Activists on Right, GOP Lawmakers Divided on Spying
Activists on Right, GOP Lawmakers Divided on Spying
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; A04
Has anyone figured out how an inquiry into the legality of the wiretapping program can help terrorists? No one in congress, no one with a sense of decency, and no one with a sense of justice is advocating the absolute abandonment of wiretapping as a tool for use by the government in preventing terrorism. What we are asking is that the use of this tool adhere to the principles of the Constitution, allow the due process of a free society, and comply with our laws. The provisions of FISA are more than adequate, and are quite generous in allowing the government leeway and discretion.
Once again we hear the bogus exaggeration of the potential threats. Yes, the threat is real, but it is not so large, so looming and so devastating that we need to abandon our principles and our rights to contend with it effectively. We would do better with improved physical security at our borders. We would do better with better bomb detection technology in our customs stations. We would do better with better control over immigration. We would do better with better tracking and control over the sale of chemicals that could be potentially used to make IEDs. We could do better by tracking down the illegal arms dealers of the world and, using international cooperation, putting them out of business. We could do better by using improved discretion regarding which countries and regimes we choose to support with our foreign aid and military might. We could do a hell of a lot better. But we do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water. Compromising our basic rights and freedoms does nothing to injure our enemies, but it does injure our citizens and embolden our enemies.
AG Gonzalez's answers were vague, evasive and disconserting. He complained about FISa as being cumbersome, but could not answer questions as to why the administration did not come back to congress to deal with the perceived barriers and entanglements rather than circumvent the provisions of FISA. He also could not explain, to anyone in touch with reality, why those lawyers working for the DOJ that opposed this program were not heard. He could not explain why the administration did not seek out legal opinions as to the legality of the program until it was already in use for over three years.
The Bush administration doesn't believe in due process, which is the backbone of public confidence. This administration has demonstrated a propensity for skirting the provisions of law. The detention of prisoners without access to legal counsel or redress by the courts. The willingness to engage in abusive actions against detainees and prisoners. The advocacy for using torture and then using "rendition" to other countries as a way of avoiding the legal encumbrances once those behaviors were out in the public view. AG Gonzalez is the front man for implenting this administration's plan to implement fascism in our country. (c.f. Britt's 14 Characteristics of Fascism: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)
If we look at this administration's leadership and actions, we can see the following:
1. Pervasive nationalism cloaked as patriotism, but used as a whipping post for those that disagree, calling them unpatriotic or accusing them of aiding the enemy.
2. Disdain for human rights, exhibited as unprecedented detention of prisoners, abuse of prisoners, denial of access to lawyers and courts, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance, advocacy for torture, rendition, etc.
3. Identification, and constant reminders, of enemies, threats and potential harm through exaggerating the events and threats. No one is saying there isn't a threat, only that the threat is not as great as this administration is claiming... and the proof of that is in their inability to provide us any evidence or documentation of the threat, or evidence of successful intervention.
4. Giving the military and intelligence arms of the government disproportionate funding and power. Using the military to effect international affairs and foreign policy.
5. Sexism... the ultra-conservatives (especially those with a Christian Right agenda) believe women do not have a place in the job market or rights to their own decisions, as is illustrated by the rhetoric on "family values" and the railing against Roe v. Wade. But taking that one step further, the paranoia exhibited by the Bush administration and the ultra-conservatives that support it regarding the effects on our society if we were to allow gay marriage. Is it just a coincidence that these same arguments were used for decades to impede the civil rights movement?
6. Control over the media. While the Bush administration doesn't fully control the media, the president and his gang are not open to media scrutiny. They refuse to answer many questions put forth to them, deny access to public records, and claim national security interest protection on just about anything they do not want in the open. The control over the media is in effect by denying access, controlling who can attend events, claiming privilege where privilege doesn't exist, and keeping secrets that are only secrets because of embrassment factors.
7. Obsession with national security has become the watchword. We are back in a "cold war" mentality and the administration is talking about the "war against terror" lasting at least 20 years. There is no genuine basis for this entrenchment into a 20 year agenda. It is an obsession rather than an effective plan to protect our nation.
8. The entanglement of religion, and that being a particular brand of Christianity, in our government is becoming overwhelmingly apparent. According to Frontline, A PBS news magazine, President Bush actually holds prayer sessions in the morning and compels those meeting with him to participate. While the requirement to participate is an unspoken matter, there were members of the West Wing that offered quiet objections for fear of repercussions. The "faith-based initiatives" are a slippery slope because there is an overwhelming Christian flavor to these initiatives. The emphasis on using these groups is a smoke screen. While no one objects to people having faith, imposing it upon our government and having it infiltrate into our daily governmental operations is wrong. (c.f. Madison's Remonstrance: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html, which the Supreme Court has relied upon at least a dozen times)
9. Corporatism, also known as pro-Big Business... We have seen the administration, congress and the courts play favorites to big business and provide big businesses with rights, privileges and rulings that overrule the rights of ordinary citizens (c.f. Kelo v New London). We also see corporatism in the scandals involving Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, and those touched by Jack Abramoff.
10. Labor movements are on the outs while the conservatives rule Washington. Conservative courts have shot down rights provided by congress regarding workplace discrimination (c.f. Westinghouse case). Efforts to unionize are being illegally thwarted by companies without consequence of law. While the unions have doen some damage to their own reputations, there is still an overwhelming bias against unions and labor, which we can even see in the recent issues regarding safety at coal mines.
11. Arts, science and humanities have been under attack by the Christian Right, and subsequently by the ultra-conservatives in public office, for some time. There are numerous cases where religious ideology has been supported by the Bush administration and ultra-conservatives in congress to the point where textbooks are modified, stickers and labels are used to cast disdain upon scientific theories, creationism/intelligent design is backdoored into the curriculum and school boards, all with the endorsement of President Bush.
12. There has been a weakening of Miranda, Gideon and other precedents that used to serve to assure police and other law enforcement behaved in a manner consistent with civil rights and the Constitution. The courts have also weakened the doctrine called the "fruits of the poisonous tree" which prevented tainted evidence from an illegal search or seizure from being used in court. The NSA has been turned into a long arm of law enforcement via the warrantless wiretapping. Basic rights of citizens are being circumvented, abridged or abrogated.
13. Cronyism and corruption have become the way of the world inside the beltway, even more so under the leadership of George W. Rice, Gonzalez, Miers, Alito... and so many more. Honest representatives (i.e. Colin Powell) are forced out because they dare to speak up, voice alternatives, or choose to follow the rules. But "yes men" are in constant supply in the Bush administration... and if they say yes long enough and loud enough they get appointed to high office, a seat on the court, or get to work somewhere in the West Wing.
14. Fraudulent elections... seems to me that the first election for George W. wasn't exactly a win until the Republican/conservative-stacked courts had their say... And it seems to me I remember something about fraud in the last election as well (c.f. Ohio - http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/975)
Although Senator Specter is a conservative, he doesn't always side with the ultra-conservatives and has a firm grasp of the law and Constitution. While we could disagree with him on many things, at least he approaches most things from a perspective of integrity. The "smoking Dutch Cleanser" line was actually one of the funnier, and more poignant, lines of the day.
Perhaps these three have been smoking the Dutch Cleanser as well? Despite being lawyers that have served at high levels of state and federal government, neither of these three have the sense to read and understand the Constitution or take a look at history. All three are from states where the Christian Right have a strangle-hold on politics.
At least there are some Republicans with some sense of integrity, some sense of liberty, and some understanding of our first principles.
Senator Roberts' ultra-conservative side has deep roots, with family affiliation with the ultra-conservative views going back to the Eisenhower administration. He hasn't met an ultra-conservative idea he hasn't liked.
From where I sit, President Bush and his entourage, the ultra-conservative agenda in congress and the stacked decks of the federal bench are the greatest threat to American liberty. While the threat of terror is real, its effectiveness is ten-fold if the terrorists force us into a mindset that allows our liberties, freedom and first principles to be abandoned and we become the prisoners of our own fears.
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; A04
"Despite President Bush's warnings that public challenges to his domestic surveillance program could help terrorists, congressional Republicans and conservative activists are split on the issue and are showing no signs of reconciling soon.
GOP lawmakers and political activists were nearly unanimous in backing Bush on his Supreme Court nominations and Iraq war policy, but they are divided on how to resolve the tension between two principles they hold dear: avoiding government intrusion into private lives, and combating terrorism. The rift became evident at yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the surveillance program, and it may reemerge at Thursday's intelligence committee hearing. Bush and his allies have tried to squelch criticisms by suggesting that it is virtually unpatriotic to question the program's legality."
Has anyone figured out how an inquiry into the legality of the wiretapping program can help terrorists? No one in congress, no one with a sense of decency, and no one with a sense of justice is advocating the absolute abandonment of wiretapping as a tool for use by the government in preventing terrorism. What we are asking is that the use of this tool adhere to the principles of the Constitution, allow the due process of a free society, and comply with our laws. The provisions of FISA are more than adequate, and are quite generous in allowing the government leeway and discretion.
"'Our enemy is listening,' Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Judiciary Committee at the start of a day-long hearing into the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mails with foreign-based people suspected of terrorist ties. 'And I cannot help but wonder if they aren't . . . smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more, or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror.'"
Once again we hear the bogus exaggeration of the potential threats. Yes, the threat is real, but it is not so large, so looming and so devastating that we need to abandon our principles and our rights to contend with it effectively. We would do better with improved physical security at our borders. We would do better with better bomb detection technology in our customs stations. We would do better with better control over immigration. We would do better with better tracking and control over the sale of chemicals that could be potentially used to make IEDs. We could do better by tracking down the illegal arms dealers of the world and, using international cooperation, putting them out of business. We could do better by using improved discretion regarding which countries and regimes we choose to support with our foreign aid and military might. We could do a hell of a lot better. But we do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water. Compromising our basic rights and freedoms does nothing to injure our enemies, but it does injure our citizens and embolden our enemies.
"Several Republican committee members joined Democrats in pressing Gonzales to explain how the recently revealed surveillance program complies with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for secret warrants to monitor communications involving terrorism suspects."
AG Gonzalez's answers were vague, evasive and disconserting. He complained about FISa as being cumbersome, but could not answer questions as to why the administration did not come back to congress to deal with the perceived barriers and entanglements rather than circumvent the provisions of FISA. He also could not explain, to anyone in touch with reality, why those lawyers working for the DOJ that opposed this program were not heard. He could not explain why the administration did not seek out legal opinions as to the legality of the program until it was already in use for over three years.
"There are a lot of people who think you're wrong," the committee chairman, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), told Gonzales. Specter asked why surveillance requests were not taken to the FISA court "as matter of public confidence."
The Bush administration doesn't believe in due process, which is the backbone of public confidence. This administration has demonstrated a propensity for skirting the provisions of law. The detention of prisoners without access to legal counsel or redress by the courts. The willingness to engage in abusive actions against detainees and prisoners. The advocacy for using torture and then using "rendition" to other countries as a way of avoiding the legal encumbrances once those behaviors were out in the public view. AG Gonzalez is the front man for implenting this administration's plan to implement fascism in our country. (c.f. Britt's 14 Characteristics of Fascism: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)
If we look at this administration's leadership and actions, we can see the following:
1. Pervasive nationalism cloaked as patriotism, but used as a whipping post for those that disagree, calling them unpatriotic or accusing them of aiding the enemy.
2. Disdain for human rights, exhibited as unprecedented detention of prisoners, abuse of prisoners, denial of access to lawyers and courts, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance, advocacy for torture, rendition, etc.
3. Identification, and constant reminders, of enemies, threats and potential harm through exaggerating the events and threats. No one is saying there isn't a threat, only that the threat is not as great as this administration is claiming... and the proof of that is in their inability to provide us any evidence or documentation of the threat, or evidence of successful intervention.
4. Giving the military and intelligence arms of the government disproportionate funding and power. Using the military to effect international affairs and foreign policy.
5. Sexism... the ultra-conservatives (especially those with a Christian Right agenda) believe women do not have a place in the job market or rights to their own decisions, as is illustrated by the rhetoric on "family values" and the railing against Roe v. Wade. But taking that one step further, the paranoia exhibited by the Bush administration and the ultra-conservatives that support it regarding the effects on our society if we were to allow gay marriage. Is it just a coincidence that these same arguments were used for decades to impede the civil rights movement?
6. Control over the media. While the Bush administration doesn't fully control the media, the president and his gang are not open to media scrutiny. They refuse to answer many questions put forth to them, deny access to public records, and claim national security interest protection on just about anything they do not want in the open. The control over the media is in effect by denying access, controlling who can attend events, claiming privilege where privilege doesn't exist, and keeping secrets that are only secrets because of embrassment factors.
7. Obsession with national security has become the watchword. We are back in a "cold war" mentality and the administration is talking about the "war against terror" lasting at least 20 years. There is no genuine basis for this entrenchment into a 20 year agenda. It is an obsession rather than an effective plan to protect our nation.
8. The entanglement of religion, and that being a particular brand of Christianity, in our government is becoming overwhelmingly apparent. According to Frontline, A PBS news magazine, President Bush actually holds prayer sessions in the morning and compels those meeting with him to participate. While the requirement to participate is an unspoken matter, there were members of the West Wing that offered quiet objections for fear of repercussions. The "faith-based initiatives" are a slippery slope because there is an overwhelming Christian flavor to these initiatives. The emphasis on using these groups is a smoke screen. While no one objects to people having faith, imposing it upon our government and having it infiltrate into our daily governmental operations is wrong. (c.f. Madison's Remonstrance: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html, which the Supreme Court has relied upon at least a dozen times)
9. Corporatism, also known as pro-Big Business... We have seen the administration, congress and the courts play favorites to big business and provide big businesses with rights, privileges and rulings that overrule the rights of ordinary citizens (c.f. Kelo v New London). We also see corporatism in the scandals involving Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, and those touched by Jack Abramoff.
10. Labor movements are on the outs while the conservatives rule Washington. Conservative courts have shot down rights provided by congress regarding workplace discrimination (c.f. Westinghouse case). Efforts to unionize are being illegally thwarted by companies without consequence of law. While the unions have doen some damage to their own reputations, there is still an overwhelming bias against unions and labor, which we can even see in the recent issues regarding safety at coal mines.
11. Arts, science and humanities have been under attack by the Christian Right, and subsequently by the ultra-conservatives in public office, for some time. There are numerous cases where religious ideology has been supported by the Bush administration and ultra-conservatives in congress to the point where textbooks are modified, stickers and labels are used to cast disdain upon scientific theories, creationism/intelligent design is backdoored into the curriculum and school boards, all with the endorsement of President Bush.
12. There has been a weakening of Miranda, Gideon and other precedents that used to serve to assure police and other law enforcement behaved in a manner consistent with civil rights and the Constitution. The courts have also weakened the doctrine called the "fruits of the poisonous tree" which prevented tainted evidence from an illegal search or seizure from being used in court. The NSA has been turned into a long arm of law enforcement via the warrantless wiretapping. Basic rights of citizens are being circumvented, abridged or abrogated.
13. Cronyism and corruption have become the way of the world inside the beltway, even more so under the leadership of George W. Rice, Gonzalez, Miers, Alito... and so many more. Honest representatives (i.e. Colin Powell) are forced out because they dare to speak up, voice alternatives, or choose to follow the rules. But "yes men" are in constant supply in the Bush administration... and if they say yes long enough and loud enough they get appointed to high office, a seat on the court, or get to work somewhere in the West Wing.
14. Fraudulent elections... seems to me that the first election for George W. wasn't exactly a win until the Republican/conservative-stacked courts had their say... And it seems to me I remember something about fraud in the last election as well (c.f. Ohio - http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/975)
"Gonzales doggedly defended the NSA program, but Specter said in a late-afternoon interview that public uneasiness may force the administration to give ground. 'The whole history of America is a history of balance," Specter said, referring to security and civil liberties. "I think there's a chance the administration might take up the idea of putting this whole issue before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. . . . I think they are seeing concerns in a lot of directions from all segments: Democrats and Republicans in all shades of the political spectrum.' When Gonzales argues that the Constitution gives the president undisputable powers to conduct warrantless surveillance despite a statute aimed at requiring him to seek court approval, such an interpretation 'is not sound,' Specter said in the interview. ". . . He's smoking Dutch Cleanser.'"
Although Senator Specter is a conservative, he doesn't always side with the ultra-conservatives and has a firm grasp of the law and Constitution. While we could disagree with him on many things, at least he approaches most things from a perspective of integrity. The "smoking Dutch Cleanser" line was actually one of the funnier, and more poignant, lines of the day.
"Among those strongly backing Gonzales yesterday were Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), John Cornyn (Tex.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.). 'We are not going hog wild restraining American liberties,' Sessions told Gonzales. 'In fact, the trend has been to provide more and more protections.'"
Perhaps these three have been smoking the Dutch Cleanser as well? Despite being lawyers that have served at high levels of state and federal government, neither of these three have the sense to read and understand the Constitution or take a look at history. All three are from states where the Christian Right have a strangle-hold on politics.
"'The overriding issue that's at stake in these hearings is the stance of the administration that they're going to decide in secrecy which laws they're going to follow and which laws they can bypass,' said Timothy Lynch, director of Cato's project on criminal justice. Conservative Web sites and blogs appear to be "fairly evenly divided" on the NSA program, he said." (http://www.cato.org/)
"Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) joined Specter in challenging Gonzales's assertion that Congress implicitly approved the surveillance tactics when it voted to authorize military force in combating terrorism shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 'This 'statutory force resolution' argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future,' Graham told Gonzales. 'When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche.'"
At least there are some Republicans with some sense of integrity, some sense of liberty, and some understanding of our first principles.
"Democrats making similar arguments have fallen under scathing attacks from some GOP lawmakers. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, put himself at odds with Specter last week after his panel questioned the director of national intelligence and the CIA director about the NSA program."
Senator Roberts' ultra-conservative side has deep roots, with family affiliation with the ultra-conservative views going back to the Eisenhower administration. He hasn't met an ultra-conservative idea he hasn't liked.
"'I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States,' Roberts said."
From where I sit, President Bush and his entourage, the ultra-conservative agenda in congress and the stacked decks of the federal bench are the greatest threat to American liberty. While the threat of terror is real, its effectiveness is ten-fold if the terrorists force us into a mindset that allows our liberties, freedom and first principles to be abandoned and we become the prisoners of our own fears.
posted by Jim Downey at 2:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home