Not all of the people all of the time
Uncategorized - - Posted on January, 19 at 5:13 pm by Tim
Al Gore gave a speech the other day condemning the President’s illegal domestic spying program. He’s been joined in his condemnation of this abuse of executive power by some leading conservatives, including Grover Norquist:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ — Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President’s authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
“When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans’ private information,” said Barr. “However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans’ private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism.”
Norquist and Gore on the same page. You see, this president is a uniter.
AND ALSO: Gee, even Christopher Hitchens is joining the Gore bandwagon:
I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.
The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.
Okay, okay there’s a lot of crap in there too, but he’s heading in the right direction for Al’s loving and affection. (Actually, you have to laugh at that comment about “we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term”. Yep, let’s go for well-planned, thoroughly considered actions like, say, invading Iraq.)
Posted in Uncategorized |
January 19th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I give Hitchens’ words creedence.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Fuck me gently with a chainsaw. When the likes of Grover challenge a republican president over non-fiscal issues, you know something’s in the air.
Never mind the fact that the Fitzgerald Inquiry is still quietly ticking away in the background, not to mention the slow-fused timebomb of the new bankruptcy laws combined with major disasters like Katrina goosing insurance premiums and skyrocketing winter heating bills that are now being delivered.
As mates of mine in the US have recently mentioned to me, it’s all gonna get real messy in the lower 48 over the next couple of years.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Yep -which is why the plan is: cue Iran, Operation Midterm.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Wasn’t it Grover Norquist who said that he wanted to get government down the size where he could drown in a bathtub?
We sure do live in interesting times.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Sorry, a spam hunt took this comment by wron out, and I’m restoring it:
Al Gore is a sad, bitter old man. Instead of comporting himself with dignity as a retired grand politician and a former Vice President, acquiring the respect and admiration of all, he has allowed himself to become a longstanding joke on late night talk shows.
In some ways, he resembles Mark Latham, another person many at this blog have admired.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I love the optimism surrounding the Fitzgerald inquiry. Apparently blind faith is a universal virtue.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:10 am
he has allowed himself to become a longstanding joke on late night talk shows.
i do watch some late night talk shows , and sorry, the joke is mainly on the current President.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm
I love the optimism surrounding the Fitzgerald inquiry. Apparently blind faith is a universal virtue.
what blind faith? A senior assisant to both the President and the Vice President has been indicted on perjuries charges involving a serious national security issue during a time of war.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Serious national security issue?? Assuming even that even the charge against Libby does hold up, which is unlikely in my opinion since they’ve opted for the criminal charges which are pretty hard to prove, I’d suggest that is a lot less than the likes of Nabakov above are really hoping for!
January 21st, 2006 at 2:12 am
Actually, Pat, criminal charges in this case will be very easy to prove. Perjury and obstruction.
He lied under oath. They have the record. He obstructed justice by omitting key facts from testimony and other conversations with investigators. Slam dunk.
I’d be willing to wager a bottle of fine single malt that one of three things happen:
-Libby cops a plea deal
-Libby gets convicted
-Libby gets pardoned
And why the question marks around serious national security issue? Plame worked in non-proliferation. Nuclear friggin non-proliferation. How much more serious does that get?
The front company she worked for, and everyone involved (both American and non) have now been compromised beyond repair. People’s lives are in danger and much hard work and money spent cultivating the front company and all the associated human assets has been rendered utterly useless.
Want to explain how that isn’t serious?
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 am
Look on the bright side Patrick. Now you clearly know the MSM is not left wing leaning. 32 years ago they helped bring down a President for crimes and sins far less egregious than for what this current administration is being weakly challenged for.
Actually Patrick, are you an American? If so, doesn’t it worry you that Bush and co have gone far further than Nixon in creating a Presidential Party, the one thing the founding fathers were determined to avoid because down that path lay hereditary monarchy, the one thing they busted a gut to get rid of.
I visit the US a lot, some my best friends are yanks and it’s a bloody great country. To see it slip into third world dynamics, with political dynasties propped up by family friends appointed to high places, utterly corrupt parliaments and a juicy bagman culture blurring the public and private sectors in a way that would really impress tinpot socialist/commie/facist dictatorships in Africa, would be a crying shame.
I will now and go remind myself of the US we all love and want back by listening to George Gershwin, Creadence Clearwater Revival and the Residents.
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I don’t know Eric - they sound easy to prove don’t they? But a jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, as the Andersen case should remind American white-collar criminal prosecutors. An awful lot of white-collar crime never goes to criminal proceedings exactly because the standard of proof is often insurmountable, or seen as too high a risk by the agencies involved. But you know that, you are just confident about this particular case. Since quite possibly you know more about it than I do, I won’t bet on it. Also because I think the goal must be to get a plea-bargain out of him.
As to the National Security side, I’m not so sure. It does seem that an awful lot of people knew who she was before anyone published it. Hopefully, that’ll come out at trial, if there is one.
Nabakov, I am not American, but I do know a bit about the things the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Enough to hate generalisations about them. For many of them, for example, universal suffrage would have been even more abhorrent.
I happen to be comfortable with different rules in wartime, and in the conduct of war. I honestly don’t think I would think differently about a Democratic President, for example. I never worried that President Clinton was acting ultra vires when he fired those missiles, for example. Had I known about his rendition program, I would have felt just the same as I do now - I don’t approve, generally, but can see cases where that would be legitimate.
In that context, some of the questions often raised on this site about the duration of the war and the special nature of the enemy are valid, and important questions. I don’t have all the answers to them. But I guess I see regular elections as a fairly solid bulwark against military tyranny. The little tyranny of a thousand bureaucrats, which the founding fathers would certainly have abhorred and probably to a man, is of course with us since long ago. Since for better or for worse that appears almsot a complement of universal suffrage, I don’t know if anything could protect us from that, if protecting we need.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Wronwrite,
I find this pretty interesting:
If you don’t think that speaking truth to power is his responsibility as a citizen and especially as a former Vice President, then you don’t fundamentally get the American experiment. I’ve watched footage of his recent speeches and there isn’t anything bitter in them. Just resolve.
And if Al Gore is supposedly ‘retired’ I can’t find his statement saying it. He is doing a lot of public speaking that sounds like advocacy and campaigning, isn’t he?
~GC
January 24th, 2006 at 2:30 am
The Gay Curmudgeon,
It is the custom in America for former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and losing candidates for both offices to retire graciously after leaving office or losing the election. Disagreements are not aired in the news media but instead in one to one discussions.
For most persons falling within this category, they have done so with grace and dignity. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan, and Ford were notable examples. Even President Nixon was a gracious and dignified former President who was considerate enough to discuss foreign politics at the request of President Clinton in close door sessions.
President Carter and VP are notorious and lamentable exceptions to the custom. To persons who lived through the Carter Administration, Jimmy was somewhat of a buffoon who made mistake after mistake with terrible consequences (e.g., hour long gas lines, Iran, stagflation). Apparently, he wishes to continue giving us more of the same.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:50 am
I don’t know Eric - they sound easy to prove don’t they? But a jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, as the Andersen case should remind American white-collar criminal prosecutors. An awful lot of white-collar crime never goes to criminal proceedings exactly because the standard of proof is often insurmountable, or seen as too high a risk by the agencies involved.
Pat, not sure what you’re getting at here. Perjury and obstruction are not thought of as “white collar crimes” per se - even when they involve white collar types. As for the standard of proof, it is what it is and yet there are convictions all the time for these crimes. In the present case, there are comments made by Libby under oath that are directly contradicted by actual evidence - including prior and subsequent statements and communications by Libby himself. In other words, I would reiterate my bet.
And unless the defense attorneys/Libby think there is a high probability of him getting convicted, they will not accept a plea deal.
As to the National Security side, I’m not so sure. It does seem that an awful lot of people knew who she was before anyone published it. Hopefully, that’ll come out at trial, if there is one.
Like who in particular Pat? And did they also know about the front company that was her ostensible employer and how said company was indeed a CIA facade? Any thoughts on the ramifications from their collective outing?
As an aside, Libby’s crimes exist independent of who knew about her status. It is not a defense to perjury or obstruction to claim that the crimes alleged in the underlying investigation were not really crimes. You’re never allowed to lie under oath.
Nevertheless, I would be extremely interested to see evidence of all the people that “knew” about Plame’s CIA work. Links would be helpful.
I happen to be comfortable with different rules in wartime, and in the conduct of war.
Even if the “war” in question is amorphous, ill defined and likely to last in perpetuity? I mean if one deems the poorly termed “war on terror” to be the type of “war” that would enable the POTUS to disregard enacted legislation and key components of the Constitution (an overstep of power even then in many instances regardless in my opinion), then we are essentially giving the POTUS a retro-active line item veto power over the entire document going forward.
As was discussed on another thread, the “war on terror” won’t be over until there are no more terrorists. Any indication as to when that might be? 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Never? That would create a de facto rule by fiat for the POTUs. Bad idea in my opinion.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:39 am
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/
‘Vince Cannistraro, the CIA’s former counterterrorism chief, said that when operating undercover outside the United States, Plame would have had a real job with a more legitimate company.‘
That article does suggest that very little damage was done by outing the company, and I don’t know anyone actually suggesting that real as opposed to hypothetical damage was done by outing her - but that’s all I can quickly find, and I may easily be wrong, since there appears to be two quite opposed groupthinks on this issue.
Also, I do accept that hypothetical damage is enough, but oddly enough no-one else here does, since when we talk about the NSA leaks everyone scoffs and says ‘what damage could that have possibly done?!?‘ Even though I might disagree about the NSA leaks, for debate, I’ll settle for whichever standard you prefer.
I do also accept that the actual harm or not etc is all irrelevant to perjury and obstruction. But it isn’t perjury to contradict something you have previously said unless both were under oath and it was deliberate, ie lying, not merely being mistaken. As you know.
Quite clearly, I don’t think Mr Fitzgerald has done all this to indict Scooter Libby. Nor was that what the left, such as Tim D, expected. So clearly a plea-bargain with Libby has to be his objective, which is why I won’t bet against it. But I should point out that Libby might want to plea-bargain just to avoid trial - if he is just administration cover, he might be very interested in trying to avoid a trial, but then it would be hard to plea-bargain with compromising someone else in the administration.
I guess we’ll see. But I don’t think there is any doubt that as things stand, the left haven’t got what they expected out of this.
PS, Eric, did you read on after the last line you quoted?
January 24th, 2006 at 8:47 am
I did read on, but you more or less dodged the question(s). You said there were valid questions raised, but didn’t posit any answers. And then gave some nod to beareaucratic/electoral protections against the advent of a military dictatorship. Again, I viewed that as more of a dodge than an answer.
The specific questions raised are:
1. Does wartime give the POTUS unlimited constitutional authority?
2. If not, where is the line to be drawn and why (ie, if war gives the POTUS authority to ignore specific acts of Congress and Constitutional prohibitions on domestic surveilance, where does this authority stop and why there and not here)?
3. Does the “war on terror” qualify as “war” under this theory?
I would argue that war does not give the POTUS unlimited authority, but only authority within the sphere of specific military actions. In other words, the POTUS cannot ignore statutes outlawing torture, the use of chemical/biological weapons, standards for detention, due process, search and seizure and others. I would also argue that any additional, or “activated” power must be narrow and scope and directly proportional and in relation to the particular war/threat at hand. Further, that the war on terror does not qualify as a war under this constitutional theory.
Regarding Plame, former CIA op Larry Johnson among others have suggested real, not just hypothetical damage. Even the article that you said sugges otherwise states:
“The collapse of Plame’s cover could compromise any other operatives who claimed to work for Brewster Jennings.”
Not to mention that every foreign govt. that she visited would run her name and the name of her “employer(s)” through a database to find all those connected. This is not hypothetical. This is what happens when an asset is exposed. Do you suppose that none of the people who worked for Brewster Jennings are still out in the field? All either safely ensconced and done with their work?
If not, can you imagine a scenario in which other Brewster Jennings “employees” would be able to continue their work clandestinely? Really?
Here are some more useful quotes about actual real damage, and a good helping of damage that is all but certain:
Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called “legends,” including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas.
Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, whose name has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency’s chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis.
Now, Plame’s career as a covert operations officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with – whether on business or not – may be in danger. The DO is conducting an extensive damage assessment.
And Plame’s exposure may make it harder for American spies to convince foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.
Larry Johnson – a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame’s in the CIA’s case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as “the Farm” – predicted that when the CIA’s internal damage assessment is finished, “at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives.”
http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/ciaofficials.html
January 24th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Plame’s career was already ending. That seems to be either assumed or asserted in a lot of pieces I have read, and would be a logical (if eventual) consequence of her husband’s public exhibitionism, I would think.
Cannistraro is the same guy who said that this company would not have been used in her overseas deployments - so that seems pretty far from clear to me.
That there may have been harm, I have to concede. But I don’t see any convincing case - and I remind you again, in another time you thought actual harm an important element: http://tianews.blogspot.com/2006/01/riddle-me-this.html
So I guess if someone did do an analysis that showed no actual harm, then you’d be cool with everything?
As for dodging the questions, sure. I basically didn’t think they were the subject of the thread, I acknowledge that I might not have good answers to all of them and I don’t want to look at them now. But I will say I think that the essence is in the doctrine of ‘non-justiciability’, which I think you call ‘political questions’. I don’t think the Supreme Court can answer the whole question, basically.
But, and Eric will appreciate this, I suspect that there is a deep enough gap between anglophilic and american constitutional studies that may (mis)inform my reasoning.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Gore’s speech was a beauty. Long but for the most part focussed, and quoting cleverly from Lincoln, Adams, Madison, Paine, et al, in order to place his attack in it’s proper context. It was a serious spear in the side of the administration, or would have been if the media saw fit to report it. The NYT ignored it completely and the WaPo mentioned it in passing so that it could make an airy remark about his lack of manners. Oh that liberal media.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Pat,
In the post you cited, I was discussing a claim by people that the Times revelation caused harm to national security. That is either true, or not. I did not make that the basis for a larger argument, however.
Similarly, I am interested in learning whether the outing of Plame and her front company caused actual harm. But that would not justify her outing, or provide the reason to condemn it alone.
For me, the standard has to do with value to society of knowing the information. For example, if the conduct in question is the executive branch violating published statutes and/or Constitutional limits, then I am more amenable to permitting the leak of the information (actually, this is the legal standard in Times v Sullivan and subsequent cases on free speech vis a vis national security).
In terms of Plame being outed, there was negligible value to the public. Instead, it was political vendetta.
As for Cannistraro’s statements, I think you are misconstruing them. Plame may have used multiple aliases overseas, but that does not mean that Brewster Jennings did not exist as a front company and that other assets did not use the same vehicle. Outing BJ and Plame had a ripple effect.
You are trying to squeeze a conclusion out of one statement taken slightly out of context. Not overly persuasive.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I would have said I was just trying to reconcile two apparently (to me) contradictory positions. Your last reponse does that, happily.
That wasn’t how I read his statements, but sounds reasonable enough, and I can allow for observer bias.