The great betrayal

I read the following commentary in Raw Story and frankly, I'm speechless. I will go as far as to say I feel utterly betrayed... and have removed my trust from the Obama basket.

No wonder Obama won't investigate the Bush Administration.

I'm remembering, quite rapidly, why I became an Independent in the first place. Both of these parties are simply two sides of the same corrupted coin. Obama is a Democrat. He's part of the great, rotten machine.

Trust is a dangerous thing. But once given, it can be taken back. As Lincoln said: If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. Lincoln also said "Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT, stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."

As I read this Raw Story below, I heard my confidence in Obama shatter; it sounded like a glass window exploding.

Obama was a Constitutional lawyer; this we have been told. A law professor. I wonder how he makes that work... with this?

Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program
John Byrne
Published: Tuesday April 7, 2009

In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.

In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.

Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF).

For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that the government had "sovereign immunity" against civil action under the FISA statute. But he says that this is the first time that they've invoked changes to the Patriot Act in claiming the US government is immune from claims of illegal spying under any other federal surveillance statute.

"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes."

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.

Here comes the new boss... same as the old boss.

Astonishing breach of law

I was almost speechless when I read this post from Think Progress, concerning Washington Post coverage of "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency."

Did you know that after top Justice Department lawyers refused to re-certify the legality of President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2004 - the Bush administration re-authorized the program anyway, and without the Justice Department’s approval?

Great catch from Matt @ Think Progress:

Addington wrote in Gonzales’ signature line while re-authorizing Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program

In 2004, after top Justice Department lawyers refused to re-certify the legality of President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, the Bush administration re-authorized the program anyway without the Justice Department’s approval. Previous accounts of the program’s re-authorization reported that the “line for the attorney general’s signature remained blank.”

But in the Washington Post today, Barton Gellman reports that Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, actually signed then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s name to the document’s signature line:

Addington opened the code-word-classified file on his computer. He had a presidential directive to rewrite.

It has been widely reported that Bush executed the March 11 order with a blank space over the attorney general’s signature line. That is not correct [15]. For reasons both symbolic and practical, the vice president’s lawyer could not tolerate an empty spot where a mutinous subordinate should have signed. Addington typed a substitute signature line: “Alberto R. Gonzales.”

Gellman writes that “Only Richard M. Nixon, in an interview after leaving the White House in disgrace, claimed authority so nearly unlimited” as the authority Addington claimed for the president in the document he signed with Gonzales’ name.

Astonishing.

Russ Feingold: Statement on Constitution Day 2008

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Constitution Day 2008

September 17, 2008

On this day in 1787, our founding fathers signed the Constitution, making us a nation of laws, not of men. The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights outlined in that founding document, are at the very foundation of our strength as a nation.

But 221 years later, the United States is facing one of the darkest chapters in its Constitutional history. The Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and rule of law with disrespect unparalleled in our nation’s history. The list of this administration’s assaults on the Constitution is breathtaking: it includes the warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. This is a shameful legacy that must be undone in the years to come.

On Constitution Day, we should also recognize that supporting the rule of law here at home can help to strengthen democratic institutions around the world that are critical to peace and stability – and, in turn, to our own national security. Right now, countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe are grappling with their own constitutional crises. But we cannot be a credible example for nations like these if we allow our own Constitution to erode. The disparity between our words and our actions undermines our ability to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples around the world.

Our next president will face a difficult challenge. He must repair the wreckage the current administration has left, which means renouncing some of the powers the current President tried to amass as he turned a blind eye to the rule of law and separation of powers. No president will want to limit his own power. But if we are to be the nation our founders envisioned when they gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, we must work together – across party lines and at all levels of government – to protect and defend our Constitution and restore the rule of law.

Neener neener neener

Well Senator Leahy? What now, pray tell?

Vice President Cheney's office acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has dozens of documents related to the administration's warrantless surveillance program, but it signaled that it will resist efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain them.

The disclosure by Cheney's counsel, Shannen W. Coffin, came on the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee had set as a deadline for the Bush administration to turn over documents related to the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor communications between the United States and overseas without warrants.

Sounds like Cheney is once again telling you to go f... yourself.

Tough talk (yawn)

Well, it appears that -- to no one's great surprise -- the White House 'missed' its 2:30 PM deadline to turn over documents providing legal justifications for the NSA's eavesdropping program to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course I can't imagine why they would have bothered. There are apparently no consequences for failing to do anything Congress demands. I'd be yawning too if I were the White House. This is all beginning to feel like a game: a game that has gone on so long that fans have either left the stadium or fallen asleep in their seats.

Senator Patrick Leahy has really had it this time. He's obviously hopping mad. He's going to start calling people names pretty soon if... oh wait; he's saying that the White House is in contempt of Congress?

No not exactly.

More talk. He's saying that their behavior; their stonewalling is in fact "contempt of the valid order of the Congress," and added that the subpoenas were passed by broad bipartisan votes.

And the consequences? Well... no word on that. Wake me up when we get to that part, will you?

Leahy pointed out that the Senate Judiciary Committee in the prior, conservative-led Congress, chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), also attempted to ask questions about the program's legal justifications, but Cheney personally barred him from issuing subpoenas:

In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas.

Not quite sure that’s my understanding of the separation of powers, but it seemed to work at that time.

The funny thing is, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here. Once again the White House is saying 'no,' and nothing is happening.

So golly gee -- lay it on me Senator. Tell me what you're going to do for us next. Then tell us why we should believe it.

ACLU on the job

Doing the work Congress is unwilling to do, the ACLU once again has our backs on domestic surveillance.

They asked the Foreign Surveillance Court to require that the White House release "orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans." The White House has until August 31st to comply.

Thank you to the ACLU and to the FISC for safeguarding our civil liberties! Congress... take notice. You don't have to be lapdogs. In fact, I can't imagine why any of us would vote for lapdogs.

In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."

FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

Spying on us

I just finished the most recent installment of "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front," and I have to tell you... watching this program after having recently viewed the Comey testimony... was quite harrowing.

Realize, Gonzales and his army of Bushie henchmen are the very guys spying on our lives. Oh... my... God. Just imagine what they're really doing with all of this information they are data-mining. You can bet your booties it has nothing at all to do with terrorism. These guys think of nothing but partisan power-grabs. And now they have the entire power of the phone companies, the internet and god knows what else at their disposal, Constitution be damned.

I think most of us would like to imagine that someone noble and honorable is 'up there' in Washington D.C., protecting our freedom and respecting our privacy. Someone like a Jimmy Carter, or perhaps Dwight D. Eisenhower. An honorable leader who actually might have had our safety and best interests in mind.

No, the guys reading our emails, listening in on our phone calls and monitoring our Google searches are these corrupt and entirely partisan foot soldiers of the Bushie army - the very guys who planned to stuff GOP partisans into prosecutor positions all across the nation, ostensibly so they could control 'voter fraud' fallout. Men who have perfected the art of undermining the Constitution... like Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo. Partisan hacks like Gonzales' sidekick and Ashcroft 'hospital hitman' Andy Card - and heaven forbid, Karl Rove himself. You better believe Karl is in on this. Else how on earth could his own emails have so conveniently escaped the net?

Think these guys aren't interested in listening in on private conversations between liberals? Democrats? Democratic candidates? Think they aren't reading opposition party emails?

Of COURSE they are spying on the Democrats, the Greens, the Independents, the peace activists, lawyers, clergy... they're spying on US. All of us.

And the plan is plain as day, to anyone who has been watching every other scandal they have involved themselves in (and that we have dug out) over the past 5 years. Everything, from the prosecutor scandals, the outing of Valery Plame, Rove's missing emails and his political hit list, not to mention the Bushies' unabashed use of RNC email accounts for conducting White House business.

Everything is about promoting the GOP partisan agenda.

This isn't about protecting the United States. They aren't spying to find terrorists. They are spying to build the power of the GOP. They have proven, time and again, that this is - literally - all they care about. The unabashed and unrelenting pursuit of political power.

That secret, AT&T room is siphoning off ALL domestic traffic.

Sure, maybe if this was all being done by someone with any credibility, honor or ethics, we could trust them. Or not. Our forefathers warned against trusting ANYONE with our freedom and democracy. Forefather and former president John Adams admonished us that "there is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Me thinks it would be in the Democrats' best interest to get to the bottom of this domestic spying program, if they expect to have any chance - ever again - in the political arena. Think Diebold was bad? The Bushies have made of themselves... electronic omnipotent gods.

Alberto is watching you. Yuck - quick - pull down the blinds!

Ashcroft refused to authorize warrantless wiretapping

I've never been a big fan of John Ashcroft.

However in light of recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey... I'm seeing John Ashcroft in a whole new light.

According the testimony by Comey, Ashcroft was so offended when he discovered that the Bush Administration had initiated a program of warrentless wiretapping on American citizens in 2004, that he was actually prepared to resign in protest. Other members of the Defense Department also threatened to resign, along with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Ashcroft apparently believes in the sanctity of the Constitution.

This would not have come as a shock to us in 2004. We were still innocent then. Long ago - in 2004 - most of us still believed that all of our legislators adhered to the Constitution, on which they had taken their oath of office.

Compared with Bush, Cheney and gang, Ashcroft seems almost heroic in the stand he took against warrantless wiretapping during his watch. And he did manage to squelch it, at least for awhile. Or at least the most blatantly illegal portions of it, the portions that were completely indefensible. Exactly what any of this entailed is, of course, secret. Everything that involves our Constitutional rights - completely secret. And whatever Ashcroft managed to avoid for us only lasted until Alberto Gonzales took over.

The story that came out in Comey's testimony, of Ashcroft - lying sick in a hospital bed with pancreatitis in March of 2004 - is startling in its coldly calculated attempt at manipulation.

Apparently, the GOP does eat its own.

Comey told Congress that Ashcroft refused to sign off on the spying campaign because he believed it was unconstitutional (proving once and for all that the Justice Department, at least initially, believed the surveillance program to be illegal.)

Comey then told the Justice Committee a little story.

It seems that then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew Card actually tried to coerce Ashcroft into re-authorizing the program as he lay seriously ill in a hospital bed with pancreatitis, after then acting-Attorney General Comey (who was covering for him in his absence,) refused to sign off on the program.

Apparently hoping to catch Ashcroft at an unguarded moment while he was sick and perhaps incognizant, Gonzales and Card raced to the hospital in an attempt to get Ashcroft to sign from his hospital bed. When Comey discovered their plan, he too raced to the hospital, arriving ahead of them to support Ashcroft.

From McClatchy:

The Bush administration ran its warrantless eavesdropping program without the Justice Department's approval for up to three weeks in 2004, nearly triggering a mass resignation of the nation's top law enforcement officials, the former No. 2 official disclosed Tuesday.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that those he believed were prepared to quit included then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Comey said then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited Ashcroft as he lay gravely ill in a hospital bed on March 10, 2004, and pressed him to re-certify the program's legality. Ashcroft refused.

"I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very seriously sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me," Comey recalled. "I thought it was improper."

Comey, who'd assumed Ashcroft's powers on an acting basis, had raced ahead of Gonzales and Card to the George Washington University Hospital, his car's emergency lights flashing, and dashed up the stairs to Ashcroft's room, trailed by his security detail.

"That night was probably the most difficult time of my professional life," Comey recalled.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) called Comey's words "some of the most powerful testimony I've heard in 25 years as a legislator." Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), a long time critic of the eavesdropping program, praised Comey for standing up to the White House.