NATIONAL SECURITY
Time for Answers

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first congressional hearings on President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be the lone witness. If his past statements are an indication, Gonzales will provide few details about the controversial program, hiding behind the guise of national security. Yet even if Gonzales continues to refuse to speak forthrightly and honestly about warrantless domestic spying, senators must at least press him to respond in detail to the facts and statements already in the public record. Senior administration officials -- including Gonzales -- have made demonstrably false statements about the program, sometimes under oath. Gonzales must be called to account. Below, some questions that he should answer:

WHY DID YOU TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN 2005 THAT WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING WAS A 'HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION' THAT YOU WOULD NOT APPROVE OF? According to President Bush, Alberto Gonzales personally approved of the warrantless domestic spying program while serving as White House counsel. By circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which (along with Title III) are the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted on U.S. persons, the program violates federal law. During his confirmation hearings for Attorney General in January 2005, Gonzales was asked by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) about this precise issue: "I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he -- does he have that power?" Despite having personally approved of just this set of events, Gonzales called Feingold's inquiry "sort of a hypothetical situation," then stated, "Senator, this president is not -- I -- it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

WAS GENERAL HAYDEN ACCURATE WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT ALL SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES FALLS UNDER FISA STATUTES? As ThinkProgress first documented (which Newsweek notes this week), General Michael Hayden misled Congress about warrantless domestic surveillance in October 2002 while serving as NSA director. In sworn testimony before the Joint Select Intelligence Committee, Hayden stated that any surveillance of persons in the United States -- including surveillance related to known terrorists -- was done consistent with FISA. At the time of his statements, Hayden was fully aware of the presidential order to conduct warrantless domestic spying issued the previous year, but he stated false information anyway. Apparently, Hayden believed that he had been legally authorized to conduct the surveillance, but told Congress that he had no authority to do exactly what he was doing.

YOU HAVE CONTRADICTED GENERAL HAYDEN REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROBABLE CAUSE AND REASONABLE BASIS IN RELATION TO FISA STANDARDS. WHO IS CORRECT? On January 23, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden affirmed that one of the functions of the NSA program was "to lower the standard from what they call for, which is basically probable cause to a reasonable basis," stating that the "trigger is quicker and a bit softer [for the NSA program] than it is for a FISA warrant." One day later, Alberto Gonzales contradicted Hayden's remarks. In an interview, Gonzales stated that the legal standard used for the NSA program was "equivalent to that required for complying with the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures." The reasonable basis standard, he said, "is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard."

WHY WOULD CONGRESS HAVE REFUSED TO LOWER FISA STANDARDS IF, AS YOU CHARGE, IT HAD ALREADY DONE SO? Alberto Gonzales has argued that "we believe [warrantless domestic spying] has been authorized by the Congress" via the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), though he did concede that "signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force." Yet, when asked whether the Bush administration should have asked Congress to amend FISA to allow greater flexibility, Gonzales stated, "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get." In other words, as one analyst phrased it, "Congress would never have granted Bush permission to do something that, according to Gonzales, it had already granted him permission to do."

WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THE SUPREME COURT HAD AGREED THAT THE 2001 AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING? On January 23, President Bush argued that the Congress' 2001 authorization of force, upheld by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, establishes his authority to conduct warrantless domestic spying. But as the Congressional Research Service noted in its January 5 review of the administration's legal rationale for the NSA program, "the Court [in Hamdi] appears to have relied on a more limited interpretation of the scope of the AUMF than that which the Administration had asserted in its briefs." Moreover, in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 US 297 that warrantless domestic surveillance was unconstitutional. According to the Court, Fourth Amendment freedoms "cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute." Since the passage of FISA in 1978, "the Supreme Court has not touched this issue in the area of national security," according to William Banks, a national security expert at Syracuse Law School.

WHY WON'T YOU RELEASE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEMOS REGARDING WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING IF THEY ALL AFFIRM THE LEGALITY OF THE PROGRAM? Both President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales have argued that the Justice Department has repeatedly approved the legality of warrantless domestic spying. Last week, Bush said of the program, "[I]t's legal. ... And we review it a lot, and we review not only at the Justice Department, but with a good legal staff inside NSA." Likewise, Gonzales said, "My Department - the Department of Justice - has carefully reviewed this program for legality." Nevertheless, the Bush administration is stonewalling bipartisan requests for its classified legal opinions on the program from members of the judiciary committee.


ETHICS
Out With the Old, In With the Old

After making Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) the new House Majority Leader, the right-wing immediately began spinning his victory as a call for reform. "There was a feeling, 'We've got a chance to interject a little change here,'" Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) said. "John Boehner represented more change." Boehner touted his reformer credentials in the run-up to yesterday's vote. "I've got a long record of real reform in Congress," Boehner said, "and I think I can lead the effort to bring about the kind of reforms the American people are expecting from Congress." This, coming from a man who once handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor, rings a bit hollow. Boehner does not take the Abramoff scandal or lobbying reform seriously and has said the whole push for reform will be over "six to eight weeks from now." The "perpetually tanned conservative" is "an active member of the lobbying-governing culture that has taken hold" in Washington -- so don't expect real change any time soon.

BIG MAN ON K STREET: Boehner, who earlier this month claimed he would scrap the K Street Project, is an odd choice to help push a lobbying reform agenda through Congress. From 1995 to 1998, he held a meeting "every Thursday morning in the speaker's Capitol suite with about a dozen of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington to coordinate plans for pushing their conservative agenda." During his stint as "policy traffic cop for the business community," Boehner "assembled a loyal and effective network of lobbyists" with whom he will undoubtedly coordinate in his new position. These close relationships have benefited those close to Boehner. The Center for Public Integrity documented at least 14 lobbyists who had walked through the revolving door from Boehner's congressional offices to K Street. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) summed it up best: "The problem John faces is that he's so close to K Street; that's the challenge he's got."

SPECIAL INTERESTS SAY JUMP, BOEHNER ASKS HOW HIGH: Sallie Mae and other loan companies have generously donated to Boehner. In exchange, the former chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce "shepherded through Congress student-loan legislation that will affect Sallie Mae's bottom line and offered assurances that he will protect such lenders' interests." PoliticalMoneyLine examined the 2003-2004 financial disclosure forms from Boehner's Freedom Project PAC. They found that out of $572,719 of individual donations, those "affiliated with the private student-loan industry gave the PAC $220,020, including $52,670 from officers of Sallie Mae." In another analysis, the Center for Responsive Politics discovered that Sallie Mae is Freedom Project's biggest donor, with donations totaling $122,470 since 1989. "Boehner has sponsored legislation strongly supported by private student lenders to restrict the ability of the U.S. Department of Education to make government student loans less expensive by cutting fees," the Washington Post reported. Recently, Boehner supported a bill that "could deal a serious blow to the competing direct-loan program" by making student-aid budgets discretionary (varying year to year), rather than mandatory. Sallie Mae and other private companies are hoping this will allow Congress to reduce funding to their direct-loan competition.

A SPECIAL INTEREST PARTY ANIMAL: Boehner enjoys the lifestyle that being a powerful member of Congress affords. He reportedly "loves golfing with corporate contributors at some of this country's best courses" and "enjoys dining at Washington's fine restaurants, often in the company of lobbyists." An analysis by the USA Today found that in a five-year span, Boehner took 31 trips funded by special interests, 22 of which he took with his wife. Again, Sallie Mae has shown other interests the way to Boehner's heart. A Sallie Mae lobbyist "hosted a fund-raising dinner in her suburban Washington home for his leadership political action committee" and "a majority of the company's top executives wrote checks for the event." The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, "On several occasions, Mr. Boehner was a guest of Albert L. Lord, who was Sallie Mae's chief executive officer from 1997 to 2005 and is now chairman of its board, on the company's corporate jet, primarily for golf outings in Florida."



Under the Radar

IRAQ -- ANOTHER DAMAGING BRITISH MEMO: The Guardian reports that a newly-disclosed British memo provides evidence that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq at least two months prior to the invasion. "A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr. Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons program." On March 6, 2003, more than a month after this reported meeting, Bush assured the American public, "I've not made up my mind about military action." The British memo also makes a startling revelation that Bush may have been baiting Iraq into a war. According to the Guardian, the U.S. was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors." Bush added, "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]."

ECONOMY -- OBAMA EXTENDS CHILD TAX CREDIT TO MORE LOW-INCOME PARENTS: Yesterday Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced legislation temporarily extending the Child Tax Credit to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. Under the Bush administration, the $47 billion child tax credit left out families that earn less than $11,000 -- the families who most need the extra $1,000 credit -- meaning "a family with one full-time worker at the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour receives nothing." This legislation "achieves two goals. First, it helps keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina," Obama said. "Second, in a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected, it sets aside less than 1 percent for our neediest children."

ADMINISTRATION -- BUSH APPOINTEE COVERS UP FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE AT NASA: In the midst of reports that NASA officials have muzzled scientists from speaking out on global warming, an FBI-led watchdog agency has opened up an investigation into "multiple complaints accusing NASA Inspector General (IG) Robert W. Cobb of failing to investigate safety violations and retaliating against whistle-blowers." IGs are charged to "prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement," but according to Cobb's current and former employees, he has brushed complaints under the rug. Cobb, appointed by President Bush in 2002, previously worked in the White House as an ethics lawyer and is one of nine IGs with no audit experience. Employees stated "they believed Cobb was too friendly with then-NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe" and "suppressed audits, stopped investigations and otherwise edited IG activities to avoid embarrassing the agency or its leadership."

IRAQ -- BUSH REQUESTS $70 BILLION MORE FOR IRAQ: "The White House said Thursday that it planned to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two countries to $120 billion this year, the highest since the Sept. 11 attacks." The new spending will add to the cost of an Iraq war that is currently estimated at $250 billion. Total war spending since 9/11 would rise to $440 billion. The $120 billion request for 2006 is $35 billion more than the $85 billion that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last year that the Pentagon would need for this fiscal year. As a result, the deficit may exceed $400 billion, well beyond the recent CBO projection of $337 billion. The Iraq spending comes on top of a nearly five percent increase in the Defense Department budget. "People in the White House said [former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey] was way off," said budget expert Steven Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent defense research group in Washington. "It turns out he was. But just not in the direction they thought."

DEATH PENALTY -- REFORM FOR A BROKEN SYSTEM: At both the state and federal levels, the U.S. capital punishment system continues to be plagued by racial bias, wrongful convictions, and inadequate representation for defendants. There are roughly an equal number of black and white murder victims in the United States each year. Yet "80 per cent of the more than 840 people put to death in the USA since 1976 were convicted of crimes involving white victims, compared to the 13 per cent who were convicted of killing blacks." One in 10 of the executions since 1977 have been of mentally ill offenders. Amnesty International has released a new report focusing on the systemic problems confronting the mentally ill and chronicling the cases of 100 mentally ill offenders who have been executed. More and more Americans are learning the "hard lesson -- that our criminal justice system is fallible, and that courts may convict the wrong person." The Constitution Project has offered guidelines for capital punishment reform, timed to correspond with an important death penalty hearing in the Senate Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee.


Link (with further links embedded in text): http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site...WJcP7H&b=917053

thnx for the summary Choppin.....I am eager to see how the NSA hearings pan out....and to the Gonzales's testimony.....

RE: Patriot ACT

February 3, 2006


"I voted against another short-term extension of the Act because it does not include the modest but critical safeguards I and others have fought for over the past four years.

In the five weeks since the Patriot Act was extended, the House and White House have refused to engage in serious bipartisan negotiations on fixing the problems with the Act. Now, they are apparently offering to make a few minor changes to the Act. I will strongly oppose, and use every option at my disposal to stop, any deal to reauthorize the Patriot Act that does not protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans, including making sure that the government cannot obtain library, medical and other sensitive records about innocent Americans. Making only a few insignificant changes will not be enough."

Senator Russ Feingold

Patriot Act - the gilded shroud that hides the truth! and to shield non-American deeds and acts!

I don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I'm quite sure Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, et al. envisioned fighting a war to gain independence from the top military power of the period in order to establish a government that has the power to spy on its own citizens. (End Sarcasm). Seriously, whenever you hear a Con call something "unamerican" or "patriotic," or consider something Bush has done "unamerican," just ask yourself what the Founding Fathers of this country would have likely thought about the matter. Is there any person with even the most elementary understanding of American history who can claim that the Founding Fathers envisioned an American government authorized to spy on its own people? I think the fact that the Fourth Amendment exists tells you that they have all rolled over in their graves, in unison, to throw up, at the thought of a President calling domestic spying "patriotic."