abramoff, pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials. Scanlon agreed to pay back more than $19 million of the more than $80 million he and Abramoff charged Indian tribal clients. In their wide-ranging inquiry, Justice Department investigators are looking at a half-dozen lawmakers, as well as Capitol Hill aides, former Abramoff associates and executive branch officials. Abramoff's discussions with prosecutors were first reported by the Miami Herald last week. The discussions were also reported by the New York Times on its Web site last night. Prosecutors have told one lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), that they are preparing a possible bribery indictment against him over official acts that benefited clients of Abramoff. Ney inserted comments in the Congressional Record at Scanlon's request praising Kidan and castigating the reputation of SunCruz's then-owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, during contentious purchase negotiations. In October, prosecutors got agreements from Abramoff, Kidan, Ney and former Ney aide Neil Volz to suspend the five-year statute of limitations while the investigation continues. Ney has said he was misled by Abramoff and Scanlon. In Scanlon's plea agreement, he agreed to testify against Ney. Kidan's attorney has said he is prepared to testify against Ney as well. © 2005 The Washington Post Company 10:46:35 AM     comment []

George Bush's Year in Review.   The latest Jib Jab video can be viewed here. "Turkey in the Straw" indeed. . . 10:38:38 AM     comment []

© Copyright 2006 Michael D. Zungolo. Last update: 1/3/2006; 10:00:53 AM.