Since I seem to be contenting myself with rehashing old themes lately, let’s go with the only one that people consistently seem to enjoy, i.e., actual casual asides.
The Bush-NSA Spying Scandal
Let us consider, for a moment, the depths of what has been revealed here. To begin with, I entered the words “warrant courts wiretap” in to the search engine at whitehouse.org, and you’ll notice a certain tone to the stuff the Bush Administration had been putting out before December 2005.
The USA PATRIOT Act uses proven law enforcement methods in new ways to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up-to-date with the new technologies actually used by terrorists, so America no longer has to fight a digital-age battle with outdated legal authorities.
- Roving wiretaps – in which a wiretap authorization attaches to a particular suspect, rather than a particular communication device – have been used by law enforcement for years to investigate ordinary crimes including drug offenses and racketeering. The USA PATRIOT Act authorized the same techniques in national-security investigations. This provision has enhanced the government’s authority to monitor sophisticated international terrorists and intelligence officers, who are trained to thwart surveillance, such as by rapidly changing cell phones, just before important meetings or communications.
- Before September 11, law enforcement could more easily obtain the business and financial records of white-collar criminals than of suspected terrorists.
[ed. note—does anyone else here detect a certain shrill bitterness here on the part of the Administration? Oh, the injustice of making it easy to get the “business and financial records” of business and financial criminals. And really, it begs the question—should we be wiretapping Ken Lay’s cell phone in the name of national security?]
…
- The USA PATRIOT Act gives investigators the tools, such as roving wiretaps and delayed-notification search warrants, which are needed to stop terrorists before they strike, fulfilling America’s duty to win the War on Terror and never forget the lessons of September 11, 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act has not diminished our liberty – it has defended our liberty and made America more secure. Congress must renew the USA PATRIOT Act and take further steps to improve our ability to fight terror within the United States.
By the way, it has always bothered me that the guy who just got an failing report card from the actual government task force assigned to strategizing and reshaping our “War on Terror,” i.e., the 9/11 Commission, said, on Decmeber 19th,
And as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, to prevent this from happening again, we need to connect the dots before the enemy attacks, not after. And we need to recognize that dealing with al Qaeda is not simply a matter of law enforcement; it requires defending the country against an enemy that declared war against the United States of America. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.
and then turned around in the same speech and said,
My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy,
all within the context of asking Congress to renew a law he just admits he broke and doesn’t deem necessary or sufficient for national security. His own government has held his administration responsible (or irresponsible, as the case may be) for making the country less safe than before 9/11, but disclosing an illegal seizure of power by the President is the most destructive act. And by the way, nice tie in to the Commission, I’m sure they appreciate a patronizing aside much more than steps towards making the country ‘safer,’ legally.
By the way, the reason I’m hapring on the 9/11 Commission recomendations is that they institue systemic upgrades to security rather than target a particular religious group, which is the key to stopping terrorism, not just “Al Qaeda,” whatever that may be. The part that Bush would rather seize on, because it provides a venue for the expansion of executive power (Nixon-style) is the wiretap stuff:
Roving Wiretaps Are Essential In Investigating International Terrorists. The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. …
Many Safeguards Exist To Ensure The Patriot Act Is Applied Responsibly.
- Judicial Oversight Protects The Privacy Of Americans. Wiretaps and search warrants require a high level of proof and permission from a judge. The tools in the Patriot Act are fully consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As Senator Diane Feinstein said, “I have no reported abuses.”
- Congress Also Has Oversight Responsibilities. Congress created a Civil Liberties Board to ensure the Patriot Act and other laws uphold civil liberties. The Patriot Act protects America and defends American liberties.
And, of course, there’s still the July 14th, 2004 “Q and A” session, which include such gems as,
Let me answer some questions, and then we’re going to get back on the bus and take it up the highway. Who has got a question? Yes, sir. Yell it — oh, there’s a mike. Q The Patriot Act —
THE PRESIDENT: Patriot Act.
Q The Patriot Act is due to expire —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q — coming next year. And I find that an important tool for protecting America. And in Wisconsin here, we have Senator Russ Feingold, as you’re aware, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Wondering if you can tell us all here the importance of the Patriot Act and what we can do to help get that renewed.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me — that’s a great question. A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.
and again in the infamous speech on April 20th, 2004 in Buffalo:
Incredibly enough, because of — which Larry and others will discuss — see, I’m not a lawyer, so it’s kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law.
Don’t you mean bogged down with the law?
(Applause.) I’m not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.)
Oh, that’s real fuckin’ funny.
…So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It’s vital. And others will describe what that means. Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, 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.
When asked about this recently, Bush was a bit flummoxed, according to the New York Times:
As Mr. Bush continued to defend the program in San Antonio, he was asked about a remark he made in Buffalo in 2004 at an appearance in support of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, where he discussed government wiretaps. “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap,” Mr. Bush said in Buffalo, “a wiretap requires a court order.”
He added: “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.”
Democrats have seized on the remark, made more than two years after Mr. Bush authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps without warrants, in charging that the president had misled the public.
Asked about that charge on Sunday, Mr. Bush said: “I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program.
“The N.S.A. program is a necessary program. I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing and will continue to do.”
The guy doesn’t even run out of resources at his disposal within the law before the goes for a secret program, but don’t let that bother you. After being caught in a lie, he assures us that the program was “limited in scope.” I’m not usually one to say “falsus in unum, falsus in omnes,” but to hear him tell it, the disclosure of any facts about the program basically amounts to treason. So we’ll understand if he lies to us again.
Most people have figured out that there are several possibilities:
- The Bush adminstration believes that FISA has been compromised by bin Laden and is not secure for submitting requests for otherwise legal wiretaps of the utmost secrecy.
- The targets of this program met with the requirements of FISA, which the Administration does consult from time to time. Why, according to ever faithful Atty. General Gonzalez,
Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with — and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.
The Bush administration did not seek approval in violation of the law for absolutely no reason except they felt entitled by the authorization of force in 2001;
- The targets of this program did not meet the requirements of FISA because they were illegally identified through domestic spying such as Echelon or some other unauthorized search(es);
- The targets of this program were rejected by FISA for wiretaps and the executive decided to overrule them in clear violation of statute;
- The targets of this program did not meet FISA requirements because they are not connected with Al Qaeda. We know that Bush’s political enemies list has been shared with the FBI, how about with the NSA? What about all that Pentagon secrect spy group, CIFA, who target anti-war protestors? Is that what we’re talking about? Are our tax dollars going toward secretly wiretapping Kos or Michael Moore? By the way, I’m drafting a letter to be signed and passed around asking for the release of the enemies list via FOIA request.
At any rate, the real question is this: why would the Bush administration recklessly endanger the convictions of suspected terrorists by gathering evidence illegally?
More on this later. As well as a more in-depth analysis of Republican Fascism-liteTM.
The War on Christmas
Now that the War on Christmas is over (and Christmas won, of course), let’s take a minute to examine what was really being argued on the part of Christian soldiers such as Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson (lovefest excerpted verbatim)
O’REILLY: With us now, Fox News anchor John Gibson, the author of the book The War on Christmas: Why It’s Worse Than You Thought. This is so incredibly stupid I can’t believe it. All you need to do is use all the phrases: “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays,” “Happy Hanukah.” Plenty of advertising space, plenty of room for banners in your store. Why do you think they’re this dumb in excluding “Merry Christmas”? GIBSON: In the book, I talk about this going on in schools and libraries and public parks all over the country. And the only thing I can think about these retailers is they tend to worry about 100 percent of the customers. And if 85 percent of the country is Christian and 90 some percent celebrate Christmas, there’s that little extra percentage that may not.
O’REILLY: Yeah, but surely they understand, because they do understand. We called Toys “R” Us. They knew right away —
GIBSON: Right.
O’REILLY: — OK, that they’re in waters they don’t want to be in. So surely, they understand the anger that’s going to be engendered by millions of Americans who believe that their cherished holiday is being denigrated, disrespected.
GIBSON: Yes, it indicates hostility and —
O’REILLY: By not using the word.
GIBSON: — by refusing to say the word “Christmas.” And what I’ve noticed is the way this appears in schools, for instance, is we now don’t call it the Christmas break. It’s the winter break, as if people worship winter. And there wouldn’t be a winter break if there wasn’t Christmas at that time of year. So once you call it — change the name. You won’t use the word “Christmas,” then you go to “winter,” you can sort of push the Christmas thing out of public view.
O’REILLY: See, I think it’s all part of the secular progressive agenda —
GIBSON: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: — to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square. Because if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious- based, usually.
GIBSON: You have France or you have — or you have Holland, you have legalized prostitution, you have drugs. All those things come in which religious organizations tend to oppose. Once you start taking out even the secular symbols of religious holidays — Christmas trees, Santas, so forth — refuse to use the word “Christmas,” you can shove this religious stuff indoors, out of sight.
O’REILLY: Yeah, because no kid is going to come home and ask Mom what winter break is.
GIBSON: No.
O’REILLY: But a kid might come home and say, “Hey, what’s this Christmas thing all about? Who is this baby Jesus guy?” You know?
GIBSON: Right.
Now, let’s look at the numbers here. America is actually 75% white and Christian, repsectively, as I have pointed out before. When it comes right down to it, the argument here is that America is, at heart, a Christian nation. It’s the refrain you hear from fundamentalist politicians and think tanks all the time, and it’s based on numerical superiority.
But if you think about it, America would be much more aptly described as being founded as a white country. Not all of the Founding Fathers were Christian—many were Deist—but all of them were white landowning males. See the Treaty of Tripoli for details about our so-called Christian origins. Certainly our legal history bears out this idea. I figure there’s a reason Fox News isn’t more openly pushing the idea of a white America, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why (based on the census and our rich national history, of course).
Now, if you believe that America’s mission statement expanded beyond just providing for white people at some point in the last hundred years, you might be able to recognize the ideas behind civil rights for minorities, the relentless commercialization of a formerly pagan holiday and Emily Post-style common courtesy might lead to a more open and diverse America.
Anyway, what’s so hilarious about the “War on Christmas” is that they keep insisting that Christians have a special right to be offended by inclusive phrases whereas non-Christians have no right to protest exclusive phrases. We can all hope Santa brought Gibson and O’Reilly some moral clarity, but it doesn’t seem likely.
And that’s because Gibson and O’Reilly have it right in one respect: Americans will do whatever retailers tell them to do. If Radio Shack tells you to have a Merry Christmas, you’e going to have a jolly fucking Yuletide, even if you’re goddamn sun-worshipper. And if they tell you to have some “Happy Holidays,” you’re going to put your crucifixes down and drink toasts of babies’ blood to Satan while sodomizing your same-sex secular progressive spouse—and no one will ever know of Christmas or Santa Claus or Irving Berlin ever again.
A New Idea in Campaign Finance Reform
McCain’s curtailments of lobbyists goes in the wrong direction; instead of proposing restrictions on Congress they have no incentive to approve (if you weren’t involved with Abramoff), why not have all lobbyists contribute instead to a slush fund to be equally distributed to all of Congress? You could sell it to lobbyists as a way to increase their lobbying power (while actually diluting/diminishing their ability to lobby particular votes), and then we’d have a record of all contributions. While Vasco v. US remains on the books, bribery is still legal, but by making the money go to a general fund, it would become functionally impossible (and monetarily impractical) to do the kind of influence-peddling deals like Abramoff did. Everybody would be able to see where the money came from and how much there was. If, say, the pharmaceutical industry wants to bribe Congress into favorable legislation, they’re going to have to give each Congressperson the same amount of bribes to do so—maybe a just a bottle of pills apiece. Seems fairer, no?
