FISA in the Severed Garden

FISA in the Severed Garden


{1} "Secrecy -- the first refuge of incompetents -- must be at bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authprity must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people."
-- House Committee on Government Operations; 1960 Report

John Dean opens his book, "Worse Than Watergate," with the above quote. It seems to fit the most current scandal confronting the Bush2 administration, which was exposed by the New York Times for what appears to be illegal surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency.

The administration claims that President Bush has the right to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), based on his constitutional authority and the congressional resolution passed a week after 9-11, which allowed him the ability to use force against those who planned the attack on this country. Further, the administration claims that it kept congressional leaders from both parties updated on the NSA's spying on American citizens.

Even Arlen Specter (R-PA) disputes this. The 12-20-05 New York Times quotes him as saying, "I think it does not constitute a check and balance. You can't have the administration and a select number of members (of congress) alter the law. It can't be done." (page 24)

Further, the same article notes that Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) had sent a handwritten letter to VP Cheney, expressing his belief that "given the security restrictions associated with the information, and my inability to consult with staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."

Clearly, the administration actions violate the FISA law. It is worth noting that FISA was introduced four years in a row by Senator Ted Kennedy in the 1970s, in order to try to establish protections of the civil rights of American citizens. Kennedy had worked hard with the Justice Department and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his bill was finally signed into law by President Carter on 10-25-78. (The Puzzle Palace; James Bamford; 1982; page 462)

Let's take a closer look at the balance of powers defined by the U.S. Constitution, and see how it relates to the executive branch of government, war powers, the congress, and the federal courts. Perhaps then we can decide if President Bush, and maybe even VP Cheney, have abused the power entrusted to them.

{2} "Nixon's Presidency was not an aberration but a culmination. .... But full recovery seemed unlikely unless the President himself recognized why his Presidency had fallen into such difficulties. Nixon's continued invocation, after Watergate, of national security as the excuse for presidential excess, his defense to the end of unreviewable executive privilege, his defiant assertion that, if he had it to do over again, he would still deceive Congress and the people .... suggested that he still had no clue as to what his trouble was, still failed to understand that the sickness of his Presidency had been caused, not by the overzealousness of his friends nor by the malice of his enemies, but by the expansion and abuse of presidential power itself."
-- The Imperial Presidency; Arthur Schlesinger, Jr; 1973; page 416.

The single best book on the issues involved in the tension between the executive branch of the federal government and the legislature and judiciary is Schlesinger's classic, "The Imperial Presidency." The Founding Fathers intended there to be a balance of powers in the federal government; this would be achieved by a series of checks and balances defined by the Constitution.

In their wisdom, they recognized that this balance would create an inertia, that would keep each of the three branches from "power-grabbing." The exception to this has been in times of national emergency -- specifically in times of war -- when the executive office has been allowed a larger degree of power than at other times. While the constitutional lawyers through the ages have debated the extent of the presidential "war powers," there is a "constitutional custom" which is not unlike having the vice president become president in the event of the president's death. Contrary to "popular notion," the 83 words in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 do not specifically state that the vp becomes president, though in practice this has become the custom. (Four Days in November; Staff of New York Times; 2003; page 172.)

Thus, Schlesinger's book "does not deal systematically with all the facets and issues of presidential power. ...Nor does it deal primarily with the shift in the political balance between Congress and the Presidency .... It deals essentially with the shift in the constitutional balance -- with, that is, the appropriation by the Presidency, and particularly by the contemporary Presidency, of powers reserved by the Constitution and by long historical practice to Congress.

"This process of appropriation took place in both foreign and domestic affairs. especially in the twentieth century, the circumstances of an increasingly perilous world as well as of an increasingly interdependent economy and society seemed to compel a larger concentration of authority in the Presidency .... above all, from the capture by the Presidency of the most vital of national decisions, the decision to go to war." (pages viii-ix)

Schlesinger notes how in the 1950s, the executive office moved towards greater authority to use intelliegence agencies to spy upon American citizens. The people were told that this was required to protect their safety and to insure their civil rights. They were told that the country no longer was confronted by an enemy as limited as the Nazis; now they were threatened by the communist menace, which included potential domestic enemies. This sounds very similar to today's message that we no longer face the limited enemies of the past, and that today's demons include potential domestic enemies.

It is interesting to note that during the Eisenhower administration, because of fears the communists had nuclear weapons that threatened Washington DC, plans were made to have a "shadow government" run the country on an emergency basis -- if the nation's capital was indeed attacked.

{3} "Perhaps it is a universal truth that loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." -- Madison to Jefferson ; 5 -13-1798; The Complete Madison; 1953; page 258)

In the past two years, in a series of essays on this blog and on the political discussion forum the "Democratic Underground," I have suggested that many of the current problems in the executive branch stem from the corruption of the Nixon years. Nixon, of course, was Eisenhower's vice president, and there are some fascinating connections between the "shadow government" proposed in the '50s, and domestic spying.

In a recent essay on VP Cheney, I quoted from James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," his 2004 book on "9-11, Iraq, and the abuse of America's intelligence agencies." Bamford traces the up-graded plans for a "shadow government" which took place under the Reagan administration. He notes that Dick Cheney played a significant role in this planning.

In the past week, Bamford has been interviewed on numerous shows, primarily on MSNBC, about the NSA. This is in part because in 1982 he published "The Puzzle Palace," a book on America's most secret intelligence organization that the NSA actually tried to suppress. Bamford has also worked as an Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight; and has written extensively on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Korean Airlines shootdown, and the mafia.

Perhaps we should look closer at one section of The Puzzle Palace.

{4} "Following his denunciation of Hoover, Huston, in an attachment entitled 'Operation Restraints on Intelligence Collection,' and labeled 'Top Secret/Handle Via Comint Channels Only,' set out his recommendations on which restraints the President should lift. Of the first four, three dealt, significantly, with the NSA."
--The Puzzle Palace; Bamford; page 346.

In the years before the Watergate scandal became well-known, the Nixon White House was obsessive about gathering secret information on all "enemies" -- including political opposition. The later investigations revealed that in 1970, Nixon had a young White House aide named Tom Charles Huston come up with a plan that would allow intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and MI use electronic surveillance, illegal opening of mail, and unauthorized break-ins to keep track of "domestic security threats." Huston wrote a memo to Nixon that stated these actions were "clearly illegal." Still, Nixon gave his approval, until FBI Director Hoover protested.

Bamford notes, on page 348, "Just over a week later, on July 23, Huston put the final touches on the plan and sent it off via courier to various agencies. When Gayler, Tordella, and Buffham received their copies, there was, no doubt, a victory celebration. From the very first, Tordella had regarded Huston and the ICI meetings as, in his own words, 'nothing less than a heaven-sent opportunity for NSA.' Now they had, in black and white, the presidential authorization to do what they had been doing all along. In addition, Tordella could once again order embassy buggings and break-ins from the FBI."

Hoover no doubt understood the Huston Plan would put his agency in legal jeopardy if the criminal activities were uncovered. Yet it is worth noting that Mark Felt, who was later convicted for "black bag jobs," found Huston offensive. In "The Secret Man," Bob Woodward notes that the man known to history as "Deep Throat" would later write "that he considered Huston himself 'a kind of White House gauleiter over the intelligence community.' The four-inch-thick Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines gauleiter as 'the leader or chief official of a political district under Nazi contro'." (page 34)

{5} "The whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold counsel with one another, so as not to depend upon the understanding of one man, but to depend upon the counsel of all." -- Woodrow Wilson

One of the people most upset by the Watergate scandal was Dick Cheney. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, Cheney viewed it as an infringement on executive powers. He did not support the efforts to re-establish a constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of the federal government.

In "A Pretext for War," Bamford documents how the during the Reagan years, the old plan for a "shadow government" made in the Eisenhower era, was updated. "Given overall responsibility for the secret government was Vice President George H. W. Bush, with Lt. Col. Oliver North, a key player in the Iran-contra scandal, as the National Security Council action officer. The operation was hidden under the covert name 'National Program Office,' ....Among the key players in the shadow government were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and James Woolsey.

"At the time, Cheney was a congressman from Wyoming; Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D. Searle & Co., ....and Woolsey was a lawyer in private practice ......The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed. Rather than through legislation, it was created by Top Secret presidential fiat. In fact, Congress would have no role in the new wartime administration." (pages 72-4)

President Bush1 kept the NPO going; however Clinton, recognizing that the Cold War was over, ended it. The Bush2 administration would reinstate it before 9-11, although there was no notice to congress. In fact, in the morning hours of 9-11, the president and vice president made the NPO operational: numerous representatives of executive branch departments and business leaders were taken from Washington DC and brought to underground bunkers, and the "shadow government" took control of America.

{6} "Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee 'the continuity of government,' after it was revealed that about 100 top officials, spanning every executive branch department, had been sent to live and work in two fortified locations on the East Coast. "
-- "Congress Not Advised of Shadow Government"; Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin; The Washington Post; 3-2-02

In early March, 2002, The Washington Post broke the news that the Bush administration had instituted a "shadow government" on 9-11. It was confirmed that the administration did not inform the House or Senate. In fact, CBS News reported on 3-2 that "civilins deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why." These restrictions are very similar to those that VP Cheney gave congressional leaders such as Senator Rockefeller on the domestic spying. This is not a coincidence.

CBS reported, "The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated."

The Washington Post reported that the administration, which had not notified the House or Senate in the six months the "shadow government" had been in power, had rotated officials every 90 days. Their article also noted that some members of congress had expressed concern that the administration had not informed them of this drastic action.

"There are two other branches of government that are central to the functioning of our democracy," the article quoted Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass) as noting. "I would hope the speaker and the minority leader would at least pose the question, 'What about us?' "

{7} "Only hours after the September 11 attacks, the administration installed a 'shadow government' of about a hundred senior executive branch officials to live and work secretly ... White House chief of staff Andrew Card directs the shadow government from the White House, where he is immune from giving testimony to Congress (have we heard this before?). ....Of course, this shadow government consists of one branch only, the executive branch. .... (T)he Congress has not sanctioned the shadow government, nor were members of Congress even made aware of its existence until the story was leaked in March 2002. This shadow government has been described as an 'indefinite precaution,' which can mean anything. While a few newspaper stories appeared in March 2002, very little new information has been reported since then. The shadow government is presumed to continue its operation outside of congressional oversight."
--Losing America (confronting a reckless and arrogant presidency); Senator Robert Byrd; 2004; pages 78-9.

Senator Byrd and John Dean are two of the only people brave enough to report on the shadow government, besides Bamford. In "Worse Than Watergate," Dean has a section "Hiding and Politicizing a Contingent Government," on pages 120-124. He notes that immediately after the 9-11 attacks, many in the executive branch were concerned with the possibility that al Qaeda could strike Washington DC with one of the two or more "Soviet-manufactored suitcase nukes (which) may have fallen into bin Laden's hands." (page 123) Dean lists several foreign intelligence sources that were convinced that some of the more than 100 of these bombs, capable of destroying a city the size of Washington DC, had likely been bought by al Qaeda.

The original "shadow government" plans made under Eisenhower, as well as those up-dated under Reagan, were specific responses to a nuclear attack. While many Americans believe that Usama bin Laden is a CIA creation, the article "September 11, 2001 (A Tuesday)," by Gore Vidal, which The Nation refused to print, noted, "Where does Osama's money now come from? He is a superb fund-raiser for Allah but only within the Arab world; contrary to legend, he has taken no CIA money." (See: "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," by Vidal, 2002, page6.) Certainly, the administration believed on 9-11 and shortly thereafter that there was a serious chance of Washington being attacked, as Dean details so well.

{8} "There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance -- Tyranny may enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men."
-- Walt Whitman; Notes for Lectures on Democracy; 1928; page 58.

Schlesinger writes that, "In that spirit I would argue that what the country needs today is a little serious disrespect for the office of the Presidency..."(page 411) A reasonable person could understand why the administration took steps to try to protect the country, including Washington, in the hours and first days after the 9-11 attack. Yet the Constitution makes clear that these types of actions are only to be taken until such time the congress can be consulted. The administration moved to strip the congress of power, and to exclude the judicial branch from any role beyond that which the executive outlined to meet its needs. This included the intelligence agencies ignoring the FISA, and spying on US citizens.

It is no coincidence that the New York Times also reported on the FBI's spying on domestic groups that were defined as "activists" in politcal and social issues. As the Nixon years proved without a doubt, executive grabs for power beyond what the Constitution defines leads to efforts to target political opponents. The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame is the most obvious example of the Bush2 administration's illegal abuses of intelligence for political purposes.

But it is not the only example. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, wrote, "With so many unanswered questions, the only way to get to the bottom of this controversy is to appoint a special counsel with sufficieshadow governmentnt independence and legal authoricontext of the ty" to investigate the administration. I think it is clear the controversy must be viewed in the context of the "shadow government."

Thanks for these interesting ideas.

Mr. O'Waterman, I, too, much appreciate your articulate writings. I wonder if Bush and his minions have harangued the media into under-reporting the existence of the shadow government. It is now clear that they have been doing this in many other cases, so it is likely, in my opinion.

Also, I am truly taken by the phrase "moral lobotomy" - I have personal experience with this sort of individual, as my AAA credit rating was, in the recent past, ruined by a person I had given my unswerving support and loyalty (my brother, no less...)

I hope that our country has enough patriots with their higher functions intact to excise this tumor from the body politic, but I must say that I do not have your evident confidence in the people and the process, given the groveling obeisance of the media to the power elite, and the weakness of the so-called opposition in the halls of Congress.

It is unnerving, to say the least, to see the boldness of the lies and mayhem perpetrated by the Bush cabal, and the blindness of the people to the gathering storm.

LFR

Interesting how Dashcle says that B*** wanted the words "in the US" included in their authorization. Will it all be coming out now? Will the Senate fight to get their power back? What, if anything, does this have to do with Plame?

that a danger in having a small group grab power, even if it is originally for a well-justified purpose, is that the group may have a narrow focus. In this case, it was the neoconservatives. No matter what one believes about 9-11, it is hard to justify having the small core group of neocons holding the reins of power, moving us away from a constitutional democracy.

What possible abuses of power could result, for example, from the neocons having access to intelligence they were not on a "need to know" basis? The Plame scandal is just one example.

play in the shadow gov? Are Feith, Hannah, Hadley, Wurmser etc. a part of it? Or are they a separate deal altogether whuch Cheney is usung for his own purposes?

within the administration is the neocons. They are not willing to "share" power with congress and the courts, as demanded by the constitution. That said, I think we can conclude that in the context of a shadow government, they are not going to share power with those who subscribe to different schools of thought. Keep in mind who were the three people who restructured the shadow government during the Reagan years -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Woolsey. That is a very narrow group.

are dyed in the wool neos or if they have been using them, just like they used everyone else, to get from point A to B? Will they drop the nasty group if they are no longer any use?

This goes back to service under Ford, in which along with Scalia, they talked Ford into a veto of the FOIA.

-Hoot

because that is where they started to really coalesce their power. But I do wonder if the PNAC wasn't a convenience for them, for most of the other signers are really believers in doing this more for the sake of Israel than the US. Oh they all wanted the power in the ME, but I wonder if Cheney and Rummy haver truly bought into the "secondary" reasons.

were among the original members of the neoconservative movement. In large part, it was because neither was particularly gifted among the rather elitist group ..... it is important to remember that the genesis of the neocon movement was rooted in large part in young democrats offended by the "New Left" movement of the '60s; they combined forces with mutant Goldwater republicans. Cheney and Rumsfeld were recruited after Watergate tipped their apple cart. I think it is safe to safe Dick & Don were of great value as "systems men." They are hardly in the same intellectual league as Libby, Wolfowitz, or Pearle. The combination of the systems ability with the ideology made the neocons a growing force under Ford, and more so under Reagan. The movement reached maturity in 2000.

investigation, top to bottom.

I like the executive director of the ACLU's idea. I also think we should be demanding that congress take action.

k & r

electronic surveillance, they blatantly use case law that precedes FISA. How dumb do they think we are?
From the letter:

The
Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely donrestic
threats. hut it expressly distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States District
Cotrrt, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago,
Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national
security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief
legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and
authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64
(1967) (White, J., concurring).

Fisa was enacted in 1978.
That is all the intelligence I have at this late hour, but I promise you I will come up with more.

is that "technology has changed since the FISA laws were written." Clearly, that is true. It is equally true that there were no telephones when the Constitution was written; yet the change of technology would hardly be considered reason to toss out people's constitutional rights. The right to privacy is intended to be respected, regardless of if one is talking face-to-face, on a telephone or a cell phone, using a cb, or e-mail.

Thanks for sharing your hard work.

The Secret Government is the BFEE.

Rockefeller. Harriman. Bush. Dulles. Bush. Bush.

Joe Trento writes how Harriman helped jump start the chaos that became Vietnam:



Of course, the only way we'll get the government good-guys to do anything is to let them know there are more good people than crooks.



With all the anti-whistleblower backlash, they must think they're alone on an island.

seems to re-appear time and again. They simply can't be trusted.

On page 48 of Gore Vidal's book, he notes that in Justice Brandeis's "magnificent dissent in Olmstead .... Brandeis was warning government that it was the teacher of the nation and when government broke laws it set an example that could lead only to imitation and anarchy."

and they'll tell you that your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

When will this shadow government info be brought into the sunlight by the NYT, or WaPo, or some such media? People will be really freaked out when it finally sinks in that their elected representatives have no say; in effect, the citizens have no voice in this Republic. That is not a democracy.

I was aware of the shadow government being reinstated after September 11, 2001, but not aware of its history, although its core group does not surprise me. I also was not aware of the rotating group of participants, that there were so many. I feel like the Sword of Damocles hangs over America.

in stories in the Washington Post and on CBS. Thus -- exactly as you say -- when I mention it in conversation with friends, the majority have no idea what I am speaking of. The fact that so many journalists fail to mention it seems surprising, because it is obviously so significant to understanding how the nation went from 9-11 to Afghanistan to Iraq. I am reminded of an old saying from ex-Beatle John Lennon: "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words."

How in the hell can Bob Woodward write "Bush At War" and NOT mention this? I think there is a coordinated effort to make sure it is not reported.

I think you're correct. The image of bush with the two NYT editors comes to mind, as he grapples with them not to print the surveillance story. How many phone calls were made from the White House to the media to squash further reporting on the shadow government? (All in the interest of "national security," of course.)

I'm tired of leaks, one bit at a time so the White House has time to implement damage control. I want the dam to just go ahead and break.

touched on that subject. After the paragraph quoted in the OP, he continued:

"Another unanswered question is why it took a year for this story to see the light of day in The Times.

"While we all understand the need for insuring that sensitive information on national security not be released irresponsibly, we must also ensure that our independent institutions do not readily succumb to pressure by the Bush administration to suppress information vital to the working of our democracy."

The ACLU's executive director made this important point in the 12-20 LTTE. It is the exact same point you make. Why hold back on the truth, when the truth in this case identifies the greater threat to our democracy? I suppose the reasoning is very similar to the NYT and other papers reporting administration lies, which also represent a threat to democracy.

Thank goodness for smaller, but far more accurate sources of information, from takebackthemedia, to Raw Story, to TruthOut.

or we'd still be hearing about aluminum tubes.

I've also noted, far less eloquently, that Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency" has far more immediacy today than when it was published over 30 years ago.

Somehow I think these guys



have been carefully planning to doom us with this sinister repetition of history the whole time.

Schlesinger has a fantastic grasp of presidential history. People would do well to read (or re-read) that book, because -- as you say -- it fits today's world even more so than it did the Nixon era. And I agree 100% that those characters, who have also closely studied presidential history, have been working on a long-term strategy to make the executive office more powerful, at the expense of the constitutional democracy we are supposed to have.

those low brow peering eyes, the evil smirk,
*shudder*
something nasty brewing in that photo

in the early years.

:kick:

yet they maintain everything they do must remain secret.

If they can put us under surveillance, the people should be able to put them under our surveillance.

has an article that makes clear that the program is far larger than the White House has cared to admit. While I have not had time to read the entire article yet, I think that it confirms the spying was geared at collecting information from a wide range of people.

While I am aware that there is a segment of Americans who are represented by the poor fool I saw this week on Fox News saying he didn't care if the government listened to his phone calls -- but who lacks the capacity to see how that is exactly what the USSR's government did, causing Americans to fear the oppressive nature of Soviet state -- there are many, many republicans who recognize the dangers posed by this form of government invasion on constitutional rights.

It is the type of issue that can serve to unite thinking people against an imperial presidency.

To identify targets for more specific observation.

In a LTTE here saw a reference to it only being 35 people, and therefore ok. The writer obviously doesn't have a grasp on what is happening, or perhaps I'm the lost one.

As Groucho said "Say the magic word..."

-Hoot

on Bush and his military incursions. He has fought off US domination for his whole tenure as leader of Cuba. It will be sad to see Cuba get taken over when Castro dies.

from a speech by Castro - 2003
Cuba was the first country to extend its solidarity to the people of the United States on September 11, 2001. It was also the first to warn of the neo-fascist nature of the policy that the extreme right in the United States, which fraudulently came to power in November of 2000, was planning to impose on the rest of the world. This policy did not emerge as a response to the atrocious terrorist attack perpetrated against the people of the United States by members of a fanatical organization that had served other U.S. administrations in the past. It was coldly and carefully conceived and developed, which explains the country's military build-up and enormous spending on weapons at a time when the Cold War was already over, and long before September 11, 2001. The fateful events of that day served as an ideal pretext for the implementation of such policy.

"I don't think that a fascist regime can be established in the United States. Serious mistakes have been made and injustices committed in the framework of its political system -many of them still persist-- but the American people still have a number of institutions and traditions, as well as educational, cultural and ethical values that would hardly allow that to happen. The risk exists in the international arena. The power and prerogatives of that country's president are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods."

http://www.la-peaceandfreedom.org/F_Castro_050103.html

sections of Schlesinger's book is found towards the end, in the chapter "The Future of the Presidency." Starting on 409, it reads:

"How to make external checks effective? Congress could tie the Presidency down by a thousand small legal strings, but, like Gulliver and the Lilliputians, the President could always break loose. The effective means of controlling the Presidency lay less in the law than in politics. For the American President ruled by influence; the withdrawal of consent, by Congress, by the press, by public opinion, could bring any President down. The great Presidents understood this."

What he does not seem to predict is the possibility that, in an abuse of "emergency powers," that any president would move to put in a long-term "shadow government" which actively denies power to the House, Senate, and federal courts .... and instead makes an alliance with "big business." There is no question that this was the plan developed under Reagan, in which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, North, and Bush1 (vp at the time) laid the foundations used by Bush2.

We do see a significant shift occuring now, with a large percentage of the general population, part of the corporate media, and a minority in congress withdrawing their consent. We are not going to change the country to a point where energy corporations do not have unfair influence within the next three years. It simply cannot happen. But we can move in the correct direction. We can demand that the House begin hearings on Cheney's illegal behaviors in the build-up to the war, and we can demand that a special prosecutor investigate the president's spy scandal. Those should be our goals in 2006.

if Governor Blanco had knuckled and allowed them to federalize the area. They would have declared martial law as a first step. It would have been an important precedent and toehold for them. In years to come we may look back and realize just how important her resistance was. We should be forewarned, they will try again.

the time is now and it shall not come again soon. Bush the Junior is a tool of the neo-cons and was shepherded by Cheney. Each of these failed administrations tried to manipulate intelligence for political means and ends. The largest fights have been over the control and dissemination of intelligence assets and analysis.

The NSA is the largest KNOWN intelligence agency with capabilities not even imaginable by the average citizen. All of the big moves in Bush's world have been about intel and Cheney has set himself up as the chief intelligence analyst of the USA, unnoticed by most Americans. The change in status for the line of succession for Intelligence to move up to number three is also highly alarming. Intelligence has become even more politicized because of the ability to shape it like clay depending on the audience.

The spend on intelligence has been weighted heavily in favor of technology, precisely because humans start asking questions about implications. Technology does what it is programmed to do, moral, amoral or immoral doesn't matter. Intel moves armies and incites passions.

Excellent H20 Man! Great Read!

I am unable currently to read through the entire post. It feels like another of your masterpieces, H2O Man. Will come back to it later (today is my son's 25th birthday).

Looking forward to reading the entire thread! :toast:

It is an attempt to connect some of the things that I have been saying on DU for the past 2 years. I hope that you enjoy it.

Happy birthday to your son! My oldest turns 22 in two days.

Dick

quotes from in John Dean's book is on page 93. It is from right-wing republican Phyllis Schlafly, of all people: "The voters aren't going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush administration has some sort of duty to protect the power of the presidency .... The American people do not and should not tolerate government by secrecy."

A few pages later, Dean tells about Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex), a libertarian who is not fond of the neoconservatives. Dean outlines 15 of the points Paul raises about neocon theology. The last two are of particular importance in terms of the subject at hand -- the illegal spying on US citizens.

(14) "They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government."

And (15) "They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds."

These are points that democrats at all levels, from the grass-roots to Washington DC, need to be bringing to the attention of moderate republicans. This is the avenue to reducing even the republican "machine" support for the administration.

Tell everyone you know. Get them fired up. An aware citizenry is our only hope. They can still be stopped.

Thanks for a year of superb writing and a grand way of connecting the dots!

It is important for DUers to realize that what the Bush administration was doing, with the illegal surveillance, was not a secret. Though the NYTimes only recently reported on it, it was not a surprise to those who read and think.

On pages 18-19 of his 2002 book "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace," (containing the essay by the same name, which The Nation refused to publish), Gore Vidal wrote about "the knockout blow to our vanishing liberties -- the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 combined with the recent requests to Congress for additional special powers to wiretap without judicial order..."

In the same essay, he noted that in his 1996 Act, President Clinton nullified "the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, (which) suspends habeas corpus, the heart of Anglo-American liberty. Clinton attacked his critics as 'unpatriotic.' Then, wrapped in the flag, he spoke from the throne: 'There is nothing patriotic about pretending that you can love your country but hate your government.' " Clinton went on to say that those who did not support his legislation wanted to turn "America into a safe house for terrorists." (pages 12-13) It is worth noting that habeas corpus only relates to those who were incarcerated in American penal institutions; it was difficult to argue that allowing prison inmates the right to appeal to federal courts created a "safe house" for terrorists. Yet, if my memory serves me right, only NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was able to draw on the Irish experience of legal oppression sans habeas corpus, took a firm stance against Clinton on that issue.

Thus, when we examine the attack on civil liberties, we must be fair: it is NOT limited to the Bush administration. Two more quotes from Vidal (page 114) that come from President Bill Clinton:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." (3-1-93; USA Today)

"A lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." (4-19-94; MTV)

The Bush defenders, the shameless bastards, were out in force this morning.

They would have us believe that Americans IN America are not being spied on.

Yeah.

Right.

Bush seems to take the most severe action(s) when reacting to the most simple problem(s). Not that our modern problems are "simple", but his reactions to them are not on par with their severity, or lack of it.

Invading Iraq to topple three men.

Demanding that control of New Orleans be tranferred to him in order to deal with Hurricane Katrina.

Now spying on average Americans in response to 9/11.

What's next for us?

This guy has reduced the Constitution to toilet paper.

when the FBI is spying on social and political activists, there will be some restraint with other intelligence agencies such as the NSA. Likewise, when the Plame scandal is absolutely tied to the president and vice president's offices, it is rather difficult to believe intelligence will not be abused for political gain.

and a cabal of right wingers always show up to disrupt and call us "pinkos" and other lame ass names.

Their biggest problems with these relevations is that the New York Times leaked classified information.

But yet they have no problem whatsoever about the WH leaking Plame's name and classified covert activities.

Assholes.

Anyway, Merry Christmas :hi:

Hope you have a great day!!

there are a growing number of republicans that recognize the bush administration is not fiscally conservative, is attempting the poorest choice of "nation building," and shows utter contempt for the Constitution. The corporate media does not present their views; instead we see those with IQs under 50 and those with moral lobotomies, like the Fox network -- who inspire the fools you mention. But the republican foundation may not be as supportive of the administration come 2006. I was pleased when a conservative republican relative told me that he thinks Nancy Pelosi is the most honest, on-target politician in the country today.

democracy. Have you ever thought of writing this up in essay form and approaching some of the more significant media outlets with it? There is enough distrust of Bush now, that maybe it could get published. You explain these things with a lot of clarity, and obviously with a deep knowledge of the issues. Maybe the time has come, as even Barron's has been publishing articles seriously questioning Bush's trampling of our Constitutional guarantees.

A Shadow Government? I am appalled by each new thing I learn about these guys.

I am glad that you enjoyed this essay. It seemed fairly important to me, and I thought that most of the major corporate media was ignoring this topic .... and, indeed, considering that there is definite proof the 'shadow government" exists/existed, it is curious that people like Bob Woodward would completely ignore it in "Bush At War." Or that Tim Russert would not think it worth mentioning on Meet The Press. Of course, I am aware from things that Dan Rather has said (which have not been widely covered, either) that there was tremendous government pressure to "report" a government-produced line after 9-11 ..... at the expense of the TRUTH .... which in this case means at the expense of a free press, and an informed public.

Also, I do appreciate your suggestion about submitting things such as this to other media outlets. In years past, I have had articles printed in a number of diverse magazines and journals. However, I am old, retired, and enjoy tending my garden at the margins of mainstream society. DU is a significant outlet, in that sense, because it lets me communicate the ideas I think are important ... to people that I am convinced are important. And that's enough for me. I do wonder at times why I get relatively few responses to essays I think are important -- such as this one. And to be honest, I think that some of the progressive political internet sites would do well to carry some of my better articles.

as we speak; it seems quite important and quite a timely issue as well, given all the other things we have learned over the last few weeks. It seems to me that at this point someone in msm would be very interested in this, and/or the more progressive websites that you mentioned.

And as far as the response is concerned, I think that the longer posts, in general, get less of a response. It probably has to do with there being so many posts at DU, and many people having only a limited time to read. I myself skipped over this post earlier, knowing I would come back to it later when I could. And right now, at Christmas/Hannukah time, people are more busy than usual.

And a Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah wish to you, H20man. :)

There may be lots of people who read this post, but didn't participate with a response, instead only recommending it. You are being heard here.

I think that there is something about the nature of a computer that makes it harder to digest longer articles. I myself tend to prefer to look at longer things on paper, rather than a screen. I'm not really certain why that is...maybe something about the difficulty of keeping one's place as one scrolls through the article. And when a poster has a back-and-forth already going in some other thread, which frequently happens, then I think the longer articles are put aside to read later, in favor of a current discussion. There are proposed DU forum changes coming up, as you probably are aware. Let's hope that makes an improvement.

but I also never comment. I'm sure there are many others like me. Your information and your talent at showing connections, as well as your book and article recommendations are invaluable to me. I'm sure that is the case with many others that you may never hear from. I thank you for the mention of many books and writers that have helped my understanding immensely.

Worse than Watergate is important, prophetic reading.

:kick: