Buck Naked Politics

IG's Report Spotlights Bush's (Likely Illegal) Warrantless Wiretapping Program

by Deb Cupples |   Based on a recent inspectors general report, the Washington Post reports that the Bush Administration was likely too secretive with Congress about the (likely illegal) domestic surveillance program. 

The Washington Independent reports:

"The Bush administration called its warrantless surveillance efforts “very, very important to protect the national security of this country,” in the words of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2005. Today’s inspectors general report on the President’s Surveillance Program doesn’t really substantiate that assessment. “[M]ost PSP leads were determined not to have any connection to terrorism,” according to the Justice Department’s inspector general."

You can see a copy of the 43-page report here, which was a group effort by inspectors general from the Justice Department, Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  Memeorandum has commentary.

Is Trauma over 9/11 a Valid Defense to the Bush Administration's Legal Violations or Moral Lapses?

by Deb Cupples |  Lately, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney has been talking to the press, seemingly more than the furtive figure did while he was in office.  Reportedly, Mr. Cheney and ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been arguing to God and the Media essentially that they might have gone a little over-board with their legal violations (and moral lapses) because of the trauma they faced as government officials facing the 9/11 attacks.

Richard C. Clarke, who was an intelligence coordinator under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton was a government official with national-security-related duties when 9/11 happened.  He was at the White House on 9/11 and presumably suffered all the same traumas that Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney had suffered. Mr. Clarke also had far more national-security experience than many of the then-new Bush Administration officials.

And yet, Mr. Clarke is not convinced that the 9/11-Trauma Defense holds water:

Pelosi Now Recalls Being Briefed on Harman Wiretap; Harman Launches Media Blitz, Trips Up Badly (Round Up)

photo by Deb Cupples |   by Damozel | On Tuesday Speaker Pelosi didn't remember being briefed on any wiretap involving Rep. Jane Harman, but it's all come back to her now.  It seems there was this tradition of briefing "for the top Democrat and top Republican in the House to be alerted any time a member shows up on wiretaps or other surveillance devices." (WaPo)  And even though she did know, she wasn't "in a position" to pass on the information to Harman.

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged today that she had indeed been briefed about a wiretap that recorded conversations involving Representative Jane Harman...But Ms. Pelosi said today that although she was briefed, the Justice Department had not provided her with details and that Ms. Harman was not the subject/target of the surveillance."

"Radioactive": Harman Caught on Wiretap Promising Intervention for AIPAC

by D amozel |  Josh Marshall at TPM said it:  "This story is so radioactive it's hard to know which of fifty different directions to go with it."  Details are here. The part that's new is the allegation that Harman was caught on tape discussing favors to be had and returned during a wiretap, along with an implication that the Bush administration might have used this as leverage to get her to come in on its side on the warrantless wiretapping controversy.  Reading the CQ Politics report on this, as Marshall points out in a subsequent piece, one could certainly infer that Harman was going to side with the administration on warrantless wiretapping anyway, and that Gonzalez intervened "because the administration needed her out there spinning the warrantless wiretap story on their behalf."

Man, I don't even know where to start:  with the alleged [she denies it] line-crossing by Harman; with the surveillance by the Bush administration of members of Congress; or with the continuing saga of the previous administration's well-documented disposition to treat "justice" as exceedingly subordinate to political advantage.   For me, I think it's the last one of these -- and indeed Greenwald calls this "the crux."

Greenwald and Olbermann re: Obama and Executive Branch Secrecy (etc)

Glenn Greenwald tells us:

"Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

"The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here."

Yes, Mr. Olbermann might get back some portion of the credibility that he lost last year when he actively concocted a ridiculous defense of then-candidate Obama's support for Telecom Amnesty (as I discussed back in June).  Mr. Olbermann certainly has changed his tune (or toon, if you'd rather).

Anyway, below is a video clip of Olbermann taking our president to task.  After the jump is Olbermann's interview of constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley, who does likewise.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Releases Bush's Secret Anti-Terror Memos

by Damozel | There. That's change I can believe in. The AP reports here.  As previously noted, one little clarification that's been forthcoming is that the CIA destroyed not two, but 92, videotapes of "enhanced interrogation" (which I'm guessing you and I couldn't tell from torture). 

But there's lots more!  Now available for your viewing pleasure, nine memos from Bush's Department of Just-Us.  Read the Bush Administration's rationalizations for things such as warrantless wiretaps by the military!

"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."  (HuffPost)

Ya think?

Director of National Intelligence Resigns

by Deb Cupples |  When I think of FISA and Telecom Amnesty, I think of the Watergate scandal, which started with five men associated with the Nixon Administration getting caught breaking into the Democratic Party's headquarters at the Watergate complex and trying to tap the Dems' phones.  That's why I've uploaded the Watergate photo. 

When I think of FISA and Telecom Amnesty, I also think of now-ex-Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who resigned effective yesterday. 

It's probably for the best, given some of our nation's unflattering memories of Mr. McConnell. 

Court Says Government Can Wiretap without Warrants?

by Deb Cupples |  The photograph is of the Watergate Complex in Washington, DC.  That's where the Democratic party's office was in 1972, when five men connected to the Nixon Administration got caught breaking into the DNC's office and attempting to tap phones.  When I think of potential for abuse, I cannot help thinking of the Watergate scandal.

What brought potential for abuse to mind?  An August 2008 court opinion that just became declassified (albeit with some text redacted): an opinion that seems to allow our government broad powers to tap Americans' phones and gather our emails without first getting a warrant.

If current technology had existed in the '70s, Nixon Administration officials wouldn't have been forced to employ such risky, easy-to-discover methods of spying on political enemies -- and Nixon might never have been forced to resign.

About the court opinion, the New York Times reports:

Telecom Amnesty Challenged in Court: Bush Lawyer Said Obama Would Support it

by Deb Cupples |   The issue of Telecom Amnesty was scheduled to be argued in federal court today. Yesterday, Wired reported:

"The Bush administration on Tuesday will try to convince a federal judge to let stand a law granting retroactive legal immunity to the nation's telecoms, which are accused of transmitting Americans' private communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.

Brennan Takes Name off List for Intelligence Job in Obama Administration

 by Deb Cupples  |   John Brennan was the intelligence adviser to Barrack Obama during the campaign.  What upset many legal scholars and progressives (and even many libertarians) is that Mr. Brennan fully supported President Bush's anti-accountability policy aimed at giving retroactive immunity to Telecom companies that had broken the law when helping the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.

For weeks now, media folks and bloggers had speculated that Mr. Brennan would join the Obama Adminsitration as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence (or in some other intelligence-related position). 

Those speculations were dashed today, when Mr. Brennan wrote a letter to Mr. Obama, in which the latter withdrew his name from consideration for an intelligence-related position in the Obama Administration. (MSNBC)  

Obama's First Challenge: Domestic Spying

by Damozel | Obama's going to have to make decisions straight off the bat on domestic spying and civil liberties.  As The New York Times so rightly observes,  these "will test his administration’s views on presidential power and civil liberties."   Is it wrong that a little part of me hopes he will hang on to them just long enough to scare the bejesus out of conservatives who happily ceded them to Bush?  It is?  Ah. 

Well, that's okay.  The real comic possibilities of a Democratic president with all Bush's (and Cheney's!) powers went out the window when Obama beat Hillary in the primaries.  So I hope Obama will do the right thing.   Anyway, here's where it starts:

Intelligence Officers Hayden & McConnell Think Obama will Fire Them: WaPo Thinks it's Just Politics?

by Deb Cupples |   Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden reportedly want to keep their jobs but suspect that President-elect Barack Obama will replace them when he takes office. 

A Washington Post writer seems to think that congressional Democrats want to get rid of McConnell and Hayden purely for political reasons: i.e., because they supported President Bush's (egregious or potentially illegal) policies.

I don't know about Mr. Hayden, but I can think of non-political reasons for getting rid of Mr. McConnell -- starting with the fact that he twice made misleading statements to Congress (I say "made misleading statements," some say "lied"). 

FBI "Improperly Obtained" Journalists' Phone Records?

by Deb Cupples |   According to yesterday's New York Times, the FBI has admitted to improperly obtaining the phone records of reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times Indonesia bureaus back in 2004.

Why are visions of Richard Nixon and the Watergate building (photo left) flashing in my mind?  The Times reported:

Accountability Now PAC Ready to Drop Money Bomb

by Deb Cupples |   Today is the day to donate to Accountability Now and the Strange Bedfellows Coalition. At the very least, it's a good day to learn about their noble and valuable efforts.

In short, Accountability Now is a PAC whose goal is to pressure politicians into promoting the public interests. Originally, it was a backlash against Democrats who betrayed their constituents on Telecom Amnesty (i.e., retroactive immunity for companies that violated our laws while eavesdropping on citizens without valid warrants).

Since March, people with all sorts of ideological leanings have united with Accountability Now, because we all agree on a couple things: the preservation of our Constitutional rights and the rule of law.

Why is today, August 8, important?  Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains:

Progressive Magazine Asks Obama Stop Changing Positions and Start Standing on Principles

by Deb Cupples |    It seems that The Nation is waking up (The Nation magazine, that is).  The magazine's most recent edition includes an open letter to Barack Obama -- signed by more than 13,000 people -- gently pointing out that progressives are not happy with Obama's recent (and repeated) reversals on policy stances or promises that he made during the primaries.

The letter is titled Change We Can Believe in (emphasis in original).  Below are some excerpts:

The Flip-Flopping Label Has Jumped the Shark

by Damozel | You know who never changes his position, no matter how wrong the facts prove him to be? George W. Bush. He just keeps throwing out new reasons why he’s right, hoping one will stick.

My Visit to the Capitol and Up-Close Observations During the FISA Votes

by Deb Cupples |    I was in our nation's capitol from July 3 - 10.  Among the highlights of my week-long visit was coffee at the Mayflower Hotel with NQ's Larry Johnson.  It was even more fun conversing with him than reading his blog posts.

Another highlight was watching the FISA votes from the Senate visitors' gallery at the capitol. Senators Clinton and Obama were there, as were Leahy, Dodd, Webb and Specter.  It was my version of a star-studded movie premier.  Sadly geeky, I know.

FISA: How They Voted and What it Means

by Damozel | This piece of legislation --- and what Congress has done to the fourth amendment---which protects the privacy of ordinary citizens from unreasonable invasion by the government ---  matters. 

Those who defended the telecoms for breaking federal law at the request of the Bush administration kept talking about the telecoms' subjection to  'the heavy hand of government.'  This was always spurious argument in the case of the telecoms, who had no more obligation than you or I to comply with an unlawful demand to break the law (none) and the same obligation as you or I would have to refuse to comply. And in fact, not all telecoms chose to go along with the demand.    

FISA, on the other hand, unleashes 'the heavy hand of government' on ordinary citizens.

Senator Clinton's Statement on FISA

She voted against the bill, Obama voted for it, and McCain didn't vote, but supported it.  Her speech follows.  I disagree with her that it is a 'difficult issue,' but we all know why she said it.  Here's her statement.

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure.

Oh, Grow Up (Yet Another Obama Supporter Thinks Maybe He's Been Had)

by Damozel |More punditry over Obama's perceived tack toward the center.  As I've said before, I never get tired of saying 'I told you so' to people whose support for Obama was all for non-policy-based reasons.  He was charismatic, he energized the young, he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews' leg, he's the first black candidate ever with a shot at the presidency....All those things were true; what isn't true is that he ever committed (barring one or two hot issues, such as FISA and NAFTA) to a truly progressive agenda except when following the lead of one of the other candidates as a matter of strategy.