Comments (80)

M M wrote on August 1, 2007 6:45 PM:

Paul,

Check out Newsweek article just posted about secret FISA ruling that shot down the NSA wiretapping program (both Bush's TSP version and even wiretapping two foreign subjects if the call went through a US telco trunk); this is why Bush/McConnell are pushing so hard for an emergency revision--in the irony of ironies they want the audit of the program to be under the AG (Gonzoles) instead of the FISA court (which rotates the judge who reviews the program every 45 days so that its inevitable it bumps into a dem appointed judge at some point).

mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 6:53 PM:

Gonzales does not know how to use commas. Great, just freaking thrilling to know how stupid he and his proofers are. Imagine how stupid someone has to be to make GW feel smart. Umm, Miers. Umm Regent U.

Harvard Law must be down to using crayons. Maybe I'll apply.

Official A wrote on August 1, 2007 7:01 PM:

And after that week, he will have just one more week to clarify. Then, after that, ...

Sojourner wrote on August 1, 2007 7:02 PM:

I sure hope the leaders of the intelligence committees will hold their ground and NOT allow AGAG to oversee this. I am losing any hope that any of our so-called leadership in DC is capable of doing anything right!

Schmoogelheimer wrote on August 1, 2007 7:02 PM:

Um, wasn't YESTERDAY the deadline? And then today was the extension? How many more does he get?!

michael wrote on August 1, 2007 7:06 PM:

so now he's giving him another deadline? are you kidding me? what happens when he misses that deadline? you'll be very angry with him? i don't get it. what the hell are they waiting for? and why is harriet miers still walking the streets?

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 7:07 PM:

This extension demonstrates just how toothless the old lions of the Senate have become. The corrupt Republicans won't uphold the Constitution, and the Democrats can't even lift it. How embarrassing.

Time for a new Pride.

Max Renn wrote on August 1, 2007 7:17 PM:

By the time Leahy and his band of half-speed dysfunctionaries actually do anything but bluster, Gonzalez will be in an office on K Street with his feet up on the desk & Bush'll be out of office cuttin' brush back at the ranch full time. Cheney, of course, will be the new SecDef under President Gingrich, a surprise victor in a narrowly contested election decided by the Courts.

The democrats will be getting lots of air time, with all the investigations ensuring their own reelections but just not quite able to actually achieve anything. Of course the war will still be going on, probably up to four or five hundred dead US troops per month. Iraqi deaths will be in the millions by then, with rampant plague wiping out entire villages and towns. The complete absence of medical personnel will be explained as an 'unforseeable consequence' of the GWOT. Part of the 'fog of war'.

Sadly, we won't be able to pull any of our Corporate Troops out of the region-wide conflict. A spokesman for the New Pentagon (the old inefficient government run Pentagon having been sold to Blackwater/Halliburton/Bechtel Enterprises in the first year of Pres Gingrich's administration) was overheard to say the Loyalty Oath taken by the corptroops to President Gingrich and the Lord Jesus Christ will "stiffen the backbones" of our proud fighting ex-cons, mental deficients, moral degenerates and nearly all of the sociopaths. And in case that doesn't do the trick, field assassinations of 'deviant elements, freethinkers, Chomskyites and known apostates' will be the Order of the Day. Remember: No Oil Left Behind!

ricosuave wrote on August 1, 2007 7:17 PM:

Official A: And after that week, he will have just one more week to clarify. Then, after that, ...

New time unit: 1 week = 1 Spector

ahem wrote on August 1, 2007 7:19 PM:

BushCo is scrambling. There's no reason for them to propose putting Abu G in charge of authorizing eavesdropping and expect it to get Dem approval. And my guess is that it's the one FISA revision that they'll cling to.

Unless Chertoff's gut is rumbling.

JusticeForall wrote on August 1, 2007 7:21 PM:

Submitting his bogus letter late is yet another show of contempt, just like the WH submitting their ridiculous submission from McConnell late was. Their utter contempt for Congress, the Constitution, We the People and the Rule of Law is gutwrenchingly disgusting.
DEMS have to stop drawing new lines in the sand and ACT.

mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 7:22 PM:

I think Leahy, Schumer and Whitehouse are just being thorough. I think they have plans for Gonzales.

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 7:25 PM:

Insisting on Gonzo as the supervisor means the administration wants there to be no compromise.

Richard Cowen wrote on August 1, 2007 7:28 PM:

The story MM refers to is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20075751/site/newsweek/

It sure is news to me.

My question is how many people, meaning the people who are supposed to hold our interests above all else, actually know about this and say or do nothing?

ahem wrote on August 1, 2007 7:37 PM:

"My question is how many people, meaning the people who are supposed to hold our interests above all else, actually know about this and say or do nothing?"

I think there's an inherent sympathy towards spooks within the Intel Committees, regardless of how many civil liberties they trample over. The power of holding secrets is addictive.

That's why I think BushCo has overplayed its hand here, by wanting Gonzo put in charge of legal oversight. That allows Leahy to take a role, instead of leaving it to Rockefeller, who has shown a sad tendency to roll over and pee on himself.

I do fear the invocation of Chertoff's gut, and the muck being spread by GOPpers that if the Dems don't move on FISA, they'll be blamed for The Next Attack. That's a pretty bloody shroud they're waving.

lysias wrote on August 1, 2007 7:40 PM:

So the FISA Court has ruled that the administration's program is illegal, contrary to FISA, and in fact made that ruling four or five months ago. That's some news.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 7:51 PM:

My question is how many people, meaning the people who are supposed to hold our interests above all else, actually know about this and say or do nothing? Posted by: Richard Cowen

Richard, while I do not wish us to be foolishly ignoring useful information, I think the blame for any difficulties enacting intelligence measures must be laid at the feet of Bush and Co., who have played fast and loose with the rules so long that they should never again have the trust of Congress. In this instance, it appears that a potential terrorist act has been blamed on a Democrats in Congress before it even occurs. This is the same basic ruse as WMDs in Iraq.

As a child I easily understood the story of the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf ater a telling or two. Would that Babs had put retarded little W on her knee and repeated the story every day for, say, eighteen years.

Congress can give no ground to these liars. But they probably will, for fear of being blamed should anything -- anything! -- happen.

Foo wrote on August 1, 2007 7:54 PM:

Speaking of incompetence, review the Texas clemency memos Gonzales wrote as General Counsel to the Governor. President Bush approved 152 executions in six years as Governor of Texas. From 1995-1997, he based his decisions primarily on clemency memos written by Gonzales. These briefs were 3-5 pages in length, described the crime facts and the court decisions, but failed consistently to include key exonerating elements of the appellant’s argument. This is not justice. (The memos were described in a 2003 article by Alan Berlow, which appeared in the Atlantic.)

Of the 1,087 executions carried out in the U.S. since 1976, 397 have been in Texas. President Bush approved 13.9% of all executions carried out since 1976. Chances are high there was at least one wrongful death among them. And whose legal opinion was he following?

John Allen wrote on August 1, 2007 7:57 PM:

You guys have to realize that it took Gonzo over 3 hours just to do the shading on the drawing he did of his middle finger. The man is truley a perfectionist.
I got go.
Tina, come get your dinner.

Seamus wrote on August 1, 2007 7:59 PM:

Senator Leahy said, all along, that the Attorney General had a week after his last testimony to correct his testimony. Senator Leahy is merely restating that fact, and not extending the time limits. Senator Arlen Specter was the one who set his own personal time limit on when he had to receive the letter. If you people are going to attack Senator Leahy, then at least get the facts right. You sound like a bunch of people who come across as being just as clueless as Gonzo, and overly eager to call Senator Leahy names, without having your facts in order.

Seamus wrote on August 1, 2007 8:01 PM:

Senator Leahy said, all along, that the Attorney General had a week after his last testimony to correct his testimony. Senator Leahy is merely restating that fact, and not extending the time limits. Senator Arlen Specter was the one who set his own personal time limit on when he had to receive the letter. If you people are going to attack Senator Leahy, then at least get the facts right. You sound like a bunch of people who come across as being just as clueless as Gonzo, and overly eager to call Senator Leahy names, without having your facts in order.

drational wrote on August 1, 2007 8:01 PM:

So now we see the Modified Limited Hangout.
They were trying to cover up something illegal. Now it is time to figure out what.

Gandhi wrote on August 1, 2007 8:04 PM:

The Democrats may not have the votes to overcome many of the neocon roadblocks but they have the votes to prevent Bush from putting Gonzo in charge of the NSA wiretapping program .

drational wrote on August 1, 2007 8:07 PM:

Now it is time to get every witness who knew of the Pre-March 2004 to answer the question:
"Are you aware of any inappropriate use of "The Program*"?

* The Program shall include any activities grouped together for reauthorization every 45 days and which include the controversial activities at issue in March 2004.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 8:12 PM:

Sen. Leahy must be waiting for his engraved invitation from Dick Cheney before he urges his House colleagues to start their impeachment inquiry of Fredo. Better hurry, before Addington takes Fredo for a little fishing in the skiff. Tahoe can be rough this time of year; low water, all those odd shaped objects projecting off the bottom. Hope Fredo remembers to say his Hail, Marys. He might land a big one.

A word to Sen. Leahy: the voting public is a year ahead of you. You have nothing left to prove except that you can get off your chair and do your duty. Get. On. With. It.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 8:13 PM:

Sen. Leahy must be waiting for his engraved invitation from Dick Cheney before he urges his House colleagues to start their impeachment inquiry of Fredo. Better hurry, before Addington takes Fredo for a little fishing in the skiff. Tahoe can be rough this time of year; low water, all those odd shaped objects projecting off the bottom. Hope Fredo remembers to say his Hail, Marys. He might land a big one.

A word to Sen. Leahy: the voting public is a year ahead of you. You have nothing left to prove except that you can get off your chair and do your duty. Get. On. With. It.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 8:13 PM:

"Senator Leahy said, all along, that the Attorney General had a week after his last testimony to correct his testimony."

Gonzales testified last Thursday. His week is up at the latest, tomorrow afternoon. But, timing technicalities notwithstanding, how many cracks does he get at this? When I was in college I couldn't keep re-writing my papers until they passed the prof's muster.

I suppose Leahy is giving AG extra credit for turning his POS paper in early?

bob wrote on August 1, 2007 8:19 PM:

I wonder how many of those warrantless wiretaps are for political spying rather than counterterrorism. Could they be continuing the old tradition of J. Edgar Hoover of gathering dirt on political enemies and anyone with a different political opinion? It's time for Congress to quit sending money to people who disregard the US Constitution.

Homo Gene Ious wrote on August 1, 2007 8:31 PM:

WE THE PEOPLE, DEMAND IMPEACHMENT BACK on the TABLE, ANY TABLE, but "BRING IT ON"
Impeach the God Dammed CRIMINALS!!!
Impeach the God Dammed CRIMINALS!!!

STOP FUNDING the IRAQ DISASTER!!!
STOP FUNDING the IRAQ DISASTER!!!
Enough with “Stay the Course”…enough with “New DIRECTION”. Just STOP funding this nonsense and GOD DAMMIT, just DO IT!!!

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - A Einstein

Homo Gene Ious wrote on August 1, 2007 8:31 PM:

WE THE PEOPLE, DEMAND IMPEACHMENT BACK on the TABLE, ANY TABLE, but "BRING IT ON"
Impeach the God Dammed CRIMINALS!!!
Impeach the God Dammed CRIMINALS!!!

STOP FUNDING the IRAQ DISASTER!!!
STOP FUNDING the IRAQ DISASTER!!!
Enough with “Stay the Course”…enough with “New DIRECTION”. Just STOP funding this nonsense and GOD DAMMIT, just DO IT!!!

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - A Einstein

IMPEACHTHEMALL wrote on August 1, 2007 8:56 PM:

Putting the AG in charge of spying is a red herring! The WH will compromise on the AG point to gut FISA and get blanket approval to spy on Americans and political enemies without FISA oversight. It will also make the switch vendors immune from prosecution.

Why would congress even be considering this given that no one, including the gang of 8 seems to know the extent of the other illegal spy programs? It’s very dangerous that the WH has any credibility left on this issue. Will congress be duped again?

Mitch wrote on August 1, 2007 9:08 PM:

Oh, Patrick. You're never going to do anything. Quit blustering.

tom wrote on August 1, 2007 9:12 PM:

Lighten up on Leahy. Here is a quote from his letter to Gonzo last Thursday:

"Please mark any changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth. Then return it to my office, to the attention of Jennifer Price, Hearing Clerk, Senate Judiciary Committee, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510. In order to complete the hearing record, please return this transcript with your changes as soon as possible, and in no event later than Friday, August 3, 2007."

So this whole thing has been Specter's dog-and-pony show. Due Process takes time. Things go a lot faster when you're willing to ignore it, as the Republicans have been showing us for the last few years.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on August 1, 2007 9:16 PM:

Very likely they are paid well to accept these delays.This makes delays even more likely.In fact their only burden is a new excuse for each delay.And even those excuses are only given when asked.Otherwise there would be no account at all.
How long has it been since it became obvious to everyone this guy should not be in any kind of office.
How can you have a doj with it's head in the toilet and not know it?Or worse.No telling where his head is.
Is this the type example we need?
The "leaders" of all the departments have no need for checking into the reality section?
That toxic environment must require so much effort just to stay alive there is no time or energy left to notice what is going on.
Just a note: don't forget anyone who looks for the truth is their enemy.That is who they are checking on.And immediately preceeding and after the planes as missles show they needed to know who knew what/when/how/etc. and still do.
To them, truth is the bad guy.
Their motto: avoid truth no matter what.
Everything they do is a distraction from the truth.This is why everyone involved with them has such a gigantic problem with any responses to any questioning.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 9:46 PM:

Has anyone seen any indication of whether the court ruling on the TSP came from the FISA Court or the FISA Court of Review? It could be an important distinction to know whether this represents differences between judges or an action by an appellate court. Perhaps the FISA court never approved certain portions of the program, but action to stop those portions was suspended pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Review.

Brett wrote on August 1, 2007 9:49 PM:

Does any of this reflect on Bush's discussions of "TSP" after it was revealed? He never testified under oath, but my recollection is that he said the following: TSP has characteristics A and B but not X and Y (as in: it's limited and there is sufficient oversight, and it's not a dragnet and it doesn't touch solely domestic communications). If it's true that the "other intelligence activities" (OIA) authorized by the same executive order did not have characteristics A and B and did have X and Y, then wasn't he being misleading? Same would be true of TSP beta and OIA beta, so to speak. No?

Al in Austex wrote on August 1, 2007 9:56 PM:

I believe mo2 is right -something is brewing with Gonzo - and the good Senators Leahey , Schumer,& Whitehouse- all seasoned former prosecutors are pacing the Running of the NeoCons at their own pace & at the Senators (& wily Hill Staffers) OWN CHOOSING - All kinds of bells & whistles will be going off long about the first of September -(because thats when the moderate republican members up for re-election begin choosing to save themselves versus protecting BushcO ) What we are seeing now is the prelude to Impeaching Cheney first - Patience is a virtue -Recall all the "STUFF " that 11:56 anon has posted previous - well thats just part of the "STUFF" thats been recovered by the Hill Staffers - I repeat mo2 is correct - I guess the other chestnut to quote at this juncture is the BIG MACH 'revenge is a dish best served cold " THERE FIXIN' TO BE A MAJOR CAN O' WHUP ASS OPENED ON THE BROOK BRO BROWNSHIRTS - REMEMBER FLORIDA 2000, !
And to me Cheney looked way too smooth on Larry King -- stay tuned --

db wrote on August 1, 2007 10:00 PM:

"You sound like a bunch of people who come across as being just as clueless as Gonzo, and overly eager to call Senator Leahy names...."

You got that right. What a bunch of crybabies. (And please knock it off with the excessive use of ALL CAPS, how rude to shout like that.)

Leahy is doing exactly the right thing. He's a pro at this. He's giving AG every opportunity to get it right, to clarify, to correct, to avoid a perjury charge. Really, he's giving AG all the rope he needs to hang himself. And that's exactly what AG is doing.

Recall that Leahy did not sign onto the letter asking for appointment of and independent counsel. He wanted to have the utmost appearance of fairness. He's wearing the white hat. And he has to in order to pull off what you screaming people want. And he will. And his case and credibility and rhetoric will be much more powerful for having given the AG every chance to get it right, to avoid investigation. And Specter, he's going to look like a hack in comparison.

Leahy is an impressive man and very skilled prosecutor/attorney. And he has lots of credibility. That's what it takes to win in this court.

Seamus wrote on August 1, 2007 10:06 PM:

Where are all those of you who are critical of the Democrats getting your information from. Did you get all those revelations from all those inquiries that were made, and those hearings that were held, by the prior Republican majorities in the Congress and Senate. You absolutely did not. They covered everything up. Every thing that you have found out about the firings of the District Attorneys, etc has been exposed by the Democrats digging into what was really going on. Without they shedding light on the subjects, you would be just as ignorant about what happened, as when the Republicans kept a lid on everything. Whine on all you want to about the Democrats not getting the job done, but never forget, they are the ones who actually have being exposing what was going on, and have being working to bore through the White House's massive stone wall. Now go back to your feckless bleating.

...

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 10:13 PM:

"not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States"

Gonzalez written response to Leahy raises questions for the Grand Jury: Is he hiding a civilian version of the data mining program: Not used to monitor as in "pull" data, but the opposite: Data mining for the purposes of "pushing" data.
Consider the record. The DoD has hired contractors to supply video news releases; and place news within the Iraq media. Some have speculated that the intent of this placement was so the news could wind its way back to the US citizenry, raising Smith Act issues.

Perhaps if the Senator does not believe the AG, he might wish to ask the Vice President directly: In light of Addington's cut and paste and word parsing in the Iran-Contra Minority report, does the VP view it as "acceptable" that other word parsing continue? Specifically, data mining when under FISA is lawful when the FISA court approves. The question is whether the AG has illegally reserved for himself and others an "op tout" provision whereby he and others -- using arbitrary criteria -- can choose to ignore the FISA Court. Putting aside the basic principle of complying with written law -- a principle at the heart of legitimacy -- let's focus on one thing: What is the VP's view and definition of "acceptable" and "data mining."

Does the VP view, as acceptable in war time, to motivate a civilian population, to extract identifying information from mined data, then consolidate that information so a media messaging company can use it to create news releases for US government publication? Conversely, suppose the domestic population chooses not to respond to this hypothetical data mining "Push" strategy; is it the view of the VP that the RNC could -- beyond the scenes -- direct the JTTF in 2004 to target NYC demonstrators with excessive force?

Word parsing is serious business when we witnessed the "outrageous" parsing over "is". Perhaps the Good VP, who favored the Iran-Contra hearings and investigation, may wish to discuss his parsing of the phrase: "Legitimate government."

How many NSA data mining programs extracted identifying information, then aggregated that information to develop media messages for the US in the run up to the invasion of Iraq?

Cold the VP discuss the use of the word "chatter" in commenting on suspected "terror" plots: Is "chatter" something that defines a "push" approach to guide the public to "appropriate" messages; or was it part of the "pull" approach exclusively to overseas targets?

Who decides within the OVP when the civilian population is "appropriately" responding to the media messages from the US government?

Did the VP or anyone have any plan to explain what they planned to do when this "push" approach to media messaging was publicly discussed: Call another blogger conference; order out for Chick-Filet in Texas; have another "shake and bake" with the apple pie 4th of July Soccer Moms?

- - - - - -

Editorial comment: The Constitution and oath of office standards are clear. Yet, the Supreme Court and President have said that precedent is not necessarily relevant; surely, We the People and the grand jury cannot be bound by something the the President and Courts say they are not beholden. Where precedent "says" that the Grand Jury may not, or "should" not prosecute Members of Congress on impeachment decisions, is that rule absolute; or if contradicted, is that "clearly" erroneous. Indeed, if the court will not enforce the law, _that_ is erroneous.

If the VP gets to do this, why not the Grand Jury: Would it not be nice if the Grand Jury -- honoring this VP's clear "lack of respect for precedent" might also engage in a "push" strategy of their own: Another fine bar chart, ala John Stewart; the Grand Jury's "word" ala Mr. "I've got one on you, Mr. President"-Colbert. Grand Juries, like run away freight trains, can take on a mind of their own. is it the intent of the VP to keep the Grand Jury on the wrong track; or let the Grand Jury. Take. Any. Track. They. Choose.

- - - - - -

That's your word parsing. For now. Sleep tight, Mr. Vice President. How's that new battery working out for you -- when you dream at night, do you dream of furry, pink bunnies with a drum, or do you not recall?

PS: When you make a long distance call to the 301 area code, is that considered an official call; or are you charging that call to your "private account" with Haliburton? The bunnies would like to know.

PSS: Battery powered, minature shredders, pocket sized: Just in case Larry King corners you. Much more polite that that snarky comment to the fine Senator Leahy on the Senate floor. If you're polite to him and Larry King, perhaps the Grand Jury will be polite with you. But precedent doesn't bind them.

BTW, that's a Pink bunny wearing a THERMITE hat.

carol lam wrote on August 1, 2007 10:23 PM:

I hope the mystery poster is right about the CIA and ICC having evidence to begin war crimes of the entire regime.

Impeach NOW!! There is NO EXCUSE!!

US Military Doctors Criticized Over Force-Feeding
by AP staffwriters

CHICAGO- Military doctors violate medical ethics when they approve the force-feeding of hunger strikers at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, according to a commentary in a medical journal.

The doctors should attempt to prevent force-feeding by refusing to participate, the three authors write in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/01/2912/

When will this nightmare called “Gitmo” end? Why are our representatives so impotent against Bush & Co’s destruction of our cherished ideals of Freedom and Democracy?

Everybody- EVERYBODY- knows holding the suspects without fair trial is unacceptable- I haven’t met anyone yet whom actually agrees with the Bush administration’s sick agenda.

__Yes, it’s been documented that they re-insert with each feeding, thereby making it more painful and increasing danger of damage, bleeding, etc.

It’s absolutely shameful.

Along with the rest of what Bush/Cheney have sanctioned, it makes us no better than anyone else, Saddam,or whomever.

___

I wonder if the geniuses in the White House and the Pentagon have come up with a name for this too- like “OPERATION BOWEL LIBERATION”?

And yes, we are creating a military and citizenry that answers the question: “How could the Germans have allowed that!”
_____

First of all, the force feeding is done in a way to make it torture.Second, the reason for force feeding is part of the imprisonment and control — to die is a form of escaping, especially if it by the volition of the prisoner.

In the death camps, prisoners would sometimes try to run to the electric fences. The gurads had orders to shoot them before they could reach the fence and die from electrocution — otherwise, it was almost like an escape.

Very Bizzare. Sounds a lot like Nazism. War crime trial’s should be their reward.

I read elsewhere that they reinsert the tubes for each feeding. That’s torture. I also saw on SiCKO a military care professional “bragging” about the care they give the detainees, saying “we give frequent colonoscopies”. As a nurse, I know this would be a painful procedure without sedation, and is certainly medically unnecessary for young males. Where do they find these doctors?

__

I think the whole key is that they are “military” doctors. Military first, doctors second. You know, just “following orders” like good Germans. After all, in their eyes, the Gitmo prisoners are less than human, therefore it becomes easy for these fine officers to commit atrocities upon them. Remember these are also the ‘troops’ we are harangued to ’support.’

They’re just ‘doing their job’ after all. For you and me. Right?

__

Friday, July 27, 2007
Law Council of Australia: US Justice 'A Charade'

The Law Council of Australia, the nation’s compulsory membership bar association, undertook
a comprehensive study of the treatment of Guantánamo prisoner David Hicks. Their conclusion is now in: (PDF)

The “trial” of David Hicks, which took place in March 2007, was a charade.

ShorelineCT wrote on August 1, 2007 10:38 PM:

President Bush Presses for Flexibility on Terror Surveillance

President Bush is calling on Congress to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to let the government monitor overseas terror suspects without warrants. Two lawmakers discuss the proposal.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec07/surveillance_08-01.html

Sen. Ron Wyden(D-OR)

..."For example, one of the earlier versions would have given the attorney general essentially unprecedented authority. The attorney general would have had authority, in effect, to immunize people in the administration who knowingly broke the law. I blew the whistle on that in a public hearing. Now we're talking about a much more limited bill...."

JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:15 PM:

I think a lot of the Leahy criticism is coming from fake libs, it's really a lot of Republican trolls trying to use the left and center blogs to promote internal division among Democrats.

Most of the Dems and the real progressives I know don't think Leahy OR Conyers are ineffectual, the way these fake libs claim.

Most of them realize that in the past 6 months we have seen a complete change in the arrogant attitude of invulnerability in all the little goebel-goerings and Disney Princesses around Bush.

We have seen so many members of the Bush administration doing word-parsing backflips, obfuscating under oath, and "not recalling" historically significant events, it boggles the mind.

Since the Dems took the gavels, and the committee chairs, the Bush administration has lost top staffers right and left, and they are slowly turning on each other to avoid being in the crosshairs of Congress' newly rejuvinated oversight directive.

Rumsfeld's gone, the fired DOJ Attorneys are telling the truth instead of a party line, Bush's poll numbers are abysmal, Cheney's even less respected and a new lie is uncovered every day, a new conspiracy every week.

So, considering the past six years, the past six months have been remarkable.

Monumental.

Historic, to say the least.

And only Republican trolls, and compulsive political naysayers would deny that truth.

I would agree with Cindy Sheehan, though about the war, they are all taking much too long to start pulling our troops out. An impeachment process, into ANYONE involved, from Gonzo up, might move that mountain, too, as Republican lawmakers realize the neocon bullies they fear and answer to are themselves subject to the same blind, raging and impartial justice as the rest of us.

They like to call it "The Rule of Law." That GD piece of paper will come back around to bite them, every time.

But all in all, except for the war, the Dems have done a pretty good job of braking the Bush loco-motive (now there's a great multi-entendre to describe this whole administration's legacy, LOCO-MOTIVE).

And, like any big ship, a ship of state turns slowly.

Much too slowly for people who's loved ones face death in a worthless "war." But much too quickly for a delusional Emperor who's legacy can never be saved.

Hopefully, the ship won't go down with the captain...

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:24 PM:

"to let the government monitor overseas terror suspects without warrants."
Posted by: ShorelineCT
Date: August 1, 2007 10:38 PM

Short [What I might share on TPMM]: They can already do this _without_ a warrant.

- - - - -

Long [What I was thinking, but no longer share on TPMM]: Thank you for the reminder: I've been meaning to raise this with the FISA changes: Perhaps someone could explain why foreign-to-foreign [Pakistan to Afghanistan intercepts] require a _warrant_. That make no sense.

Are DoJ-NSA asking us to believe "oh, the burden of us having to get a _warrant_ to intercept foreign people. Huh?!? There's no _warrant_ requirement related to _foreign_ intercepts, unless there's something in FISA that I've missed.

Maybe someone could explain what the "real change" is that they're proposing; and why this apparent non-sense about "We don't have time to get a warrant on Foreign-to-foreign. Sounds like a made up problem, and quick solution to bypass FISA, then use that solution elsewhere. If you give these guys some wiggle room, they'll re-invent reality, and do something really bizarre. Enough of that. We need oversight, not excuses to let them play.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:31 PM:

Posted by: JEP
Date: August 1, 2007 11:15 PM

Posted by:
Date: August 1, 2007 11:24 PM

Memo to me: My post was _shorter_ than JEP's. There is hope. Man in Yellow Hat still waving.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 1, 2007 11:35 PM:

Whether it's to appease Blue Dogs, or Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter, or whatever the reason -- I'm fairly certain Leahy wants to provide Gonzo with every opportunity to hang himself.

He also wants to be able to say, categorically, that Gonzales, as a sitting Attorney General, was provided every courtesy and every opportunity -- before he becomes the *first* sitting Attorney General to be impeached.

Hee hee hee hee hee hee (Insert Bender Laugh Here) -- so long, Meatbag!

Code = sudden, As In Sudden Impact.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:37 PM:

Once again the MSM has asked the wrong questions. Bush and Snow have said Fredo testified truthfully. No one thought to ask them if he testified misleadingly. It would be a lot more difficult for Fredo to slip out of the noose each time if they'd go on record saying Fredo did not mislead anyone.

When will they learn?

d

phil james wrote on August 1, 2007 11:47 PM:

What part of "Go F___ yourself" does the committee not understand. How many times do we have to endure that sorry excuse for an Attorney General playing word games with Congress? Explanation my hind foot. Specter is just kicking the can farther down the road, as he always does when he is trying to look like he has a backbone when in fact he has been carrying Bush regime water from the very start. I wouldn't trust him to park my car. How much more of this kabuki are we going to have to sit through before the real deal begins? That would be impeachment. Try it Senators. It actually works.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:51 PM:

Posted by: Austin Cooper
Date: August 1, 2007 11:35 PM

I read somewhere Specter was one of Nixon's last supporters until he found out about the tapes. Wondering _what_ might make Specter change his views on Bush and AG as he did with Nixon.

- "Bush caught on a hidden camera listening to a recorded briefing that he then repeats." -- That didn't work.

- "AG Gonzalez denying he was part of a meeting, but then his own notes and e-mails showed that he was." == No, Specter still hearts AG and Bush.

-- "Hidden memo of an attorney-turned Judge who supports abuse of prisoners of war, just as long as the prisoners do not show signs of long term harm." No, despite the Bybee Memo, Specter still gives warm shivers dreaming about the AG.

-- "Vice President refusing to explain missing information related to all sorts of far too dangerous things to contemplate"? No, Specter still won't support an audit of the OVP.

-- "CIA officers going to the EU to share war crimes evidence with a foreign power, because the US government refuses to do anything about kidnapping and illegal prisoner abuse in secret detention centers." No, Specter still things VP Cheney and the AG are really nice guys.

- - - - - - - - - -

The above list of things appear to be things that -- going forward from 1987 -- would have been "tin foil hat" things: "Oh, they would never let that happen. What are you, a believer in Tin Foil Hat Companies?" You're right it's incorrect to say that they "would" let that happen; that's not correct. They _did_ let that happen.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Calm frog rests in gradually boiling water, says: "There is no boiling water," waving to the man in the yellow hat.

phil james wrote on August 1, 2007 11:59 PM:

Oh. And by the way. Has anyone considered that it might just be an agonizingly painful and depressing waste of time to try to catch Gonzo in a really, really, honest to goodness, out-and-out lie? Gee. I wonder what a quicker remedy might be? You know. One that might actually have a snowball's chance of suceeding before the game gets called on account of 2009? There is one and only one way to deal with Gonzo. Impeach him. And guess what? He has already demonstrated in innumerable ways that he is unfit for his position. Don't even need a bona fide perjury conviction. And don't need the Bush regime's permission either.

Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 12:05 AM:

Note that in this letter Gonzales does not clearly state that there was no serious disagreement about the legality of the wiretapping program (what he calls the TSP). Rather, he says only that he recalls that in March 2004 (ie. the time of the hospital showdown) there was no serious disagreement "between the Department and the White House" about whether there was "a legal basis" for the wiretapping. So, there may have been disagreements within the DOJ, and the DOJ's ultimate position may have been that there was a legal argument in support of the wiretapping, but that it was not the best argument, or even likely to prevail in court.

Gonzales goes on to admit that the wiretapping was subject to "intense deliberations" within the DOJ, and that Comey, in the spring of 2004 (again, around the time of the hospital showdown) agreed to the President's authority to order particular kinds of wiretaps. No indication in his letter as to whether those wiretaps were narrower in scope than had previously been performed. (Recall that Comey testified that he agreed to authorize the program after certain changes were made, which would be consistent with agreeing to a narrower scope of wiretapping).

In short, this letter -- surprise -- doesn't resolve the fundamental issue, even if you accept Gonzales's claim that the wiretapping constituted a "program" distinct from the other unspecified activities.

JEP wrote on August 2, 2007 12:24 AM:

My posts are meant for reading aloud...

try it sometime.

bjobotts wrote on August 2, 2007 2:30 AM:

WHAT IS MISSING THAT JOSH MARSHALL SPEAKS OF IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT PROGRAM ASHCROFT WAS TO SIGN OFF ON WHILE HE WAS SEDATED.....

They wanted Ashcroft sedated because they knew he would never sign off on THIS program. They planned on being able to send everyone out of the room calling it "top secret" just to get a signature which they knew they could later justify.

No one is telling those even cleared to hear about this program, which is so illegal, so corrupt and so un-American the mere thought of someone trying to do it would send the nation into an outrage.

The program was not just to wire-tap and eavesdrop on Americans but to also round up dissenters and those suspected of cooperating with or emboldening 9/11 terrorists, plus those of Muslim dissent and putting them in FEMA camps which were already operational.
Think I'm crazy...Name one other thing Ashcroft would NOT have signed off on...anything.
Look at half the people they held for years at Gitmo who were completely innocent.
During the years in question, 2002-2005, during the early part the federal government began building, working on, and readying FEMA camps across the US.
The patriot act was already in place and all they needed was the signature of the AG.
Why do you think Mueller gets that funny smile on his face talking about the hospital visit? What would make Comey so fearful he would not go to the WH for a meeting alone??? This is the only thing that would make the upper echelon of the DoJ threaten to resign. No one would sign off on a program like this because it would lead to the end of our Democracy no matter what assurances the WH were to give about only rounding up Muslims and suspected terrorist sympathizers.
I wish congress would try to get someone to deny it, that that wasn't the program. It's the missing link Josh Marshall was looking for. The missing piece of the puzzle so damaging as to cause such an uproar and still explain why currently no one will talk about it. Just saying...

Captain Nemo wrote on August 2, 2007 3:14 AM:

"The program was not just to wire-tap and eavesdrop on Americans but to also round up dissenters and those suspected of cooperating with or emboldening 9/11 terrorists, plus those of Muslim dissent and putting them in FEMA camps which were already operational." bjobotts

In short, an INTERNMENT program for "enemy combattants", with Fox News naming the enemy combattants.

et tu, Nancy?

wigwam wrote on August 2, 2007 3:17 AM:

WHAT DATA DOES A SIGNAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY MINE, AND WHEN?

IMHO, the five-hundred pound gorilla of signal intelligence mines whatever signal it pleases whenever it pleases, even signals that occurred in the past. That is to say that I think the national security apparatus and/or its contractors are capturing and archiving (in perpetuity) ALL phone conversations for subsequent mining and analysis.

Cheryl wrote on August 2, 2007 5:34 AM:

---“The Attorney General has until the end of this week to correct and supplement his testimony.---

JEEBUS, how many chances does Gonzo get????

Hello Sen. Leahy, are you there - if only that guy could catch his breath and do something - my gosh, Leahy is a doing nothing Senator - all Leahy does is sit there with that stupid smile on his face. I want Sen. Leahy to get serious - no wonder Dems aren't considered serious.

This is not about Gonzales anyway and Sen. Leahy knows that - it's Bush and Cheney - perhaps the Dems could start getting serious, MAYBE its time to start talking about IMPEACHING George Bush and Dick Cheney. Iraq at least needs a change of direction, the DOJ is falling apart, Bush is threating to vote popular national policy

The complains are that Dems are serious - I can certainly see why - it's as if the Dems just like political games but have no intention of getting serious and actually doing anything.

The problem is not Gonzales - he is merely a symptom of the problem.

It is not now nor has it ever been Bush's right to turn the DoJ into his personal vendetta machine. If Leahy cannot act, he should step do and let a competent prosecuting lawyer take over.

Senator Leahy is either too lazy or due to poor health reason, unable to make a decent summation to the American people as to why the DoJ is broken and why Bush doesn’t have the right to turn the DoJ into a political witch hunt propaganda tool. The rule of law was never met to serve at the pleasure of malicious individuals.

melior wrote on August 2, 2007 5:59 AM:

How can the Bush Jr. administration be comfortable supporting such unfettered power to authorize warrantless wiretaps at a whim in the hands of the AG, when all reasonable expectations are for a Democratic President and AG in less than two years' time?

Do they know something about the voting machines that we don't?

paul wrote on August 2, 2007 6:49 AM:

yes, yes they do

pol wrote on August 2, 2007 7:32 AM:

paul, call me a conspiracy theorist, but after all the laws this bunch has broken, I truly don't think Bush is going to want to leave in 2008.

pol wrote on August 2, 2007 7:33 AM:

melior, call me a conspiracy theorist, but after all the laws this bunch has broken, I truly don't think Bush is going to want to leave in 2008.

Nell wrote on August 2, 2007 7:49 AM:

I'm trying to see something less than horribly evil and corrupt in all this...
-No MSM coverage
-Obvious law breaking without consequences

Could it be that some shadow government is trying to prevent a revolution?

sheila wrote on August 2, 2007 8:04 AM:

Does anyone know if Leahy et al have contacted or spoken with John Ashcroft about the hospital visit??

sheila wrote on August 2, 2007 8:08 AM:

Has anyone spoken with John Ashcroft about his stay in the hospital?

Nell wrote on August 2, 2007 8:49 AM:

sheila
Apparently they have asked... but it's been two months.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200706/03/eng20070603_380378.html

db wrote on August 2, 2007 8:53 AM:

"I think a lot of the Leahy criticism is coming from fake libs, it's really a lot of Republican trolls trying to use the left and center blogs to promote internal division among Democrats."

I AGREE.

There was an ad on craigslist not long ago seeking paid trolls to infiltrate blogs. You had to do a little searching to find out that is what they wanted writers for, but it was clearly stated once the layers were peeled back. So be aware that they are out there.

The posts screaming absurdly about leahy and pelosi on TPM sound like no posts i have seen on this or other liberal blogs before. They're ignorant and too numerous.

kentuck wrote on August 2, 2007 9:20 AM:

When he stood before the Committee at his last testimony, he raised his right hand and swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If Specter agrees that he was "misleading", then that is hardly the "whole truth". If he was intentionally "misleading", that is perjury, in contradiction to what he swore to tell.

moondancer wrote on August 2, 2007 9:33 AM:

More like an internal coup d'etat by shadow government, Nell. All the actions of key operatives of WH for last several years seemed to be executed with disdain or no fear of oversight. Why would one not fear scrutiny from other branches when breaking the law? When you are sure that oversight is no longer an issue.

moondancer wrote on August 2, 2007 9:43 AM:

In fact, to follow up on that, if there is any indictments or impeachment, I would think that congressional GOP leaders should be indicted as co-conspirators for organized non-oversight for the years 2001-2006. Most of this wouldnt have been possible without their active passivity.

Mark wrote on August 2, 2007 9:44 AM:

Regarding Specter's weasel response to Gonzales --

Can someone explain to me how "misleading" statements aren't perjury?

Jock Strap wrote on August 2, 2007 9:48 AM:

Just realized that AGAG spells GAGA backwards :-()

sc Rate as in Rate Gonzo and win a major prize!

NC Dem wrote on August 2, 2007 9:52 AM:

Please note that in the letter from Gonzales to Leahy that he refers to the re-authorization of the program as "approximately every 45 days". What attorney would write the law this way? None!
The attorneys who worked with Gonzales on this letter wanted to plant the seed that it didn't need to happen every 45 days. This would allow wiggle room for the time that transpires after March 11, 2004 when the program went forward illegally without the signature of an officer from the DOJ. This is blatant obstruction.
If in your readings on this program, you see anything other than "every 45 days", please post it here or at DKos. I don't think you will find it but I can't read all the comments on the re-authorization provision.

Ginger Yellow wrote on August 2, 2007 10:02 AM:

Without even relying on Mueller or anyone else, and seconding the anonymous post of 12:05, Gonazales more or less admits he was lying in his previous testimony.

Compare and contrast:

Feb 2006:
GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

August 2007:
That is not to say that the issues raissed by the Terrorist Surveillance Program
were insubstantial; it was an extraordinary activity that presented novel and difficult issues and was, as I understand, the subject of intense deliberations within the department.

I'm struggling to understand how deliberations can be described as "intense" without involving serious disagreement.

JEP wrote on August 2, 2007 10:12 AM:

"plus those of Muslim dissent"

interesting error, meaningful no less. But I think you meant "descent" instead of "dissent".

Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 10:15 AM:

"Regarding Specter's weasel response to Gonzales --

Can someone explain to me how "misleading" statements aren't perjury?"

It all depends on the defination of "is."

It's all clear if you remember that for both sides this isn't about truth, National interest, or even passing the stink test. It is a mission with only one objective, winning at all costs.

Specter's response was preordained, but the lame nature of the Administration's answers in the letters must have taken even Specter by surprise. It took him a while to regain his composure in order to advocate for his masters with any amount of contrived believability. It would suck to be Specter and have to lick the filth off their shoes all the while pretending it's soo sweet.

They're probably holding their sides laughing at how well their boy is faking this one.

lysias wrote on August 2, 2007 10:21 AM:

The FISA Court at the trial level operates with one judge. The FISA Court of Review uses three-judge panels. This was a decision by one judge. Ergo, it was a decision of the FISA Court at the trial level.

JEP wrote on August 2, 2007 10:29 AM:

"Why would one not fear scrutiny from other branches when breaking the law? When you are sure that oversight is no longer an issue."

Hubris, pure and simple.

And they believed there would be no oversight Because their boy genius Rove told them the Democrats would never be in power EVER again. And there were those bigots like George Allen said things like "kick their soft teeth down their whiney throats," and the media never held him accountable for it.

The Republicans, during their post 9-11 happy-days, and again just after Bush's war began, thought the wave of patriotism swelling in their fellow Americans would assure their future dominance over the Dems.

Little did they realize, that very patriotism has brought about a New Majority, neither right or left exclusively, but an eclectic mix that more than anything else is demanding accountability in our lawmakers.

The Republicans expected blind loyalty, instead they got "mad as hell and not taking any more."

Surprise surprise, the Dems took back the gavels and committee chairs.

And lo and behold, the boy genius proved he's no genius at all, just another common mortal with delusions of political grandeur.

Rove's constant reassurances to his Republican pals is one of the main reasons they believed they would never face scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote on August 2, 2007 10:34 AM:

"Surprise surprise, the Dems took back the gavels and committee chairs.

And lo and behold, the boy genius proved he's no genius at all, just another common mortal with delusions of political grandeur."

Not sure I agree with that. Rove has won every battle, even with the new Democratic congress. There are no consequences, only some inconvenience.

Radarcat wrote on August 2, 2007 11:30 AM:

It is inconceivable to me that nobody in the house or senate would be able to connect the dots the way that anonymous poster has been doing. Therefore, the majority of democrats must support what is going on or be powerless to stop it. I'm afraid, very afraid.

TheraP wrote on August 2, 2007 2:34 PM:

How do we get those Grand Juries up and running?

That's what we need - if the Congress doesn't do the work.

foggylady wrote on August 16, 2007 2:58 PM:

Moondancer sez..........

****.All the actions of key operatives of WH for last several years seemed to be executed with disdain or no fear of oversight. Why would one not fear scrutiny from other branches when breaking the law? *****

Alternative reason for lack of concern would be feeling secure in the Republican majority, thus no oversight. That WAS the Rove plan, remember.
However, 2006 took care of that, and since then Rove and Bush have been getting flak from the now badly damaged RNC....