Shakesville

Everyone Who Buys This, Raise Their Hand

And then I’d like to talk to you about a bridge…

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

But gee—didn’t our Attorney General just tell us the other day that it was “very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States”? Huh.

Talk about a moving target. The administration refused to comment because it could compromise national security. The next day, the president used his weekly radio address to not only confirm its existence, but explain parts of how it worked. It was legal under FISA. It was separate from FISA, but legal under executive privilege. It only applied to communications at least one side of which was outside the country. Well, some wholly in-country communications were monitored, too. But it was an accident!

Credibility level: Zip.

Courtesy of Yukon Cornelius

It's gold! Gooooold!

Well, actually, it's your Holiday Music Download for the day. Come on over to Spudville and grab 'em. And remember, it's Christmas every day in Heaven!

FISA Judge Quits in Protest

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, a Clinton appointee to the federal bench who was selected to serve on the FISA court by former Chief Justice Rehnquist, has resigned from the court. His resignation letter addressed to current Chief Justice John Roberts did not provide an explanation for his decision, but:

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

The same story also notes that GOP senators Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have joined Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for an investigation into the spy program, which Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is promising early next year.

Hopefully the investigations will be another bipartisan success for the White House.

(Hat tip to Shaker Dean.)

wingnuttier than a fruitcake

Ever wonder just how weird things could get in Kansas? What could it be now, you ask? Bet you wouldn't guess fetus ornaments! Yes, that's right. Fetus. Ornaments. Check it out:

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- A Christmas tree that a pregnancy counseling organization provided to a women's fitness center prompted three people to cancel their memberships because the tree is decorated with plastic figures meant to represent fetuses.

Lorinda Hartzler, co-owner of Body Boutique, said that when Birthright of Lawrence asked about providing the tree it said it had no political agenda and wanted only to assist pregnant women in their decision-making process.

And you believed that? Seriously? I mean didn't you think something was up when the tree came like this:

The tree had about a dozen blue and pink stockings, each stuffed with a plastic figure and attached card that labeled the dolls as being "between 11 and 12 weeks old."

Coupons for Birthright videos, pamphlets and children's clothes were also in the tree. Coupons included savings on a video titled "After the Choice," another video showing abortion procedures and a brochure on emergency contraception known as the "morning-after pill."

Nothing says "Merry Christmas" like coupons for "abortion procedure videos".

Just what you want to see at your gym, isn't it?

(hat tip Pam, cross-posted at expostulation)

Question of the Day

Via Broadsheet, I found the DYKEdolls website, which features an array of cool lesbian dolls (some of which are for adults only), including Badass, pictured, developed by S. Perdomo as to way to reflect a part of current culture she felt was underrepresented by dolls—and because she got sucky dolls as a kid. I would have liked getting a DYKEdoll when I was a kid, since they’re a lot closer to the tomboy I was than Barbie ever was.

I think adults close to me figured out pretty quickly I wasn’t the babydoll type, so I didn’t get too many crap dolls. One year, I got the most awesome Lone Ranger and Tonto doll set (not action figures—Barbie/G.I. Joe-sized), and they came with horses, which was the real draw—horses with movable legs and everything! The horses each had an intricate set of rubber bridle and saddle, which had to be pieced together by the nearest tolerant grown-up. My mom spent what had to be nine hours putting all that crap together, only to have me ask her to take them off, because I thought the horses looked prettier without them.

I was by no means a spoiled kid, but I pretty much always got the stuff I wanted, mainly because I never wanted very much. One year, my entire Christmas list was: Football. (Which, incidentally, led to one of my first lessons about sexism—the boys wouldn’t tackle a girl, even in spite of my pout-for-equality, until my team starting winning every game.) The only thing I always wanted and never got was an invisibility cloak, but I don’t think that had anything to do with Santa.

What about you? Best toy? Worst toy? Toy you always wanted and never got?

Echelon 2.0

Patrick’s earlier post may well have been headed in the right direction. If Bush’s spy program was a vast, untargeted data mine, it explains the warrant evasion; no court would order a warrant for something so broad. It also explains former Senator Graham’s contention that he left intelligence briefings “with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy.” Ezra’s got a good one at Tapped, which includes Senator Jay Rockefeller’s 2003 letter of protest addressed to Cheney.

Rockefeller, in this letter, admits his inability to comprehend either the program's technical reach or its legality. And, due to restrictions on the briefing, he's not allowed to consult an expert about what he's heard. This is oversight by the blind and the mute, which is no oversight at all.

Pelosi and Reid also knew something about the program; Pelosi notes that the Bush administration offered information by way of notification, but not for approval, and Reid mentions having only been briefed “a few months ago.” I’m not sure whether any Dems who were aware of the program were legally able to publicly object. I suspect not. If that’s the case, the White House basically made them aware of the program just so they could claim to have had Congressional oversight on an illegal program the existence of which Congress could not acknowledge.

I’m Mad at You Just Because I Know Who You Are

Baby Luv

Not to mention that glob of uselessness to which you’re clinging, who’s no doubt already replaced your fuzzy ass with some fugly mini-dog. At least you got in a good face-scratching while you had the chance.

Vegans Among Us

While idiot duo Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt genuflect to King George and serve up a heaping helping of apologia in the WaPo, and decade-late Byron York goes after Clinton in the National Review Online, the Times reports that while the NSA spied without warrants, the FBI was surveilling environmental, animal cruelty, anti-poverty, and vegan groups.

The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

[…]

"It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

The documents, secured via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the FBI has used employees, interns (!), and confidential informants to “develop leads on potential criminal activity,” in addition to monitoring the groups’ websites and protests. Seriously, don’t they have anything better to do? How about that anthrax mailer? Ever find him?

When was the last time anyone was killed by Greenpeace or the Catholic Workers, for fuck’s sake? Give me a break. Utterly ridiculous. I’m amazed Russell Dalrymple isn’t on their 10 Most Wanted list.

Support Conyers

Ask your Congress Member to support Congressman Conyers’ efforts to investigate the administration and possible impeachable offenses, and to censure Bush and Cheney.

Read House Resolution 635, which would create a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Read HR 636 and HR 637, which would, respectively, censure Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and—in the case of President Bush—for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.

More at AfterDowningStreet.org / CensureBush.org here.

Conyers: Censure, Investigate

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) has just issued a press release announcing he has introduced resolutions to censure Bush and Cheney for abuse of power and to create a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the administration’s misconduct with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

The Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciay Committee Democratic Staff, upon which the introductions of these resolutions is based, is here.

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. There is at least a prima facie case that these actions that federal laws have been violated - from false statements to Congress to retaliating against Administration critics.

In response to the Report, I have already taken several initial steps. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. In addition, I have introduced Resolutions regarding both President Bush (H. Res. 636) and Vice-President Cheney (H. Res. 637) proposing that they be censured by Congress based on indisputable evidence of unaccounted for misstatements and abuse of power in the public record. There are a number of additional recommendations in the Report that I expect to be taking up in the coming weeks and months.

What can I say? Go get ’em!

Ask your Congress Member to support Congressman Conyers’ efforts.

(More here.)

Oregon Rape Case Update

Carla from Preemptive Karma attended the girl’s sentencing, and has an update here.

The Oregonian also reports that the judge in the case, Peter Ackerman, used the occasion of her sentencing for filing a false report to defend himself, criticize the media, and blame her defense attorney for the outcome of the case against her:

When Ackerman convicted the woman Dec. 2, he said he relied in part on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and friends of the girl, who said she did not appear to be traumatized in the days after the incident.

Advocates for rape victims criticized that reasoning. But Ackerman said Monday that the woman's lawyer should have offered expert testimony to counter prosecution witnesses.

A sitting judge in the position of hearing a rape trial should not require an expert witness to explain to him that there is no typical response to rape. Why he would weigh more heavily the testimony of the girl’s “friends” than her own is beyond me, and it shouldn’t have required a rape expert to balance the scales of justice. Experts aren’t usually called in to refute friends’ opinions.

The case is under appeal, and I suspect this isn’t its end. I’ll continue to post updates on this story for its duration.

Original post.

Fun with Search Functions

Just for the heck of it, I entered “wire tap” into WhiteHouse.org’s search function, to see if I could find any place where the administration had warned us that they were using them without warrants. It turns out, not so much.

July 2005:

The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.

The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.

June 2005 again:

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals…

Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.

[The Patriot Act] allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists. If criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they are likely to flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other actions to evade arrest. Therefore, Federal courts in narrow circumstances have long allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time notifying a subject that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. The USA PATRIOT Act codified the procedures for obtaining these warrants, which require court approval. Notice is always provided, but with reasonable delay, enabling law enforcement to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand.

April 2004 again:

[T]o give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law.

And for extra, super-duper fun, read this July 2005 edition of Ask the White House.

(Oh, I see someone else had the same idea, and found yet another interesting blast from the past.)

Happy News

Mr. Shakes will be so proud…and he has every reason to be. Seven gay couples have taken part in the first civil partnership ceremonies in Scotland. The pictured couple, John Maguire and Laurence Scott-Mackay, were the first, and although the couple currently resides in Washington, D.C., they are both Scotland natives, and flew to Edinburgh, where they first met in 1992, to get hitched. When the pair was born in the early 1970’s, homosexuality was still a crime in Scotland. It was legalized in 1981, and now, after 13 years together and the passage of Britain’s Civil Partnership Act, they are being recognized as full citizens with equal rights.

Mr Maguire said of his big day: "It's absolutely incredible. For the first time in our relationship and for the first time in the history of the lesbian and gay movement, our government and our country is saying 'you're valid, your relationship is worth something. It's got to be rewarded, it's got to be encouraged. Here's the benefits, here's the rights, here's the responsibilities - but you're equal'. There's definitely a sense of history about it, there's no mistaking that. It's an incredibly awesome experience. It's mind-blowing and breathtaking.”

Scotland will also automatically recognize couples who have married in other countries where gay marriage was legal.

It’s unfortunate that Mssrs Maguire and Scott-Mackay will not be returning to a country that provides them the same respect. Shame on us.

(Thank you to Julien’s List and The Moderate Voice contributor Holly for the pointer.)

Snoopgate

Yes, Virginia, it now has a name—and a scathing write-up in Newsweek, care of Jonathan Alter.

I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation…

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. … No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.

My first thought: Fuck, what an unrepentant liar Bush really, really is. He doesn’t give a crap about anything but unlimited, unchecked power. My second thought: What the hell is wrong with the NY Times that, with all the other caveats they mentioned alongside the original story, trying to explain their decision to publish only now, they failed to mention their publisher and executive editor had been summoned to the Oval Office by a criminal desperate to keep his lawbreaking secret? Has Sulzberger uncovered some Producers-like scenario where he will somehow make more money if his paper’s credibility plummets into negative territory? Yeesh.

Meanwhile, the LA Times questions the NY Times’ decision to delay the publication of the story, even though they had the goods before last year’s presidential election.

Maha’s got more here, and John Howard breaks it down is his inimitable way.

Houston, We Have a Timetable

At least it certainly seems that way, even though in his speech Sunday night, the president said:

I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders – not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

See, Eleanor Stables at CQ Daily dug up this little gem (via Wonkette):

While debate continues on when U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell is planning for a victory celebration - sooner rather than later, it seems.

The Kentucky Republican is the sponsor of an amendment to the 2006 defense authorization bill (HR 1815) that would authorize up to $20 million - minus private contributions - to commemorate the success of U.S. armed forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The money would help pay for celebrations honoring the return of military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan “with appropriate ceremonies, activities and awards commemorating their sacrifice and service to the United States and the cause of freedom in the Global War on Terrorism.” Most of the funding would be used by the Pentagon to cover the costs of military personnel participating in events held in Washington. The amendment, which was adopted by unanimous consent, would also allow the president to designate a special day for the observances.

Hmm. Curious. Now why on earth would Senator McConnell be seeking to procure funds—$20 million, no less—to celebrate the homecoming of troops unless they were, uh, coming home?

Amanda Marcotte, who gets the hat tip for this one, suspects the timing might have something to do with fact that the GOP’s chances in next year’s midterms are looking ever more dire. What better to rally the troops at home than bringing home the troops?

The president keeps telling us that we shouldn’t pin our hopes of withdrawal on Iraqi elections. I never suspected that the troops’ homecoming would be instead contingent on ours.

Question of the Day: The I-Word

UPDATE: Senator Barbara Boxer is on the case, too.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

--------------------------

Passed on by Oddjob, who hat tips Raw Story:

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

…Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

"Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."

Do you agree? Is this an impeachable offense? Even if it is, do you think he ought to be impeached, or is that a bad idea for political, or other, reasons?

I’m going to guess you know what I think, although not everyone agrees with me, which is exactly why I think it’s an interesting discussion.

Flummoximosity

With a slip of the tongue, U.S. President George W. Bush briefly turned Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein on Monday…

"And guess what happened. Saddam ...Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated. We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets."

The Bush administration sought to convince Americans before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government had links to bin Laden's al Qaeda. No such links have been proven.

I love you, Reuters.

Fighting Dems

Raw Story’s Larisa Alexander and John Byrne are reporting that tomorrow the Democrats will release a massive report critiquing the administration’s Iraq war policies.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats, spearheaded by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), are set to release possibly the sharpest congressional critique to date surrounding Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

The report, titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War," is slotted to be made available to the public Tuesday...

According to Democratic aides, the report will focus on alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence by the White House, specifically covering such topics as the Downing Street Minutes as well as the White House position on the Geneva Conventions and international law as regards its policies toward prisoners of war. Sources say the report is slated to be published as a book.

I’m…speechless. And I’m looking forward to reading this document.

Harrumph

Bush: U.S. must think, act differently

Funny. That’s the same message I have for him.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we have to start thinking and acting differently, doesn't that mean the terrorists have officially won?)

Depress Conference

Bush’s press conference this morning was the usual abysmal affair. Tapped’s Sam Rosenfeld hits the high (and low) point:

The answers George W. Bush offered at this morning's press conference regarding domestic wiretapping confirm that the administration's substantive defense of the policy rests on the powers granted to him by the congressional authorization for the use of force against al Qaeda. The only possible inference one could make from such reasoning is that the administration interprets that authorization as giving it essentially limitless authority to circumvent U.S. law however it sees fit.

To his great, lasting credit, a journalist asked the president directly this morning what limits he thinks exist on his administration's ability to circumvent U.S. law, given the reasoning he has offered in justification of the domestic spying policy. Bush got very testy at this question, and basically said that the existing checks on his ability to circumvent U.S. law consisted of the oath he took to uphold the law and the requirement he honors to inform relevant members of Congress of such policies in classified briefings. Which basically means the only real restriction on the president's ability to aggrandize executive power in the name of fighting terror is the Bible he swore on.

…At this point Congress exists to be briefed in secret about the administration's actions, including actions that suspend or circumvent existing U.S. law. The president made that perfectly clear today.

Anyone still defending this steaming pile of hooey at this point is not only not a conservative, but an advocate for the wholesale dismantlement of the American democratic model. Simple as that. It’s not parisanism, it’s not a game of I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong; it’s a statement of fact. Genuine conservatives/libertarians, with whom I disagree on just about everything, also find this appalling (via Bérubé), and for the same reasons. For anyone who cares a whit about the principles upon which this nation was founded, the Bush administration’s machinations are indefensible. Anyone else endorses a vision for our future that will harm us more than any terrorist ever could.