Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[Ron Ecker]

This NYT editorial, coupled with one that I linked to earlier, has me fairly convinced that the CIA is essentially writing these NYT editorials against the Bush/Cheney regime, in much the same way that the CIA used the Washington Post to bring down Nixon. Of course, these editorials alone are not going to send Bush packing prematurely and permanently for Crawford, but to me the tone is remarkably atypical of the establishment corporate media. I can't help but hear in them the distant sound of an angry mockingbird.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html

[Robert Howard]

This NYT editorial, coupled with one that I linked to earlier, has me fairly convinced that the CIA is essentially writing these NYT editorials against the Bush/Cheney regime, in much the same way that the CIA used the Washington Post to bring down Nixon. Of course, these editorials alone are not going to send Bush packing prematurely and permanently for Crawford, but to me the tone is remarkably atypical of the establishment corporate media. I can't help but hear in them the distant sound of an angry mockingbird.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html

Ron, I think you hit the nail on the head, the comparison to the media dynamic that is in play regarding Pres. Bush, and similarities to the Nixon Era post June 72, is beyond reproach, I believe. Ironically if you read the stroy that is on the Internet today about the 'White Houses List of Accomplishments' for the year 2005, is so 'doublespeak and Orwellian in its overtones that the same mentality that brought down the Nixon White House, is what I would say 'front and center' this Christmas 2005. I would also sadly note, that if the same shennanigans that have taken place since Inauguration Day in America were taking place in 1973, the President would have left office long ago. That in itself is a fact that should make everyone aware of just how far the dynamics of Operation Mockingbird and the American peoples apathy have taken us.

[Terry Mauro]

This NYT editorial, coupled with one that I linked to earlier, has me fairly convinced that the CIA is essentially writing these NYT editorials against the Bush/Cheney regime, in much the same way that the CIA used the Washington Post to bring down Nixon. Of course, these editorials alone are not going to send Bush packing prematurely and permanently for Crawford, but to me the tone is remarkably atypical of the establishment corporate media. I can't help but hear in them the distant sound of an angry mockingbird.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html

Ron, I think you hit the nail on the head, the comparison to the media dynamic that is in play regarding Pres. Bush, and similarities to the Nixon Era post June 72, is beyond reproach, I believe. Ironically if you read the stroy that is on the Internet today about the 'White Houses List of Accomplishments' for the year 2005, is so 'doublespeak and Orwellian in its overtones that the same mentality that brought down the Nixon White House, is what I would say 'front and center' this Christmas 2005. I would also sadly note, that if the same shennanigans that have taken place since Inauguration Day in America were taking place in 1973, the President would have left office long ago. That in itself is a fact that should make everyone aware of just how far the dynamics of Operation Mockingbird and the American peoples apathy have taken us.

*****************************************************

From Truthout.org:

Print This Story E-mail This Story

What do you think? The t r u t h o u t Town Meeting is in progress. Join the debate!

Go to Original

NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother

By James Bamford

The New York Times

Sunday 25 December 2005

Washington - Deep in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.

Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another NSA listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.

A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the NSA has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the NSA to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.

According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.

Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the NSA was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the CIA and other spy organizations.

But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the NSA has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the NSA was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."

He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.

The NSA's original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the NSA would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.

Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the NSA is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.

During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.

According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the NSA's director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the NSA intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.

What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.

This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands." General Hayden said.

Still, the NSA doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.

The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the NSA normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the FBI, whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.

Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the NSA would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.

At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.

Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.

In essence, NSA seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."

This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.

In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.

Total Information Awareness, known as TIA, was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.

But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."

The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.

After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."

Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

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

James Bamford is the author of Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency.

-------

Jump to today's TO Features:

Today's TO Features t r u t h o u t Mr. Fitzgerald Calling -------------- John Dear | "Peace on Earth" Means "No More War" Rebecca Solnit | 2005: Bad Year for Goliath Blues in the Green Zone on Christmas Mourners Remember 216,000 Tsunami Victims Matt Frei | Bush Bubble Burst by Troubled 2005 Some Fear Eavesdropping Could Undermine Work of Spy Agency US Missteps Leave Iraqis in the Dark David Sirota | Will the Dems Step Up in the New Year? James Bamford | NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother US Bombing of Iraq Intensifies -------------- t r u t h o u t Town Meeting t r u t h o u t Home

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

Print This Story E-mail This Story

| t r u t h o u t | town meeting | issues | environment | labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia | donate | contact | subscribe |

[Len Colby]

The Bush administration had a 'kangaroo court' at it disposal to issue warrents for wire tapping. The FISA court turned down less than 4 out of over 1000 requests. So Bush's skirting of that minimal judicial oversight is indefesable which is why even Repulicans are criticizing it.

The idea that al-Queda learned anything from these revelations is preposterous, I'm sure that anybody tied to that or any other terrorist group or criminal organisation would always aleast suspect that his phone was being tapped. Bush was furious because the American public found out.

That being said comparisons of the current situation to Nazi Germany are highly exagerated.

Ron I'm currious about your claim that the CIA is trying to drive Bush and Chenny from power. What's their motive seems to me like these clowns are are the CIA's wet dream administration. Do you think they will resign or be reomoved from office? Wouldn't that increase the Democrats chances in 2006 an 2008?

What evidence is there that the CIA was behind Nixon's downfall? Did they expect Agnew or Ford to reverse his China policy?

What evidence is there that the NYT sat on the illegal wiretapping story for a year?

Edited December 26, 2005 by Len Colby

[Mark Knight]

Len, you must be getting old; you're beginning to repeat yourself, all within the same post.

My belief is that the revelation, and Bush's "outrage," are simply a trial baloon to see what the American public will tolerate in the name of the "war on terror." If the public doesn't rise up and demand accountability from the president, that will be seen as the "green light" to proceed even further with the erosion of the freedoms of the average citizen.

Dubya is becoming a Mussolini type of leader; as the rights of the Italians under Mussolini were eroding, the popular saying was "at least he got the trains to run on time." In Bush's case, the response to the rollback of freedom is, "at least there hasn't been another attack on American soil."

What these people don't understand is that, to Bush and his cronies, the enemy IS the American people. As long as the American people have a free press, as long as the American people have the right to freely associate, to freely travel, to freely speak and think, the Bush administration sees a threat. But when we finally reach the place where citizens have to pass through checkpoints before they can travel from one state to another, when they have to have their ID papers "in order" to be allowed to travel, when their phone calls are monitored [and YES, WE ARE ALREADY THERE]...these were all hallmarks of the communist system that America fought so vehemently in the 1950's and 1960's. And while SOLIDARITY, the shipyard union in Gdansk, was hailed as being the sort of institution that brought down the Communist "boogeyman" in Poland, in America the right-wing government is busy showing us how BAD the unions are for America!!!

In just over 60 years, the Uniteds States of America is becoming the very sort of nations that the USA fought wars AGAINST. The principles of freedom that inspired generations of Americans are being taken away, more swiftly since 2001 than at any time in history. And those who conspire to TAKE AWAY our freedoms are being called "PATRIOTS," while those who would preserve them are called "TRAITORS."

Can a more Orwellian vision of America be imagined? I would sincerely hope not.

[Mark Stapleton]

Len, you must be getting old; you're beginning to repeat yourself, all within the same post.

My belief is that the revelation, and Bush's "outrage," are simply a trial baloon to see what the American public will tolerate in the name of the "war on terror." If the public doesn't rise up and demand accountability from the president, that will be seen as the "green light" to proceed even further with the erosion of the freedoms of the average citizen.

Dubya is becoming a Mussolini type of leader; as the rights of the Italians under Mussolini were eroding, the popular saying was "at least he got the trains to run on time." In Bush's case, the response to the rollback of freedom is, "at least there hasn't been another attack on American soil."

What these people don't understand is that, to Bush and his cronies, the enemy IS the American people. As long as the American people have a free press, as long as the American people have the right to freely associate, to freely travel, to freely speak and think, the Bush administration sees a threat. But when we finally reach the place where citizens have to pass through checkpoints before they can travel from one state to another, when they have to have their ID papers "in order" to be allowed to travel, when their phone calls are monitored [and YES, WE ARE ALREADY THERE]...these were all hallmarks of the communist system that America fought so vehemently in the 1950's and 1960's. And while SOLIDARITY, the shipyard union in Gdansk, was hailed as being the sort of institution that brought down the Communist "boogeyman" in Poland, in America the right-wing government is busy showing us how BAD the unions are for America!!!

In just over 60 years, the Uniteds States of America is becoming the very sort of nations that the USA fought wars AGAINST. The principles of freedom that inspired generations of Americans are being taken away, more swiftly since 2001 than at any time in history. And those who conspire to TAKE AWAY our freedoms are being called "PATRIOTS," while those who would preserve them are called "TRAITORS."

Can a more Orwellian vision of America be imagined? I would sincerely hope not.

Great post.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron I'm currious about your claim that the CIA is trying to drive Bush and Chenny from power. What's their motive seems to me like these clowns are are the CIA's wet dream administration.

I don't think the CIA is necessarily trying to drive them from power, I think it's just giving them some payback, for Plame, for the CIA director (Tenant) having to be a fall guy for 9/11, and for whatever else. The CIA has to be careful how it treats them because it was apparently in bed with Cheney and the military on 9/11. I don't know if Bush was in bed with them or not. They probably left him in his crib, which protects him from bumping his widdle head when he passes out from choking on pretzels.

Do you think they will resign or be reomoved from office? Wouldn't that increase the Democrats chances in 2006 an 2008?

I fear they will never leave office. As for the Dems, they have no chance in 2008 or any other time unless they find the gonads to do something about electronic voting fraud, which the Repubs are in the position to control. Even Jeb Bush has now admitted that there may be something wrong with the electronic voting machines, now that the successful hacking of Diebold machines was recently demonstrated in Leon County, Florida. Will anything come of it? I doubt that this hacking demonstration, and Jeb's feigned concern, has even been reported in the corporate media.

What evidence is there that the CIA was behind Nixon's downfall?

James McCord and his door-taping expertise.

What evidence is there that the NYT sat on the illegal wiretapping story for a year?

It was reported in the news.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

One vote for satanic. But also another example of "your deluding yourself it you think this is just about Bush." Why did leading democrats like Mrs. San Francisco Real (2nd) Estate--Nanci Pelosi sit on information about the NSA satelites for at least a year, never saying anything, until the year old Times story was finally deemed "long enough after the election to print"?

It has long been observed that abstract liberties are much more difficult to defend on the hustings than abject lies that provoke fear. Difficult, maybe, but far from impossible where there is an opposition party, with the political will to decry despotic measures from a national pulpit. The national pulpit is essential, if the argument agains the Patriot Act is to gell. Otherwise it will be a bunch of separate regional arguments that never merge into a soundbite that can be heard in the middle of Missouri.

All of which is to say: hit the Democrats first; they're not sleeping, just counting their checks from American Express. THEY are the reason Missouri never hears "the other side of the story" unless it is straw-dogged on the O'Reily Factor.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 2005, THE YEAR OF BIGGER BROTHER ON STEROIDS

Lost in the tumult of the transit strike in NYC last week, there appeared a holiday miracle: a story in the New York Times that might actually be an example of muckraking.

In a very long front page story, the Times documented how the NYPD has been infiltrating protest groups and acting as agents provocateurs. They even had pictures of undercover cops faking thier own arrest IN ORDER TO PROVOKE THE REAL PROTESTERS INTO DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

This behavior isn't surprising to anyone familiar with the history of red squads. That it should be so openly exposed on the front page of NYT: wow! I think we, as concerned citizens, should photocoppy the bejesus out of this article. It can be used to great effect with many liberals who are sceptical of news stories that are "not mainstream."

The article appeared in the 12-22-05 Times.

[Terry Mauro]

One vote for satanic. But also another example of "your deluding yourself it you think this is just about Bush." Why did leading democrats like Mrs. San Francisco Real (2nd) Estate--Nanci Pelosi sit on information about the NSA satelites for at least a year, never saying anything, until the year old Times story was finally deemed "long enough after the election to print"?

It has long been observed that abstract liberties are much more difficult to defend on the hustings than abject lies that provoke fear. Difficult, maybe, but far from impossible where there is an opposition party, with the political will to decry despotic measures from a national pulpit. The national pulpit is essential, if the argument agains the Patriot Act is to gell. Otherwise it will be a bunch of separate regional arguments that never merge into a soundbite that can be heard in the middle of Missouri.

All of which is to say: hit the Democrats first; they're not sleeping, just counting their checks from American Express. THEY are the reason Missouri never hears "the other side of the story" unless it is straw-dogged on the O'Reily Factor.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 2005, THE YEAR OF BIGGER BROTHER ON STEROIDS

Lost in the tumult of the transit strike in NYC last week, there appeared a holiday miracle: a story in the New York Times that might actually be an example of muckraking.

In a very long front page story, the Times documented how the NYPD has been infiltrating protest groups and acting as agents provocateurs. They even had pictures of undercover cops faking thier own arrest IN ORDER TO PROVOKE THE REAL PROTESTERS INTO DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

This behavior isn't surprising to anyone familiar with the history of red squads. That it should be so openly exposed on the front page of NYT: wow! I think we, as concerned citizens, should photocoppy the bejesus out of this article. It can be used to great effect with many liberals who are sceptical of news stories that are "not mainstream."

The article appeared in the 12-22-05 Times.

****************************************************************

Deleted by T. Mauro due to some unsettling news I learned today regarding the copying and pasting from periodicals and newspaper articles, in full, without getting permission from the author or the editor of said periodical or newspaper. Sorry.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

To be fair to the folks at the NYT they were in a difficult situation. If they ran the story a year ago and there had been another terrorist attack Bush and Rove could have blamed it on the Times, even now Bush and his folks are condemning the revelations saying they threaten Nat. Security etc and may blame future attacks on the paper. There are legitimate reasons for a paper to sit on a story if its publication would threaten a on going criminal investigation or “national security” etc. I think the editors/publishers should be given credit for making a tough decision.

I don’t see any evidence that they held the story back until Bush was safely elected. The Times backed Kerry and ran several editorials critical of the President and his policies, in May 2004 they admitted they were wrong in giving credence to reports that Iraq had WMDs, was all that just a ruse? Also the article was first published more than a year after the election, was the story ready for publication before Election Day 2004? Even if it was and the Times published the story shortly before the election the timing would have been questioned - Rove and his crew would accuse them of trying to bolster Kerry. We can not also forget the climate at the time:

- Since 9-11 many Americans decided that they were willing to trade off civil liberties (esp those of Arabs) for increased security

-The Bush’s wartime service debacle for Dan Rather on 60 Minutes happened in October. I believe Rather was set up. The Times would have to be worried about Bush’s power to “get” those who opposed his policies.

- The Jayson Blair scandal which battered the paper’s reputation and self-confidence was just over a year old. Its top editors had been fired, their replacements were fairly new too the job.

Frankly I don’t think it would have made much of a difference even if the story was published before the election, it is just my impression from here in Brazil or did this story only disturb people who would have voted against Bush anyway?

Whether or not Bush had culpability in or foreknowledge of 9-11 he successfully exploited it to create “a climate of fear” to which freedoms such as privacy, free speech and free press have become victims.

Do you think they will resign or be reomoved from office? Wouldn't that increase the Democrats chances in 2006 an 2008?

I fear they will never leave office. As for the Dems, they have no chance in 2008 or any other time unless they find the gonads to do something about electronic voting fraud, which the Repubs are in the position to control. Even Jeb Bush has now admitted that there may be something wrong with the electronic voting machines, now that the successful hacking of Diebold machines was recently demonstrated in Leon County, Florida. Will anything come of it? I doubt that this hacking demonstration, and Jeb's feigned concern, has even been reported in the corporate media.

I'm woried about that too Ron, Rove has now got people beliving that exit polls have a Democratic bias!

What evidence is there that the CIA was behind Nixon's downfall?

James McCord and his door-taping expertise

I missed that reference care to elaborate?.

[Ron Ecker]

During the Watergate burglary, security expert McCord put tape over the lock on the door so that it wouldn't lock. But instead of putting the tape on vertically so that it wouldn't be seen with the door closed, he put it on horizontally, so that the security guard could spot it. As I recall, McCord did this twice: the first time the guard simply removed the tape; the second time the guard decided he better find out what kind of idiot was doing this. So sure enough, the burglars were caught, and the rest is history.

[John Simkin]

Thought you might be interested in reading this article:

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=45277

A U.S. view: So this is how democracy dies by Keith Gottschalk

December 27, 2005

Sorry to interrupt what has been a very entertaining election season in Canada this holiday period, but I regret to inform you that your neighbour's house is on fire.

As reported by Ron Hutcheson of the Knight Ridder new service on Tuesday: A defiant President Bush said he didn't need explicit permission from Congress or the courts to establish a secret domestic surveillance program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

“We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent,” said Bush. “Do I have the legal authority to do so? The answer is, absolutely.”

What this means, I'm afraid, is that a dictatorship is being born on your southern border.

Backing Bush up is his lapdog hireling, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who cites Article II of the Constitution as one rationale for Bush's power grab:

Article II of the Constitution declares “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

The other rationale Bush claims Congress gave him authorizing the use of military force after the 9/11 attacks which authorized the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks ... ”

Respected Constitutional scholar and George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley disagrees strenuously with any assertion Bush acted legally. On the O'Reilly Factor, Turley said the following:

“I think that this operation was based upon a federal crime. Under federal law, there's only two ways in order for the President to engage in the surveillance of citizens in this way. They can get a Title 3 warrant, which is the traditional electronic surveillance warrant in criminal cases, or they can get a so-called FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant from the secret court. But it is a crime for someone, acting under the color of law, to order surveillance — or to conduct surveillance — unless you've gone to a judge under one of those two schemes.”

All right then, what we have is an impeachable offense, yes?

Well, yes, but in the new American governmental paradigm, there's apparently little stomach in the Republican controlled Congress to do what must be done, according to Hutcheson's story.

Apparently the best we'll get is an assertion by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that there will be hearings held sometime early next year. This from the man who formulated the “magic bullet” theory to explain the unexplainable in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Pardon me if allowing Specter to talk to death what is essentially treason by the President to the Constitution of the United States does not strike me as necessary action.

You may not realize it since it's not been reported in the mainstream press but only Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) have called for impeachment inquiries.

Over on the right wing blogs, they're celebrating the death of American democracy and the rise of a new fascism, which many in this country have always wanted, truth be told.

Like Bush they are angrier at the leak of the secret wiretaps than by the fact that, paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, they've just lost their republic.

Further, Bush said:

“My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.”

and:

“I think I've got the authority to move forward,” he said, adding: “It's legal to make the decisions I'm making ... An open debate about law would say to the enemy, 'Here's what we're going to do.'”

So let me get this straight. The President of the United States decides its okay to wiretap Americans within the United States without a warrant or any other oversight because of a “war” he created, attacking a country that did nothing to harm the United States and now claims he has Constitutional authority to commit a Federal crime?

And still a third of Americans see nothing wrong with this because they've been brainwashed into believing that if the President isn't given the powers of a dictator the mullahs will be marching down Main Street?

And after committing what most reputable Constitutional scholars see as a slam dunk Federal crime and an impeachable offense, only two Democrats have the guts to ask for impeachment inquiries even after the President has all but admitted his crime and dared the public to do anything about it, tarring those who uncovered this crime as treasonous (pot, kettle, black)?

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave? This is a country under the rule of law, not of men?

This is the “democracy” we're killing people to spread around the world?

Are we serious?

Bush is serious — about being the new American Caesar. Check this out from the Knight-Ridder article:

Bush bristled when a reporter asked whether a decades-long war against terrorism might lead to “a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?”

“First of all, I disagree with your assertion of 'unchecked power,'” Bush snapped. “To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject.”

My follow up question to Bush, if allowed to ask, would have been: “Then, Mr. President, could you delineate any particular action under what you see as your given authority during the duration of this war, that you would need any prior approval for by Congress or the courts?”

And watch him fume. For the truth behind whatever answer he might give is that he believes there is no check on his authority. All he has to do for any action he wishes to take is invoke 9/11, claim we're at “war” (which will last however long he wishes it to), claim the Constitution gives him the power as Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, and he can rule by decree.

And too many Americans think this is fine. So this is how democracy dies.

Daniel Webster once wrote: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

[Ron Ecker]

Specter will hold hearings and conclude with the following theory on how the illegal surveillance happened. The idea for the surveillance hit Karl Rove in the head and exited his mouth, entering the right ear of George W. Bush and exiting the left, meeting virtually no resistance as it traversed Bush's head. Dick Cheney then found the idea in almost pristine condition, just slightly warped as any idea would be having gone through Bush's brain. Cheney then approved the order to the NSA.

This theory will become known to Americans as the president's illegal surveillance theory, or PIST.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Specter will hold hearings and conclude with the following theory on how the illegal surveillance happened. The idea for the surveillance hit Karl Rove in the head and exited his mouth, entering the right ear of George W. Bush and exiting the left, meeting virtually no resistance as it traversed Bush's head. Dick Cheney then found the idea in almost pristine condition, just slightly warped as any idea would be having gone through Bush's brain. Cheney then approved the order to the NSA.

This theory will become known to Americans as the president's illegal surveillance theory, or PIST.

Ron, the above is worthy of the late, great Bill Hicks. Funny, because at bottom its true. LOL.

[Len Colby]

Specter will hold hearings and conclude with the following theory on how the illegal surveillance happened. The idea for the surveillance hit Karl Rove in the head and exited his mouth, entering the right ear of George W. Bush and exiting the left, meeting virtually no resistance as it traversed Bush's head. Dick Cheney then found the idea in almost pristine condition, just slightly warped as any idea would be having gone through Bush's brain. Cheney then approved the order to the NSA.

This theory will become known to Americans as the president's illegal surveillance theory, or PIST.

Ron the only problem with your PIS theory is that it didn't exit anyones ass LOL

Isn't it heartening that Alberto Gonzales the same guy who rationalized the legality of torture backs Bush on unauthorized surveillance. I've heard talk Bush is considering this guy for the Supreme Court

I believe. Ironically if you read the stroy that is on the Internet today about the 'White Houses List of Accomplishments' for the year 2005, is so 'doublespeak and Orwellian in its overtones that the same mentality that brought down the Nixon White House, is what I would say 'front and center' this Christmas 2005.

I missed that Robert, do you have a link?