Listics

Bucolic, ain’t it.

Technorati Tags: you’re it

What will happen if the US pursues the delusional strategy McCain supports and attacks this nation of 70,000,000 people? Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council offers his insights…

The historical pattern in Iran has been that when attacked, people rally around the flag. We saw that in 1980 when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. This was at a time when Iran was in great chaos: the revolutionary regime had executed a large number of people from the Iranian military; Khomeini’s grip on power was not as strong; he was in a very intense power struggle. But then Saddam invaded, thinking that Iran was weak, thinking that the Iranians would not unify, and within weeks you had 100,000 volunteers rushing to Khuzistan region in order to expel the invaders. And a lot of historians argue that the Khomeini government did not survive in spite of Saddam’s attack; he survived because of Saddam’s attack. And if history were to repeat itself, which it so often does, then an attack on Iran would not weaken the government in Iran; it would strengthen it. An attack on Iran would not help the pro-democracy forces in Iran; it would kill it. An attack on Iran would not prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; it will probably cause it to rush towards a nuclear bomb.

Technorati Tags: Iran, McCain, Little Douche Coup, Barbara Ann

Here’s my senator doing the right thing today. What’s your senator doing to prevent the erosion of the fourth amendment and to hold the administration accountable for its lawlessness? (Click here for a tool to make calling your senator painless).

Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dodd’s amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill, and I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Both earlier this year when the Senate first considered FISA legislation and again this time around, he has demonstrated tremendous resolve on this issue, and I have been proud to work with him.

Now, Mr. President, some have tried to suggest that the bill before us will leave it up to the courts to decide whether or not to give retroactive immunity to the companies that allegedly participated in the President’s illegal wiretapping program. Make no mistake – this bill will result in immunity being granted, because it sets up a rigged process with only one possible outcome.

Under the terms of this bill, a federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received “a written request or directive … from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community … indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.”

But, Mr. President, we already know from the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was issued last fall that the companies received exactly such a request or directive. That is already public information. So under the terms of this proposal, the court’s decision would be predetermined.

As a practical matter, that means that regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, the court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill.

Now, proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court. This is true, but they are not allowed access to any classified information. Talk about fighting with both hands tied behind your back. Mr. President, the administration has restricted information about this illegal wiretapping program so much that roughly 70 members of this chamber don’t even have access to the basic facts about what happened. So let’s not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way in these proceedings — in which Congress has made sure that their claims will be dismissed.

This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law – perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret.

Mr. President, we hear people argue that telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don’t hear is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the government’s request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the government’s request, and subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that, in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear that some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power – the power to listen in on people’s personal conversations.

At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the government’s request for assistance was legitimate or not.

So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the companies’ legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and is immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the government’s request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans’ communications from illegitimate snooping.

Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the new form of retroactive immunity that is in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades – a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that allegedly occurred here.

Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a “get out of jail free” card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past.

Mr. President, just last week a key court decision on FISA undercut one of the most popular arguments in support of immunity — that we need to let the companies off the hook because the state secrets privilege prevents them from defending themselves in court. A federal court has now held that the state secrets privilege does not apply to claims brought under FISA. Rather, more specific evidentiary rules in FISA govern. Shouldn’t we at least let these cases proceed to see how this plays out, rather than trying to solve a problem that may not even exist?

And that’s not all. Mr. President, this immunity provision doesn’t just allow telephone companies off the hook. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I’ve been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program.

On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President’s wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill.

It’s that time of year again, time to knock back the weeds. I’m a month later this year than last, and a week later than 2006, but the thistles haven’t gone to seed yet. Wet spring and cool early summer seem to have held everything down a bit.

So there I was before lunch, driving the tractor back and forth, knocking down thistles and burdock and surrounded by a flock of swallows swooping all around me, eating all the insects I kicked into the air. Sitting on the telephone line across the road were a couple dozen swallows, looking like the second seating at the barnyard buffet.

I better get back to work. My customers need me. The birds’ menu for this afternoon: grasshoppers, mosquitoes, flies, beetles, and oodles of unnamed but delicious bugs! As for me, I’m gorging on mulberries whenever I drive under a mulberry tree.

Technorati Tags: winston used to enjoy these midsummer posts

I’m not deluded enough to think that Congress could find a way through the thicket and bring the Bush Administration to justice before the election this year. I agree with Nancy Pelosi and others that a move to impeach at this late date would be polarizing and the outcomes would be unpredictable. I do not agree that impeachment should therefore be off the table.

Congressman Robert Wexler said,

“This administration, unlike any other administration in the history of our country, has refused to appear before Congress to answer questions,” he says. “No administration has done that before this administration. So the American people need to ask themselves, is this going to be the way that we expect our presidents to conduct their business - totally immune from the law, totally immune from the Constitution? That’s not what the separation of powers was designed to do.”

“I am not unmindful of the fact that the speaker of the house has very publicly said that impeachment is off the table. But at the same time, the Constitution is not discretionary. When there is a systematic abuse of the power of the presidency as we have witnessed during the last 71/2 years of George Bush, I believe it is incumbent upon members of Congress to stand up and make the case, and to conduct appropriate inquiries and oversight….”

“These are not insignificant matters, and to suggest that President Bush has suffered enough because his popularity is low, or to suggest that we should ignore these potential violations of law and the Constitution because he happens to be in the last year of his term in office, I disagree….”

“What is the incentive for the next president, or presidents years from now, to follow the law if this president does not have to answer for any of his actions?”

Dennis Kucinich has presented 35 articles in a Bill of Impeachment. I am re-printing them here on an average of one a day since the bill was introduced.

Article 26
ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has used signing statements to claim the right to violate acts of Congress even as he signs them into law.

In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office reported that in a sample of Bush signing statements the office had studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush administration had already proceeded to violate the laws the statements claimed the right to violate.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article 27
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and instructed former employees not to comply with subpoenas.

Subpoenas not complied with include:
1. A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice Department papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2007;
2. A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25, 2007;
3. A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and documents , issued June 13, 2007;
4. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued June 13, 2007;
5. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Political Director Sara Taylor, issued June 13, 2007 (Taylor appeared but refused to answer questions);
6. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, issued June 26, 2007;
7. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Deputy Political Director J. Scott Jennings, issued June 26, 2007 (Jennings appeared but refused to answer questions);
8. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for legal analysis and other documents concerning the NSA warrantless wiretapping program from the White House, Vice President Richard Cheney, The Department of Justice, and the National Security Council. If the documents are not produced, the subpoena requires the testimony of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, National Security Council executive director V. Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2007;
9. A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for Lt. General Kensinger.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Technorati Tags: impeachment

This week the new FISA bill will come to a vote. It contains provisions to immunize telecommunications companies from liability for following the illegal orders of the President. The articles of impeachment that I’m detailing today relate to the President’s willful disregard for the law regarding surveillance of American citizens. It will be interesting to follow the debate this week as the bill becomes law. It won’t be easy though, since most of the news reporting bandwidth in North America will be focused on the lead-up to the Olympics and Christie Brinkley’s divorce. Wikipedia says,

Both the [FISA Act] subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney’s fees.[17]

Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.

In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

Article 24
SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, knowingly violated the fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978 (FISA) by authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to wit:
Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to RB for his link today to the AlterNet article “The Science of Happiness: Is It All Bullshit?”

(Thanks too for his creative minimizing of the YouTube embedding on the Beatles tune. Reducing those YouTube music vids to 70 pixels square is a great way to avoid clutter while bringing forth the tunes.)

Technorati Tags: only ten shopping days until bastille day

Not so much…

Confession time: I have used the slang negative comparator “Not so much.” I used it with all of its arch, self-consciously ironic informality in conversation with Beth. She called me on it. I don’t know why I used it. Perhaps I simply allowed myself to be imprinted and informed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There’s a Val gal overtone in the phrase, an oily late seventies currency that slowly seeped out of the pop cultural plastic California suburbs with the middle-school kids who originated it. The process continues, I’m sure. (Internal voice echoes, “Yeah, like you’re SO sure. NOT!”)

One of the most deadly and boring contrivances in American language is the phony posturing that goes with the conversational usage of the asked-and-answered rhetorical question. There’s a TV news-reader pomposity that goes with the delivery of asked-and-answered rhetorical questions. “Should we be in Iraq? No, but since we are already there…”

“Not so much” pickles this formulaic usage in the brine of deprecatory irony. “You may see a good reason to continue the war in Iraq. Me? Not so much.”

Snappy? Sure. Original? Not so much…