Archive
Cheney in the crosshairs
Not surprised at all:
The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said more than six months ago that he was not alleging any criminal acts by Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the leak of agency operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Today, the prosecutor is leaving the door open to the possibility that the vice president’s now-indicted former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was acting at his boss’ behest when Libby allegedly leaked information about Plame to reporters.
A new court filing presents handwritten notes of Cheney. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is using them to assert that the vice president and Libby, working together, were focusing much attention on Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Bush administration critic.
Cheney’s notes ask whether Plame had sent Wilson on a “junket” to Africa. Subsequently, Plame’s supposed role in her husband’s trip to Africa allegedly was leaked to the media by both Libby and by presidential adviser Karl Rove.
Notice that this type of crap from the WhiteHouse has been pointing more at Cheney than at Bush himself lately?
This just strengthens the image of Bush as being largely a figurehead for Cheney. Hell, I’m starting to think if the “I” word gets batted about after the mid-terms it’d be more productive to go after him. Chaos is about the only thing I can hope for over the next few years anyway, might as well make it count.
tags: US+politics, Cheney, Bush, CIA+leak+case, Valerie+Plame, Joe+Wilson, Lewis+Libby]]>
You can stick that poll where the sun don't shine
Despite the fact that by law the US is not a direct democracy — meaning no all-binding plebiscites are administered by DC & 51% of the population cannot vote to piss in the other 49%’s morning coffee — statists frequently cite survey results to back up their approval of unlimited government. Their arguement goes along the lines of “most people don’t care” or “the public generally approves”, as if the only thing that determines what is just and what isn’t is the whim of a plurality.
For example, take the latest violation by the NSA. A joint Washington Post/ABC News poll came to the following conclusion:
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it. (emphasis mine)
Let’s assume hypothetically that this matters for a moment. It’s reasonable to assume that, if the public is to decide such things by what amounts to a plebiscite, there is an expectation that people be properly informed. No point in making a decision if you don’t know what you’re talking about, right?
Conveniently for us, the actual questions on the poll are provided. Here’s the question that got 63% acceptance for the program:
45. It’s been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
This question couldn’t have been more slanted if it were written by Sean Hannity. Let’s rewrite it, shall we? Additions in bold, prejudicial or vague parts stricken:
45. It’s been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. They have been doing this without a warrant, which is required by law for any such surveillance involving american citizens. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. The rationale provided so far for not obtaining a warrant, as told to a telecommunications company that refused to cooperate in the warrantless phone record mining, has been that the FISA Court would not grant a court order due to the scope of the search. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Does the necessity of this phone record mining program to investigating terrorism outweigh the warrant requirement? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Notice in the part stricken out it asks what is partially a strategic question, rather than one solely asking opinion on the legality of the program and/or the relevance thereof. Contrary to the image they are giving, it is entirely possible for someone to have as their answer “the program itself is understandable, but the NSA should not break the law to operate it”. Instead, they completely omit the issue of doing this without the check of having to obtain a court order, which is the entire reason this is a big deal at all.
I’m not surprised that they didn’t consider the legal issues themselves though. After all, there’ve been surveys done showing that if the public were to vote on the Bill of Rights today they would reject it…
***Updated 051306 @ 3:03 PM EST***
It’s been brought to my attention that the author of this poll is a GOP hack. FireDogLake caught him responding to questions of why a poll asking about support for Bush’s impeachment hadn’t been done by WaPo with snark about it not being “a topic of considered discussion”, seemingly failing to realize that people asking him about it shows it is being discussed.
Warrantless domestic spying update: yet more violations
Glenn Greenwald provides a ton of information on the latest adventures of the NSA. Here’s a summary:
-the To and From numbers for a phone, plus the duration of each call, can normally be obtained via a “pen register”.
-under the FISA rules, the government is not allowed to get this without approval from the FISA court, even for one phone.
-amazingly, of all the restraints that the “Patriot” Act threw out, it didn’t toss that one.
-thanks to Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T, this information — which required a court order to obtain for so much as ONE phone — has been provided to the government for millions.
If you’ve never listened before when I linked to something and said “read the whole thing”, you’d damn well better listen now.
As if it wasn’t bad enough with the initial warrantless wire-tapping program, this is like extra saurkraut on the bullshit-sandwich. These phone companies have pretty much stabbed us all in the back, aiding in such an obvious violation. Of course, they probably rationalized it to themselves by saying “well, the identifiers have been stripped, why the fuss?”. If you believe that, time to smell the coffee.
Names, addresses and other forms of personal identification are not part of the information, the report [about the domestic call database] said, but it noted that those details can be easily obtained by cross-checking the records against other databases. (emphasis mine)
Considering what kind of databases they already have, the only thing easier would’ve been if the phone companies had a list and simply pointed at names. If comic strip characters can do that, why not BellSouth?
“Wait! These measures actually catch people!” they’ll say. “Don’t you want terrorists to get caught?”. Too bad for them it’s hardly that easy.
…while the government clearly can parlay industry cooperation and technical firepower to grab lots of communications, there�s bound to be a limit. For example, tiny, free voice-over-Internet services likely don�t bother to maintain the kinds of call logs that Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T apparently handed over, said Jeff Pulver, an authority on the technology. Also, social network analysis would appear to be powerless against criminals and terrorists who rely on a multitude of cell phones, payphones, calling cards and Internet cafes.
And then there are more creative ways of getting off the grid. The Madrid train bombings case has revealed that the plotters communicated by sharing one e-mail account and saving messages to each other as drafts that didn�t traverse the Internet like regular mail messages would. (emphasis mine)
At root, you eventually reach a point where there are only two options: throw out the Constitution & give in to fear forever, or engage in a sober, calculated strategy of taking reasonable precautions & — to borrow and mangle a phrase from Fearless Leader — tracking them over there (via an overhauled and refocused intel apparatus) so we don’t need to track them here (and violate the rights of citizens in the process), combined with a gradual withdrawal from the flashpoints of this whole mess, and reforms at home to clear the way for making that whole region of the world irrelevant in the long run. Contrary to popular portrayal, we aren’t up against endless waves of Bin Laden clones, it just looks that way because we misread the numbers. There are a few serious global-jihad types, the rest are sympathizers and 6th men who were on the fence until we invaded Iraq.
On a lighter note: LOL@friggin USA Today scooping everyone on this. I remember back when I was on the debate team in high school my teammates used to refer to them as “The ‘tard Paper” because compared to all the other newspapers it seemed like USA Today was virtually all pictures & large type, as if it were made for people who couldn’t read.
***Updated 051106 @ 1:33PM EST***
More on those pen registers from Homeland Stupidity’s Mike Hampton, a former MCI employee:
Such a call detail record looks basically like this. (This is an example and does not necessarily correspond to an actual telephone call.)
From: 2023531555 To: 2024561414 Date: 05/11/2006 Time: 10:30:22 am Duration: 7 min
And there I have revealed the secret I learned in 2004 and which most people will miss while following the news on this developing story. The call detail records not only include long distance calls, they include local calls. When you order a pizza, the NSA finds out about it.
The telephone companies have had a long history of denying that they even keep local call detail records. When pressed, they would grudgingly admit the records existed, but required a subpoena or court order to obtain them � even if it was the customer asking for his own records! All the while, they provided these same records to the NSA without a subpoena or court order. (emphasis mine)
So I can’t find out information about my own damn communications without a court order, but the government can find out when I talked to my brother and for how long on a whim, simply because they call it “critical to national security”. If you can think about that one without getting mad, I want whatever you’re smokin’…
Subtle, yet screaming: the never-ending slog in Iraq
the latest $512 Billion defense bill calls for, I stumble across the following:
Requires jamming devices on all military vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of a military compound by Sept. 30, 2007. (emphasis mine)
Hooray…
tags: Iraq+War, US+politics, US+congress, military+spending]]>
Even when we figure it out we get it wrong…
the latest poll results:
On handling the issue of rising gas prices, Bush’s performance rating dropped four percentage points from what it was a month ago (from 17% to 13%).
This is an example of exactly what’s wrong with how we’ve come to see the political process. When we actually bother to give a shit, it’s not over blatant violation of the Constitution or nonsensical fiscal policy, oh noooo! We instead choose to bitch that something isn’t being held artificially cheap enough for us.
Pitiful. Just pitiful…
tags: US+politics, Bush, approval+ratings, gas+prices, oil]]>
Calling globalism's bluff
Recall those threats against Iran? “Axis of evil” an’ all? Well, they have three words for us: “self-fulfilling prophecy”:
Iran’s parliament on Sunday threatened to pass legislation that would force the government to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The threat, three years after North Korea’s departure from the treaty, came as the United States and its allies pressed for a U.N. Security Council vote to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan read on state-run radio, Iranian lawmakers said they would have “no option” but to ask the government to withdraw from the treaty if the U.N. chief and the Security Council “fail in their crucial responsibility to resolve differences peacefully.”
The use of the word “peacefully” was widely seen as referring to a diplomatic solution that would avoid a Security Council vote and possible sanctions.
Looks like someone figured out the true purpose of “international law”…
As The Great Iraqi Snipe Hunt proved, our use of “international law” — like everyone else’s use of it — never was and never is anything other than a convenient tool, cover for whatever the hell we were going to do anyway. Because of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran’s nuclear program, & the inescapable fact that their leaders happen to be bat-shit insane, there was an opening for claiming they were building The Bomb*. They play along because it serves their interests (i.e.: maintaining support at home by keeping the idea of an attack by the US in the minds of the populace on one side and via lavish blowing of conflict-pumped oil money on the other), keeping up this circular stage act of “we don’t want nuclear weapons…but we’d be justified to have them & you’ll be sorry for f**king with us!! But seriously folks, we don’t want nuclear weapons, just nuclear power”.
Depending on how clever they are, this announcement is either the next step in their scheme, or a signal that they really think Bush is nuts enough to invade. If the latter, I’d recommend those of you out there that believe in some type of deity pray that they’re wrong.
(* – as for whether I think they’re really building a nuke or not, I honestly don’t know. What I DO know is the following:
1) last I checked, they didn’t have the range to hit the US w/ a missile
2) like the rest of the region, their beef with us is for the most part over Israel, and it is not our responsibility to defend Israel. The sooner we realize this, the better.
3) if they planned on trying to have a nuke smuggled into the US then that’s something that would require them to be more quiet about it & us to actually take precautions against it instead of sabre-rattling
4) our credibility on these kind of things is officially shot, so I wouldn’t be inclined to trust what came out from our guys in the first place. One meaningless occupation at a time is enough.
The non-proliferation regime was intended to do nothing more than entrench a few nations as having the upper hand. As such, I couldn’t blame them if they actually withdrew from it. Since there cannot be an international arms treaty that starts with everyone on an even keel — or at least, if I believed such things were functional, one with a different criteria for whether parties could be trusted with nukes, preferably “if you want nukes, your people have to be able to restrain you via a free & transparent political process” — there might as well not be one at all.
Now, do I think it’s a good idea for them to have nuclear weapons? Obviously not. However, you have to admit the approach is guaranteed to have the opposite of the intended effect. If you didn’t want your paranoid neighbor to buy a gun then you wouldn’t constantly tell him to his face that you’re going to kick his ass, would you?)
A Semi-Random American History Thought…
The founders of the US were astutue enough to realize there was no point to criminalizing narcotics. Yet at the same time even the ones who opposed slavery thought blacks were somehow subhuman. Minority rights weren’t acknowledged until fairly recently. Coincidentally this was around the time the War on Drugs kicked into high gear. Those laws have been slanted overwhelmingly against people who are poor, black, or both.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
On pucking in fublic, among other things
Damn, those Volokh folks are more “loose” than I thought. Sex! Nudity! Pissing! Groping! Smoking (they presumably mean tobacco, I would be thinking more along the lines of ganja)! All fair game for serious consideration.
If one were to coax a view of “public” property rights out of me on these, I would analyze it as a combination of recognition of a property-right vacuum due to the status quo & a personal space issue. In other words, 1) though it should not be the State’s property, it wouldn’t be yours anyway unless it was your town, so it’d be rude to assume you can piss on it if the locals aren’t doing so & 2) if you can’t bring yourself to ask if they want to see you nekked then it’s not a good idea to assume the answer is “yes”. Although, speaking as a man, I’d say if you are a woman that looks like Salma Hayek you should be allowed to go outside naked whenever you damn well please ;^)
An obvious note: they’re the law guys, I’m just me. Discussion would be welcome about this here, but be warned I may not know what you’re talking about if you start rattling off court case citations.
tags: libertarianism, public+spaces, property+rights]]>
No Dr Evil in Iraq
“Great moments in misguided PR”:
In the video released last week by the terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, he is seen firing long bursts from a heavy automatic rifle, his forearms sprouting from beneath black fatigues as he exudes the very picture of a strong jihadist leader.
In out-takes from the same video, Mr. Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, cuts an altogether different figure:
As the camera rolls, Mr. Zarqawi is flummoxed by how to fire the machine gun until an aide walks over and fiddles with the weapon so it discharges. Another scene shows Mr. Zarqawi hand the weapon off to several other insurgents, who absent-mindedly grab it by its scalding hot barrel.
And after his shooting scene, Mr. Zarqawi walks away from the camera to reveal decidedly non-jihadist footwear: Comfortable white New Balance sneakers.
This is being used to lampoon Zarqawi as a wimp & the insurgency in Iraq as on the verge of collapse. While I gotta admit the image is funny as hell (reminds me of something Mad TV woulda done back when it was funny), the message sent with the release of this is completely beside the point. There’s this assumption that everything US troops are currently confronting is masterminded from the top down, as if the ones carrying out attacks in Iraq would just stop one day if it weren’t for him.
This completely contradicts what anyone who’s been paying attention knows: there isn’t a insurgency, but multiple ones that can’t agree on anything beyond wanting us gone. There’s shiite iraqis that want a theocracy, sunni iraqis that want Saddam part 2, some strays & foreigners that just want to kill “infidels”, & then Zarqawi’s group. Reason this isn’t acknowledged is that the current strategy in Iraq amounts to ignoring complicating circumstances, thinking that’ll make them go away.
The outtakes on this video unintentionally restate the obvious: Iraq isn’t chaos because of a movie-villain type evil genius, it’s chaos because the only unifying influence there is “well, we hate the americans, right?”
tags: Iraq+war, Zarqawi, US+military, military+strategy]]>
"No, seriously, stop torturing people. We mean it this time!"
This would be the best arguement against bringing back the line-item veto I’ve ever seen:
Frustrated by the Bush administration’s response to a detainee-treatment law passed last year, a Senate panel wants a legal opinion from the government on exactly what interrogation methods are considered cruel, inhuman or degrading.
The provision, included in a sweeping defense authorization bill the Senate Armed Services Committee approved Thursday, reflects a bipartisan concern by senators that U.S. troops still don’t have clear guidelines about what they can and cannot do when trying to extract information from captured enemies. (emphasis mine)
What I wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall during that “legal” discussion…
tags: US+politics, US+Senate, Bush, War+on+Terror, torture]]>
Network
Donate
psychopolitik 